I have asked on a few occasions here, “Do you believe that the early church apostasized towards this?” Usually it is in regards to going from a type of polytheism to monotheism, however it holds true for the Virgin Birth. Does anybody really believe that the primitive church held that the Heavenly Father had sex with Mary, then apostatized by claiming that Christ was born of a virgin?
The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are well known by most in the West and especially those who frequent this blog. Both testify that Jesus was born of a virgin – a virgin being a person who has never had sex with anyone – man, god, etc.
However, for Mormons there is a problem. Some GA’s of the 19th & 20th centuries have challenged the Virgin Birth. Aaron identified four – Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie. I would add Heber C. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown, and possibly Henry D. Taylor; there is a very good chance more could be added to the list. The idea that Mary was not a virgin, in the truest sense of the word, after she conceived was (and to some extant is) a widespread belief in Mormonism. The quotes from G.A.’s on the issue demonstrate that this belief was held at the highest echelons of Mormonism.
Noticeably absent from the list is Joseph Smith Jr. I have never heard or read anything about him assailing the Virgin Birth. Even the Joseph Smith translation renders the Hebrew word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin”. To be fair Mormons who do accept the Virgin Birth have some ammo on their side. They have the King James Bible, the aforementioned JST, and the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps you notice a trend here? The evidence for the Virgin Birth comes from an earlier time in Mormonism’s history – like before the Saints moved to Utah. The evidence against the Virgin Birth in Mormonism comes from quotes by apostles and prophets of the 19th & 20th centuries. It has been in the last 20 years or so that the Virgin Birth has gained more acceptance in Mormonism. I believe that as Mormonism’s materialistic worldview began to grow and take root (the classical definition of materialism not “greed”) that it necessitated the “fleshly” quotes by 19th century Mormons. They fit the paradigm of God the Father being a highly exalted man and Jesus being the literal and physical Son of God. A few 19th century Quorum of the Twelve members even believed that Jesus is not a virgin, but rather married.
I would contrast this dichotomy with the steadfast witness of the Church for the last 2,000 years. Christianity has taught that Jesus was born of a virgin. In Koine Greek, the idea is clear that the books of Matthew and Luke affirm the virgin birth. When Christians have rendered these scriptures in other languages they have chosen words that outright state or at least strongly imply that Mary was a virgin before and after conceiving the Messiah.
In addition, there are treatises beyond number – ranging from the 1st century until now – that attest to the Church’s belief in this doctrine. Justin Martyr, Aristides, and Ignatius all write very early on in Christian history that Jesus was born of a virgin. That abominable Apostle’s Creed says that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary”. Indeed, where is the early witness that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but rather by a physical union of God and Mary? There are early challenges to the virgin birth from outside Christianity, but in those challenges someone else other than God (usually Joseph) is put forward as the physical father of Jesus.
Honestly, the idea that Jesus was a product of a sexual union between God and Mary sounds a lot more like it came from the ancient pagan religions of the Mediterranean world. This is ironic as it often Mormons who accuse Christianity of being adulterated by Hellenistic influences. You mean adulterated to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?
In the words of that great coffee guru Linda Richman – talk amongst yourselves.
Cognitive dissonance has been called “the mind controller’s best friend. But for someone trying to control others it’s not the dissonance, but how people deal with it that is of interest.
In the 1950s there was a leader of a UFO cult by the name of Marian Keech. She claimed to get messages form extraterrestrials which were called “The Guardians”. She received these messages via automatic writing. Keech’s followers were known as The Seekers or The Brotherhood of the Seven Rays. They were waiting to be picked-up by flying saucers. In her prophecy, Keech and her followers were to be saved just before the earth was to be destroyed by a massive flood on December 21, 1954. When it didn’t happen Keech became elated. She said she’d just received a telepathic message from the Guardians saying that her group of believers had spread so much light with their unflagging faith that God had spared the world from the cataclysm.
The interesting thing is that The Seekers didn’t abandon Keech. Most became more devoted after the failed prophecy. Most disciples not only stayed but, having made that decision, were now even more convinced than before that Keech had been right all along. Being wrong turned them into “true believers”
Some people will go to bizarre lengths to avoid inconsistency between their cherished beliefs and the facts. Why do people interpret the same evidence in contrary ways?
The Seekers would not have waited for the flying saucer if they thought it might not come. So, when it didn’t come, one would think that a competent thinker would have seen this as falsifying Keech’s claim that it would come. However, the incompetent thinkers were rendered incompetent by their devotion to Keech.
Their belief that a flying saucer would pick them up was based on faith, not evidence. Likewise, their belief that the failure of the prophesy shouldn’t count against their belief was another act of faith.
Chuckles
Falcon tries real hard to prove an idea, Mormon cognitive dissonance, which some people believe to be true, but which is in fact false because it is based on incorrect reasoning, in ways that allow for him to keep his hate agenda alive.
When frustrated the troops usually backpedal and use this hackneyed and old theory. To most of us LDS they are nothing but “bromidic sermons” that relate to nothing Mormon.
He states, ” a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become “open” to them.”
Hmmm, maybe creditable if you would provide any and all evidence that Joseph Smith did not produce the Book of Mormon as he stated, and that by revelation. All of this peripheral crap is just to dodge or deflect away from examining the truth. Like Sub Genius stated, “There is no Biblical bearing on Salvation by the virginity or non-virgintiy of Mary.” We have the Bible and Book of Mormon, both testify that Jesus is the Christ, then we have the Christian Creeds, another bible written by man, nothing was provided by revelation, but it has been the foundation of Christians for centuries as to the nature of God, interesting.
R.
