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.
Hank: a few posts ago you stated: “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.” Also, you have now taken to referring to us as the “Church of Scholars” (Although I think this is a derisive term).
What really struck me this morning was your comment “good old agenda driven hatred” which seems to be a new label for us EVs. And now you are chuckling about our posts. How very interesting that continuing dialogue and debate is turned into agenda driven hatred. Or, multinational, multilingual, historical, cultural and theological understandings can be harmonized by a group of everyday EVs into very problematic arguments for Mormons are glibly reduced to –oh those old arguments–time and again.
Hatred isn’t the driving force here. Hatred would drive us away. Hatred does not have the power to keep on in a relationship. It is a relationship breaker. Our agenda is not of hatred. It is love. Love with all the rough edges still showing. Love which cannot be merely polite and watered down. We pray some of this is getting through.
Irenaeus was a pastor with a responsibility for his flock. He saw the Gnostics enticing his members away from the apostolic faith. The Gnostic’s message was framed to sound true, but it wasn’t. Like Mormonism and the other cults of today, the Gnostics were false teachers who had cleverly clothed their unorthodox belief system in a deceitful and seductive costume.
Irenaeus said, “Error indeed is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced….more true than the truth itself.”
What Irenaeus had in mind were the words of Jesus describing those who come in sheep’s clothing but were inwardly ravenous wolves. The Gnostics sounded, and frequently acted, just like orthodox Christians in that they read the Bible, used the Bible, and would cite the Bible. However their understanding the Bible and the way they assembled the pieces differed dramatically from the early Church fathers Irenaeus, Pothimus, Polycarp, and John.
To Irenaeus, there existed an unbroken line of tradition from the apostles. This unbroken line extended to the people the apostles mentored and eventually down to Irenaeus himself. About the Gnostic’s he said, “….they disregard the order and connection of the Scriptures and…dismember and destroy the truth.” While the Gnostic heresy and biblical theology at first appeared to be the precious jewel of orthodoxy, it was really just imitation glass.
In Irenaeus’ view, the parts of Scripture were like a mosaic. The tiles form the portrait of a king. He saw what the heretics assembled as a dog or fox.
Was their a great apostasy in the early Church? Hardly! Was there heresy in the early Church? Definitely! Anyone who wants to take the time to do the hard work of studying the history of the early Church can find the truth. However people who are given to believe a lie and who seem to enjoy being deceived, won’t spend the necessary time and effort to get at the truth.
Irenaeus taught that all humans are fallen-dead in their sins. We need redemption. Salvation, to him, was not a matter of destiny but of faith. The eternal Son of God, became human and in that act reunited God with man. Those who have faith in Jesus have the life of the Holy Spirit in them. Only they can truly be called “spiritual”; “as many as fear God and trust in His Son’s advent, and who through faith do establish the Spirit of God in their hearts-such men as these shall be properly called both ‘pure,’