Hank,
“de we know the details” – yes, we do
Do words have meaning – yes, they do
Does Hank like their meanings – no, he does not
Is this exercise childish – yes, but we don’t have
anything else
Is it necessary for Pratt, Young, Talmage, and all to actually name certain body parts and draw you a schematic so you can know “the mechanics”?
With this kind of irrational thinking, it may seem pointless to produce evidence to try to persuade people of the error of their ways. Their belief is not based on evidence, but on devotion to a person. That devotion can be so great that even the most despicable behavior by one’s prophet can be rationalized.
If the basis for a person’s belief is irrational faith grounded in devotion to a powerful personality, then the only option that person has when confronted with evidence that should undermine that faith would seem to be to continue to be irrational, unless that faith was not that strong to begin with.
What was it about Keech that led some people to have faith in her and what was it about those people that made them vulnerable to Keech? And what was different about those who left the cult?
If a person is physically attractive, we tend to like that person and the more we like a person the more we tend to trust them. People are perceived as more credible when they make eye contact and speak with confidence, no matter what they have to say.
There is no certain personality type that is more susceptible to joining a cult. Many cult members are attracted to what appears to be a loving community. One of the ironies of cults is that the craziest groups are often composed of the most caring people. Jim Jones was a supersalesman who exerted most every rule of persuasion. He had authority, perceived honesty and likeability. Many cult followers find a surrogate family and a surrogate mother or father or both in the cult leader.
It must be remembered that in most cases people do not arrive at their irrational beliefs overnight. They have come to them over a period of time with gradually escalated commitments. Someone had said that no one would join a cult if the pitch were: “Follow me. Drink this poisoned-but flavored water-and commit suicide.”
(attribution: “The Skeptics Dictionary”)
David,
I love this ‘double standard’ these smithians have. They claim to have Apostles and Prophets in their church, but selectively choose what to believe from their statements they make from the pulpit or publish in church publications.
What is the calling of an apostle in smith’s church? They were to have personally spoken to Jesus. That’s right. And in so doing would have the ‘mysteries of the Kingdom’ revealed to them. They would then ‘never fall’ or ‘lead the church astray’. Funny, most of smith’s early apostles abandoned ship as soon as he started bedding young women. Only those like Young, Kimball and others who wanted the women stayed on.
If a prophet or an apostle in smith’s church cannot be trusted to say the right thing over the pulpit, then what is the reason to have them? They are all seers and revelators, in touch with Jesus at the drop of a hat, right?
But RECONCILING their ridiculous statements (made in the isolation of the Utah settlement) has now come back to bite them with a vengeance.
They choose to play the ‘opinion’ game. They want it both ways. smithism is a cult, devoid of any resemblance to the true church of Jesus Christ, and the statements of their LEADERS PROVES it. (Just not to those caught up in the I want to be a god-game.)
What I call Creedal Christianity is in fact really Scholarly Religion, carefully articulated so that it conflicts with no empirical data. What Falcon, Mike and grindael are practicing is nothing more then there beliefs that Scholarship can be a religion, and most likely is their religion. Since Prophets were done away with the Church of the Scholars Religion can make no claim unsupported by or contradicted by empirical evidence. Literal evidence, documented and neatly tied together has been substituted for Faith. Wherein Faith first proceeds knowledge, and then evidence and objectivity can enter in to produce a much more viable testimony. The Church of the Scholars is not a faith at all, but merely intellectual acquiescence to the prevailing scholarly winds. The Word of God proposes the ultimate oxymoron—empirical religion, a faith-less faith.
Come all ye who no longer believe, but who still want religion, and enter ye in! Interesting indeed.
So it’s been very informative to take a step back and watch the dynamics of this discussion. Our poor Mormon posters are so close to the forest that they can’t see the trees. The Christians present very reasoned, well thought out discussion points with very good documentation. Our cult member friends come flying in from left field with the most ridiculous comments that might impress and excite other cult members but leave the Christians scratching their heads in wonderment of what they are dealing with here.
But it should be remembered, this is not just a psychological thought tilt we are dealing with. It’s a spirit, a deluding spirit. The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians pointed out that our struggle is not with flesh and blood. But it’s with “…rulers, against the powers against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12)
In the study of Joseph Smith, it’s quite plain what spirit he was drawing on in the making of his ruse. Magic rocks and second sight vision were the tools of his trade as he trafficed in and gave himself over totally to the occult. He introduced what Paul would call doctrines of demons. He disguised his angel as an angel of light and even today Mormonism is caught in the web of deceit woven by these spirits that war against God.
But we know we have the victory in Christ and the protection of His precious blood. So Christians, when you come here, put on the full armor of God and stand firm. “Having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness and having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel of Peace; in addition to all taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation , and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”. (Ephesians 6:13-17)
What we are dealing with in our Mormon posters are folks that, as the Bible says, “Are always learning but never coming to the truth.” We’ve been done this road countless times, but for those who may have just stumbled onto this blog, let me dispell a huge myth withing Mormonism.
In First Corinthians chapters 12, 13, and fourteen, the apostle Paul very clearly outlines the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the proper way to exercise those Gifts. In Ephesians 4:11-13 Paul lists the five fold ministry of the Holy Spirit. Mormons run around with their hair on fire screaming that Christians don’t believe in prophets and revelation. Quite to the contrary, however Mormonism has to keep this myth alive along with the myth of the great apostasy in order to justify its (Mormonism) existence.
Mormonism has fellas it calls prophets, but the problem is they’re all false prophets. They are the wolves that Jesus spoke of and Paul wrote about. The purpose of the prophet-wolves is to kill sheep. To devour them with false teachings, false doctrines and false practices. This is very much on display within Mormonism. Joseph Smith was smart enough that when he started he didn’t unload the whole wagon load of bizarre and wacky beliefs. He took his time and like all accomplished false prophet-wolves he seduced some of his followers and eventually and insidiously, corrupted those who didn’t have the good sense to recognize what was going on and flee for their spiritual lives.
I can always tell when our Mormon posters have their backs in the corners and have run out of arguments. We haven’t gotten to the “I bear my testimony” plea or the “why are you persecuting us” claim yet, but we have reached the point that is actually a compliment to the Christian posters. That is that we are “too intellectual”. I guess we’re going to have to get a little more emotional and claim some feelings to bolster our intellectual arguments.
“Having girded your loins with SCHOLARLY RELIGION , and having put on the breastplate of righteousness and having shod your feet with the preparation of the Gospel OF CREEDS; in addition to all taking up the shield of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of THEORY , and the sword of the Prevailing Scholarly Winds, which is the word of Scholarly Professors”. (Creedal Christianity)
Oh where, oh where, are the Prophets of God. They have all been replaced with distinguished Doctors of Theology, with shinny degrees from some of the Best Religious Schools in the world. What happened to the unlearned Fisherman, the unschooled disciples, and the word of God revealed by revelation. For Creedal Christians say, “God speaks no more to his people, a bible a bible, we have a bible and need no more”.
R.
So we’ve looped our way back to the Mormon’s superiority complex based on their claim of “special revelation”. This of course has been the claim of false prophet-wolves for a couple of thousand years. When Christian’s have revelation, we test it against Scripture, God’s Holy and revealed Word. When Mormons have “revelation”, it’s strictly a free-for-all or stream of human consciousness.
It’s always a popular tactic of wolves to claim special knowledge or revelation. One thing, for Mormons especially, it’s easy. It doesn’t take any particular thinking or even a challenge. The Mormon just thinks it, gets a feeling and it’s true.
That’s why we get all of the off-the-wall, wacky, ever changing, unsubstantiated revelations from the prophet-wolves of Mormonism. Mormons start out with a false premise and then reinforce that lie with more lies.
So our Mormon friends, unable to keep up the intellectual pace of the discussion turn to an easier and less taxing route: special revelation. They start out by claiming falsely, of course, that Christians don’t believe in revelation and prophets. In fact what Christians don’t believe in is false prophets and false revelation.
So let’s play the Mormon game. God has revealed to me that Mormonism is false. So it must be false because it’s been revealed to me that it’s false. That and the fact that the scriptures don’t reveal Mormonism indicates Mormonism is false.
The Church has battled the type of nonsense put out by sects like the Mormons from the beginning. The Gnostics sometimes claimed that secret truth had been handed down by one apostle to a select group of insiders. But Christian opponents like Irenaeus argued that the true church represented the teaching of all of the apostles passed on in many locations.
Tertullian summarized what the truth is when he said, “the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God,” and all other doctrine is false.
Hanksaint, yes we have a bible, and we do not need anything else. God has seen fit to give it to us as a revelation of our origins, the cause of our current sinful state, the means of deliverance from that state, and who we are in Christ and what we will be in Him in the future. By exegeting that same bible we have received revelation of a sort. For example, the word trinity is found nowhere in the scriptures, but the proof of the Triune God is found in the scriptures. The prophets of old, unlike the smithian prophet Nephi, did not clearly see the reign and role of the Messiah, but upon His incarnation He taught his disciples and Apostles all things necessary and they in turn teach us through their writings. As our defamed “scholars” continue to study the culture, language, and writings of these OT prophets and NT Apostles, we learn more about the subtle nuances of the text, but the meat and potatoes doctrine that all Christians agree on is plain to see to the common reader. Yes we also believe Jesus is the Son of God, for He declares Himself to be the Son of God, but He and the Apostles also declare Him to be God in the flesh. And not just “a god” in the flesh, but “The God” in the flesh. How can two persons be one God? We don’t understand the mechanism, but it is definitely taught in the bible.
As for the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary, this is what Matthew and Luke teach, but Sub does not believe this because it is only taught in two gospels. Would it surprise you to know that BY also called Mathew and Luke liars claiming that he was not “begotten” by the Holy Ghost, but by the Father, continuing, “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 difficulty.” (Brigham Young, Millenial Star Volume 15, Page 770 1853)
Ha Ha, what a blasphemous hoot that Brigham Young was
Yes, what a hoot, Brigham got it right, Gods DNA is in Christ, he is the literal Father of the literal Son. I see nothing wrong in Subgenius post.
What I have concerns about as do many of our new investigators and new converts is the old Christian Creed that two person can be one God, seeing that scripture is full of examples, experiences and witnesses that God did speak from Heaven, and witnesses that Christ was his Son. Re-read the baptism of Christ for definitive evidences that there are two personages both being God. God is not a person, God is a Office or Presidency.
Etymology of the Name God
Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.
According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.
Hank,
I did find a schematic for you. Apparently, in the 70’s some Mormon five-year-olds were having problems with the “mechanics” of the incarnation. Your church put out a Family Home Evening Manual that addressed this issue. On page 126 under the heading, “A Modern Prophet’s Answer” Joseph F. Smith is quoted. A diagram like this is given:
Daddy + Mommy
/
You
Heavenly Father + Mary
/
Jesus
You can see the picture here:
http://www.mrm.org/virgin-birth (scroll about half way down); source info is given as well. I hope this helps.
Hank,
Here is a better pic. The formatting at this website will not allow front slash.
Daddy + Mommy
You
Heavenly Father + Mary
Jesus
HankSaint thinks he is being slick here, but go to http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/God.htm that is where he got his info from, and read the entire article on the meaning of the word ‘God’.
It is derived from the word Elohim in the Bible, translated as God, singular. smith went down this same MISTAKEN road in trying to apply Elohim as a plural for God, translating it INCORRECTLY as “the gods” from which he MADE UP the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. Notice that this did not come out until smith had some german tutors who gave him this erroneous conclusion. What smith was trying to do was get a reason to justify polygamy, making God a PERSON like smith, who had many wives etc. ad nauseum.
No legitimate Christian scholar translates it this way, and the Hebrews certainly did not believe in many ‘gods’ except when referring to pagan deities. Our God is ONE God, always has been, always will be.
falcon, Martin, Liv4jc, David, grindael, and etc
Just wanted to say Thanks to you guys, for having such stick-with-it-ness
Cuz even as I read your answers to Hank et al above, I knew that there would be no hearing. And yet, you persist. I’m glad you don’t get discouraged. Happy Holidays and God bless you all!
Hank, so Matthew (Matthew 1:18) and Luke (Luke 2:35) were wrong when they wrote that the Holy Ghost was the agent of Jesus’ coneption? I agree that the incarnate Jesus was not “begotten” by the Holy Ghost, at least not in the sense of BY’s definition of begetting. I don’t claim to know the mechanism of Jesus’ conception, but I know that Matthew and Luke clearly teach that God the Father did not descend in bodily form and “beget” Jesus in the same way we were begotten by our fathers.
It’s nice to hear you finally admit that BY was correct. The Father is the literal father of Jesus. He did “deposit” his DNA to beget the incarnate Jesus in the same way humans and other animals procreate. The Holy Spirit was not the agent of Jesus’ conception as the bible states. That doctrine was taught outside of the standard works, yet you now affirm its truth. I wish you would have just stated your belief from the beginning instead of playing word games. All anyone wanted from you was a simple, “I don’t believe what BY taught. It is not correct” or, “I believe that BY was correct in his teachings about the nature of Jesus’s conception. The bible is wrong.” Now that we know that you believe BY’s doctrine on Jesus’ conception is correctly taught in the Millenial Star, JoD, etc. can we assume that BY’s other doctrine such as Adam-God and blood atonement, as taught in the JoD and other non-standard works, can be taken as LDS doctrine? Or do you reserve the right to decide which of the “prophet’s” teachings are true and which are false?
“Sub does not believe this because it is only taught in two gospels”
I believe what i have always stated is that the state of Mary’s virginity has always been speculative. Also, my position about thie nativity being told in only 2 Gospels (and told inconsistently between those 2) is a “fact” that deserves attention, especially in the context of those two Gospel writers (eg. a response to the Jewish criticism of Mary and Jesus)
David Whitsell
God Mary = Jesus
i am unclear by your post, do you disagree with the math?
you also asked
“Sub,
“the virgin Mary being a product of a great apostasy”
How did you come to this conclusion?”
i was simply reiterating the thread title, and stating the obvious with the end of that statement which you omitted.
falcon
lather, rinse, and repeat
Martin of B
you are actually somewhat mistaken about the LDS church and the role of prophets as posited in your argument.
My statements about Salvation are responsive to the fervor by which the Ev “defends” Mary’s virginity and how that defense is in direct conflict with their often advocated version of Christian doctrine. I stand firmly by my statements by that regard…many Ev have crossed a line that they themselves drew.
Open Question
just for the sake of argument….what is the Biblical foundation and scriptural reference that supports the Ev claim of heresy if, in fact, God had literally, physically, and emotionally Fathered Jesus?
Again the perverse Ev emerges….me thinks thou doth protest too much!
David,
Thanks again for your work in assembling the
material on this topic. There will always be
Mormons who will refuse to think through what
their leaders were saying .It’s sad that some
Mormons would even believe that ministries like
MRM would make up this doctrine out of whole
cloth. But the mere fact that there are intell-
igent Temple recommend carrying LDS today who
agree with you on this teaching,surely disposes of that myth.
I feel its important that when we see one of our
Mormon quests here becoming frustrated with the
evidence presented, that we know how to minister
to him/her at that point. That frustration, that
sarcasm be exhibited , may just be the Holy
Spirit working in their heart.
Thanks David.
HankSaint wrote
Hank,
I’d say that you have asked a very perceptive question, but your inference is wrong. To expand…
I have no problem with “empirical religion”. As far as I recall, there is only one instance in the Bible when someone is called to do something without reference to some demonstrated act; it is when God calls Abram out of Ur in Gen 12:1. Possibly Abram (later Abraham, of course) had some prior knowledge of God, but the text sees no need to mention it. This is the nearest thing I can think of for the “fax from heaven” view of Biblical revelation.
From this point on, the pattern is that every time God calls His people to do something its always referenced to a previous or present demonstrated act. Consider the opening statement in the 10 Commandments in Ex 20:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt”.
Now, the very least one could say about the Hebrew (OT) perspective, is that they interpreted their circumstances in terms of the judgement or blessing of God. The bringing of the Israelites out of Egypt and establishing them in the land is consistently interpreted as God’s redemption. The exile to Assyria and Bablyon in 782BC and 587BC is consistently interpreted as God’s judgement (see also Gen 3:23).
From these empirical experiences arise two inter-related questions; “how should we live?” and “what kind of God are we dealing with?”. The job of the prophets was to provide the answers, and their revelations are faithfully preserved in the OT.
The NT gives us the final word; Jesus demonstrates not only how we should live, but who God is. We “do” faith when we look at Him, accept His “revelation” and order our lives accordingly.
…ctd…
…ctd…
When Evs here talk about Jesus being the “final revelation”, what they mean is not that God has stopped revealing things, but that all revelations (even the OT) should be evaluated against the revelation of Jesus Christ (see Rev 1:1).
Now, because the revelation of Jesus is a continuation of, and a fulfilment of the revelation of the OT, we should react to Jesus in the same way we react to the OT revelations; by asking “where is the evidence?”. Mary challenged her angelic visitor (Luke 1:34), Luke commends the Bereans for challenging Paul (Acts 17:11).
When it comes to prophetic revelations, the question of “where is the evidence” comes to the fore. Notice the context of Deuteronomy 13:1-5
…ctd..
…ctd…
Jesus continues this tradition in Matt 7:15-20
So, when someone says “it has been revealed to me…”, the Biblical revelation tells us to challenge them. Deuteronomy and Matthew give us two areas of enquiry; how the latest revelation fits with previous revelation, and what kind of behaviours the current revelation fosters.
Faith is not simply acquiescing to what any Joe “reveals” when he says “Thus says the Lord…”; it challenges what they reveal. It has the fortitude to stand up to false prophets when they teach a “god” other than the LORD. It also has the fortitude to do something when the prophet is truly speaking on behalf of the LORD.
This is faith in action, its not faith-less-ness, as you assert. It is doing what God has commanded through the Bible (which you have accepted is the Word of God – 8AoF).
What is faith if it is not accepting the revelation of God and acting on it accordingly? What is the point of revelation if it does not reveal purpose and meaning in our circumstances? I can only conclude that the “fax from heaven” agenda is promoted by those who have not comprehended what the Bible has to say on these issues. I would say that they have never met Jesus.
Jeremiah 1:11 (NIV, emphasis mine)
“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)
Recently, I took this quote by McConkie and read it to a group of adults. I’ve also read it to some late teenagers. I didn’t tell them who said it or the religious affiliation of the person who said it either. I just read the quote and asked these people what they think the person quoted was saying. The response was unanimous: God the Father had sex with Mary. This really is such a no-brainer for the outside world to understand. Our Mormon friends are being naive and are fooling themselves if they think that we cannot read the writings of LDS prophets and apostles and understood what is implied. Based on the quote above, I ask these questions:
1. What does this statement mean?
2. What does “the same, personal, real and literal sense” mean? Physical sex?
3. Why would Ezra Taft Benson seek McConkie’s advice and insights on DOCTRINE if what McConkie taught wasn’t true? (Ensign, June 1985)
4. Why is “Mormon Doctrine” referenced continually in LDS Institute manuals with the LDS Church official stamp on the back cover?
5. Was McConkie ever rebuked for this statements if they weren’t true?
6. Why was he eulogized as a “preacher of righteousness” at his funeral (the same title given to Enoch and Noah [Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, page 26] if his statements and teachings were not in line with the teachings of the Church? (Ensign, June 1985)
“(The Son of God was) sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, NOR WAS HE BEGOTTEN BY THE Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.” (Ezra Taft Benson, 13th LDS President, “Come Unto Christ”, Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1983)
“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. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, NOR WAS HE BEGOTTEN BY THE Holy Ghost” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7; Church News, December 18, 2004, p. 16)
“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…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, Journal of Discourses 1:50)
“CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST…I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He DID NOT teach them that he was the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of the Father. Jesus is greater than the Holy Spirit, which is subject to him” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:18)
1. Listed above are quotes from proclaimed LDS prophets for the past two centuries that are stating Jesus Christ WAS NOT conceived by the Holy Ghost. How do I reconcile their statements with the Gospel accounts that say the exact opposite?
Matthew 1:20 – “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Luke 1:35 – “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
2. Why did these LDS prophets even contradict what is in the Book of Mormon?
Alma 7:10 – “…she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”
3. Was Brigham Young, Ezra Taft Benson and Joseph Fielding Smith telling the truth?
4. What did they mean when they said the exact opposite of what is stated in the above accounts? Isn’t what they said a direct contradiction?
5. If they weren’t telling the truth, how can they be prophets of God?
6. If God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33), why have their statements caused confusion and are conflictory to what God has already stated in the past?
7. The Bible, and the Book of Mormon, say that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2; Enos 1:6, Ether 3:12). Why would God supposedly say one thing in the past in the Gospel accounts in addition to the Book of Mormon, but say something the exact opposite through modern revelation? How can that be from God?
8. If these LDS prophets were incorrect, then has there ever been a written statement condemning what they said or a retraction?
“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)
1. What does the Mormon community expect the world to think when we read statements like this from LDS Institute manuals?
2. Isn’t what is stated obvious?
3. If what is said isn’t true, then where is the retraction and condmenation of this teaching?
“…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. Is the Mormon male and female diety having children now? How? Is it the same way we procreate and have children here on earth? If not, why not in light of the above statements?
“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 deity is omnipotent? Is he not omnipotent? If he is, shouldn’t be able to create children without the necessity of a woman? If he is not omnipotent, then how can he be God?
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. Are the “heights” of the Mormon male deity limited without a mother?
2. What does “the mother of his children” mean if it’s not the obvious perceived conclusion (sexual copulation)?
“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)
1. Mary and the Mormon deity were married?
2. What does “associated together in the capacity of husband wife” mean?
3. What about “lawful wife”?
4. How did Mary become the “lawful wife”?
5. Is Mary still his wife or did she stop being his wife after the birth of Jesus when Mary married Joseph?
6. If they aren’t married anymore was their a divorce? If so, how and why?
7. Was this so they could procreate and this birth of the Mormon jesus not be out of wedlock even though Joseph was only her fiance?
8. Wasn’t Mary one of his daughters in the preexistence brought about by sexual relations with “mother in heaven”?
9. Wouldn’t this mean, then, that he married his daughter? Incest?
10. He married his daughter while still married to “mother in heaven”?
genius,
You asked:
aside from your schizophrenic depiction of God, can you provide me with a scriptural reference for your claim that the “one mind” of Jesus and God being the Holy Spirit?
The answer is this:
John 15:26. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me. (Christ.) Gal. 4: 6. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.
But I must enlighten you, they were not MY schizophrenic descriptions of God you were reading, it was from YOUR 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. And that is the scripture smith put with his assertion to prove the HG was the Mind of GOD and JESUS.
I agree with you 100%. His views WERE schizophrenic. First God is a Spirit, then he has a Body…. which is it? If smith had lived, he probably would be from the planet Vulcan…oh he probably wouldn’t have lived that long… but you get my drift… smith invented as he went along, and hey if it works for you stay with it…but you have been witnessed to and we are all praying for you sub… I even ‘get’ your sense of humor…
live long and prosper my friend…
Andy,
Nice post. Been there, done that. Not with this topic, but at least the doctrinal statements are out there, and that is my main goal here at MRM COFFEE, to enlighten THOSE LDS WHO NEED TO KNOW WHAT WAS TAUGHT AND IS TAUGHT IN THEIR CHURCH.
The great mormon posters here, use the “opinion” rebuttal to everything, and they will surely use it with your post. Or ‘Oh, THAT old argument…’ (I like that one)
For the apologists (and that is what the frequent mormon posters here are) there is an excuse for everything. black is white and white is black and 2 2 = 5. There is no logic in mormonism. It is all how the INDIVIDUAL perceives it to be. It is turning a blind eye to statements by men who claim to have an intimate relationship with deity on a daily basis.
But if you read the JOD, or statements in their publications… it is a different story. The only prophet to claim DIRECT revelation from God on a frequent basis was smith. And he had a plethora of ‘revelations’ to prove it.
Funny how it all stopped with him. After smith it is all opinion, unless the whole church votes on it. Otherwise these ‘prophets’ are just like all the other men in the world, giving opinions on what they feel the scriptures mean. But they won’t come out and say this, because that would invalidate smith, the priesthood and everything else.
The best statement and the one that gets them all off the hook was by smith himself: a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. I guess with them God is only God when acting as such also…
But keep posting my friend, there are mormons who WILL read and comprehend and leave their cult.
Here are a couple of more quotes to add to the mix. This one by Orson Hyde is interesting. He says God left his body to ‘do it’ with Mary…
All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfil [sic] all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only “did that which he had seen his Father do.” (Journal of Discourses, Orson Hyde, 2:210, March 18, 1855)
Talk about bringing God down to his level!
Here is Young (again) making it PERFECTLY clear what is meant:
We first begin to read that Jesus came in the flesh…But suppose I examine that, a moment. The New Testament tells me that the Father gave His only begotten Son a ransom for the sins of the world. Do you believe that, brother B.? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father? “Yes.” Do you believe the Son was begotten by the Father, as the Apostles said he was? Here I shall have to disagree with you, to begin with; for I believe THE FATHER CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, as the Apostles said he did, and begot the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him IN PERSON. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 1:237 238, July 24, 1853)
Young says he ‘did it’ in person. Hyde was in the same quorum as Young. Gee, you think they could get their stories straight? As Apostles of Jesus, you think they could agree?
I do have to agree with our mormon posters here. These ARE opinions. Opinions by men who have no truck with God. Seers and Revelators! What a hoot! Yeah, what a hoot.
For David Whitsell, from the site you just posted.
1). No extended explanation of the title ‘Son of God’ as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary.” (First Presidency Statement).
2). “God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father.” (Gospel Principles, 1997 ed., p. 57)
3). “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof. Talmage.
4), And in accordance with the Bible scriptures: ‘God hath done wonderful things unto me.’ ‘And the Holy Ghost came upon her,’ is the story, ‘and she came into the presence of the highest.’ No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. M. Russell Ballard
David, Since the LDS have an anthropomorphic concept of deity, it is certainly possible to interpret these statements in the way Creedal Christian do and have done. However, this is not the only interpretation possible, and Creedal Christians leave out important statements from our prophets and scriptures that lead to much more modest conclusions.
President Harold B. Lee:
You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34—35: “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary’s] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8—9. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
liv4jc on December 26th, 2009 stated, “It’s nice to hear you finally admit that BY was correct. The Father is the literal father of Jesus. He did “deposit” his DNA to beget the incarnate Jesus in the same way humans and other animals procreate. The Holy Spirit was not the agent of Jesus’ conception as the bible states. That doctrine was taught outside of the standard works, yet you now affirm its truth. I wish you would have just stated your belief from the beginning instead of playing word games.”
So our Christian friends that belong to the Church of Scholars have now accused me of stating something I never stated.
So to clarify lets get it exactly right in what I do believe.
‘God hath done wonderful things unto me.’ ‘And the Holy Ghost came upon her,’ is the story, ‘and she came into the presence of the highest.’ No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. M. Russell Ballard
Here is Hank with his ‘infinite’ knowledge of mormon doctrine:
Thank you Mike R. but nothing you addressed revealed anything that was stated of the mechanics in play when Mary was impregnated. Thanks for your time and effort but as usual most those trying to prove a false accusation come up short.
Is Christ the Literal Son of God, yes, de we know the details no. Did the Holy Ghost overshadow her, yes.
Here is Bruce McConkie with his:
God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. 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, p. 742)
Gee Hank, ya think you can worm your way out of that quote? How is a ‘normal’ person conceived Hank? How is a ‘normal’ person ‘begotten’ Hank? How is a ‘normal’ person born Hank? How is a ‘normal’ son born to a ‘normal’ father Hank? What is the process? Perhaps YOU could use that seer stone of smith’s…it might help you ‘see’ more clearly what your leaders are teaching.
grindael a member of the Church of Scholars states, “Gee Hank, ya think you can worm your way out of that quote? How is a ‘normal’ person conceived Hank? How is a ‘normal’ person ‘begotten’ Hank? How is a ‘normal’ person born Hank? How is a ‘normal’ son born to a ‘normal’ father Hank? What is the process? Perhaps YOU could use that seer stone of smith’s…it might help you ’see’ more clearly what your leaders are teaching.
So my scholar friend, do you need to have me spoon feed the scriptures to you?
Isaiah 55:8—9.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
You accuse us of stating we know the mechanics of the Virgin Birth, must be frustrating that as of yet not one of you has proven your malicious and false misrepresentation of what the GA’s stated.
President Harold B. Lee:
You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34—35
President Harold B. Lee:
You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior.
You notice here that Lee is not DENYING it, only saying he never TALKED about it…BIG DIFFERENCE..
But here is McConkie once again who was not afraid to ‘talk about it’:
These name titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood LITERALLY. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father IN THE SAME WAY THAT MORTAL MEN ARE BEGOTTEN BY NORMAL FATHERS. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547).
Again the question: What is the NORMAL way that Mortal men are begotten by their fathers? Not much wiggle room with this one either Hank.
And you can quote me scripture any time. I LOVE the Bible, just not YOUR interpretation of it.
Chuckle, here again gindael of the Church of Scholars is mistaking
what Harold B. Lee and McConkie actually stated:
Regarding McConkie’s supposed statement, Creedal Christians of the Scholarly Church state, “Of course, this is ridiculous. Sex is sex, whether it is with an immortal man or a mortal man”.
Is it really so obvious? We do not know what the mechanics of reproduction are when celestial beings are involved. As James E. Talmage explains, Jesus was begotten “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof.”[101] That is, it was a miracle.[102] What is the “higher manifestation” of natural law that occurred here? Talmage never says.
Frustrating isn’t it Grindael, trying to put the nail in the coffin, but lacking the ability to find a hammer.
R.
Get that seer stone Hank, there are lots more where these came from:
“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.” (Young, JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
Birth of Jesus Result of NATURAL ACTION…. Gee, what could that mean?
In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was NATURALLY BEGOTTEN; so was my father, and ALSO MY SAVIOR Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and THERE WAS NOTHING UNNATURAL about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of discourses, 8:211)
Kimball was naturally begotten, and so was Jesus, Gee, what could that mean?
“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 …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” (Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, Joseph F. Smith, pp.125,126).
How are children begotten? Gee, I wonder…
God the Father came down in his tabernacle of flesh and bone and had ASSOCIATION with Mary, and made her pregnant with Jesus.” – Apostle Franklin D. Richards (July 21, 1887)
Gee, I wonder what that could mean? But we MUST be misquoting them, or MISTAKING what they are saying. Yeah, that HAS to be it. All these quotes mean….what? We must not know how to read what is said. Gee, I wonder if they could make it any clearer? Perhaps a course on sex ed is needed here for the mormon deniers?
Grindael,
Thanks. I was going to share some more info
with Hank but I sensed he was very frustrated
based on the type and tone of the responses that
he was giving.
Hank,
“natural law” = like begets like( a male horse
a female horse = a baby horse )
With the Virgin Birth(according to several LDS
leaders) there was no violation of this law
because the ” higher manisfestation” of it was
that an Immortal man was involved instead of a
mortal man. The same “mechanics” were used.
Mike,
What they are failing to see (purposely) is that the natural action, or “association” (how else would you term sex in 1887) is NOT the birth itself, that would make no point at all. It is WHO fathered Jesus and HOW it was done. It was done NATURALLY. The NATURAL way that a man and women have a child is by sex. That is how I came to be, Hank came to be and from all these statements, that is how these men believe Jesus came to be.
It is false, heretical and repulsive. This doctrine only exists to prop up polygamy and polytheism… It is transparent, as all mormon doctrine is.
Hank & Sub,
If it were not for the fact that certain GA’s compared the H. Father’s union with Mary to that of the normal coitus that occurs between husband and wife, you might have a point. However, several did and they did so to counter the well known doctrine of the virgin birth.
I see I still have no takers on the idea that Jesus is not a virgin or on the words “same way”.
Grindael,
What are they failing to see? It’s called
blindness, spiritual blindness, and also
a little human pride to boot. For you and
the other ex-LDS here it should serve as a
reminder of where God has brought you from.
No doubt you or perhaps some of the others
were just like Hank. It’s not an intelligence
problem, and it’s not a morality problem.
Hank is a very intelligent person and I’m sure
a very moral one as well. It’s a blindness,
spiritually.That does’nt mean he has no love
for God, it’s as the Apostle Paul records in
Rom.10:1-4; and we need to see him as Paul did
the jewish people in verse 1.
By the way, Talmage also defined “natural law”
in his book, Jesus the Christ. He called it the
“fundamental law of heredity”, that living beings
“shall propagate after their kind” and that this
is what happened with HF and His Son Jesus etc.
Concerning the quote by Harold B.Lee that
Hank used, more of the quote could have been
given.Preceding the part Hank used, Lee said
that he was concerned because there were
teachers IN THE CHURCH that were teaching the
very thing that he personally does not talk
about.I’m sure it’s not a stretch to quess
where these teachers got their material from.
One might wonder also why, when Lee became Pres.
a few years later, why did’nt he issue an
“offical Proclamation” stating the position
of the Church on this doctrine, in clear terms?
Chuckle, chuckle. Well I do denote a air of anger, frustration, and good old agenda driven hatred that seems to radiate from lack of evidence and facts. Since none of our standard works even come close to revealing all of Gods secrets we are left with the remarks of our seasoned Church of the Scholars hopes and prayers to find some ammunition to portray something that is never stated by any of our GA’s, interesting dichotomy. Twisting, bending, shaping and manipulating quotes, teachings, words and snippets just comes up short time and time again.
This silly stuff about the the what, how and why reminds me of a wonderful Limerick:
We were painting the church steeple gray,
When the wind blew our brushes away.
We said to the pastor,
“We’ve had a disaster!”
He calmly replied, “Let us spray.” .
Hmmm, if you Scholars of the Church could only learn the power of prayer, disaster could be diverted, but your usual spraying of words does not make up for the brushes the winds of truth blew away.
Richard.
A member of the Church of Scholars stated, “But we MUST be misquoting them, or MISTAKING what they are saying. Yeah, that HAS to be it. All these quotes mean….what? We must not know how to read what is said. Gee, I wonder if they could make it any clearer? Perhaps a course on sex ed is needed here for the mormon deniers?”
No, actually you finally quoted someone correctly, so a big A for you. Now where in any of those quotes can we find the mechanics of the Virgin Birth, a simple question should produce a simple answer. Does anyone pretend to know the mind of God, or be able to think as He does. We get accused a lot about Eternal Progression, yet nobody really understands how one actually becomes a God, creates a earth, or creates spirits. If I’m wrong about this, then please provide the teachings along with the teaching of the Virgin Birth, interesting indeed, but very impossible.
Regards, Richard.
From the Church Historian HankSaint:
“Does anyone pretend to know the mind of God…”
Yes. Your Prophets do. A little research on your part might help you understand what these men were talking about, and WHY they seemed to KNOW everything. They state they KNOW the MIND OF GOD.
Gee, maybe YOU ought to become a SCHOLAR, then you would know what you are talking about.
“I had considerable trouble to get all the quorums united in this order. I went from room to room repeatedly, and charged each separately, assuring them that IT WAS ACCORDING TO the MIND OF GOD,”(smith, DHC Vol 2:392)
“I do not care who leads the church, even though it were Ann Lee; but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. I have the keys and THE MEANS OF OBTAINING THE MIND OF GOD on the subject.”( B.Young, DHC 7:231)
“We may bring to pass all things which have been in the MIND OF GOD, or spoken of by the Spirit of God, through the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world was. . .(Teachings of the Pres. of the Church, J.Taylor, page 122)
“An individual who holds a share in the Priesthood, and continues faithful to his calling, who delights himself continually in doing the things God requires at his hands, and continues through life in the performance of every duty will secure to himself not only the privilege of receiving, but the knowledge how to receive the things of God, that HE MAY KNOW THE MIND OF GOD CONTINUALLY; and he will be enabled to discern between right and wrong, between the things of God and the things that are not of God. And the Priesthood—the Spirit that is within him, will continue to increase until it becomes like a fountain of living water; until it is like the tree of life; until it is one continued source of intelligence and instruction to that individual.” (DBY, 132).
“The Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as the President of this Church, to lead you astray. It is not in the program. IT IS NOT IN THE MIND OF GOD.” W.WOODRUFF
Of course… as time went on, these ‘prophets’ stopped making statements like this, for obvious reasons. How they come to ‘revelation’ in modern times is best explained by Gordon Hinckley as he told in an interview in 2007 with PBS on the ‘revelation’ they received on the priesthood in 1978:
“it wasn’t like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was JUST A FEELING that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed.”
They had a feeling. Wow. The LDS ‘prophets’ don’t even pretend to ‘talk’ to the Lord anymore, or KNOW THE MIND OF GOD as smith, young, taylor and woodruff did. This is what he said about ‘revelation’ in an Austrailian interview in 1997:
“Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles.”
I guess that answers the question about why there is no new revelation in the mormon church anymore. You have enough. If the need arises, they pray about it and discuss it. So if there are any questions about any of these doctrines, obviously these are the wrong men to ask… Again the question, why do we need THESE prophets? God gave ALL of us the ability to seek him in prayer for answers. I’ll trust in Jesus, and go to Him directly, not a bunch of old men who pray and discuss issues and have ‘feelings’ that things are right. No wonder they are trying to distance themselves from former teachings…they can’t answer any of the questions. Maybe they could guess, and get a confirmation on the guess? It would take time, but eventually they might come up with a ‘revelation’.
Interesting indeed, but impossible.
Prophets who can’t prophesy.
Seers who can’t ‘see’ anything.
Revelators who can’t reveal a thing.
Perhaps they should be called what they are:
Corporate Managers who need PR firms to
figure out how to ‘spread the gospel of smithism’,
and give opinions and suggestions.
From the beginning the Church has battled those who claim to have special knowledge and revelation. What has been demonstrated, by using the words of Mormons past and their deluded defenders present, is that in cults the more obscure, convoluted and revolting an idea, the more the cult members relish it-with glee; I might add. The Mormon posters here represent the devil in full parade dress.
In the article “One God, One Christ, One Salvation” the author D. Jeffery Bingham discusses the early Church’s battle with heresy, specifically the Gnostic heresy. Irenaeus lived in the second century and was called the most informed, prolific, and theologically profound opponent of Gnosticism. What gives me encouragement is that it was said of Irenaeus that he was unique in that he carefully studied the Gnostic myths and that his responses were immense and tireless.
Irenaeus was a pastor and his writing included “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”. This was a short presentation of the Christian faith. He also wrote a five-volume work titled, “Against Heresies”. He wrote it around 180 AD. It is considered an early example of Christian Biblical interpretation and theology.
Irenaeus, in his pursuit of truth consulted with Gnostic teachers and read their literature to better understand their teachings. It was said that Irenaeus opposed the Gnostics not out of desire for power but out of concern for their salvation. He said we wanted to “turn them back to the truth” and “to bring them to a saving knowledge of the one true God.”
As obnoxious as the Mormon posters can be and as hideous and blasphemous and repulsive their beliefs are, we labor here that those who have spiritual ears can hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, coming to repentance, they might obtain, through faith, the gift of eternal life God is offering them.
But be honest, what chance do the hard core have given their decision to turn themselves over to the most despicable doctrines that mock the very holiness of God?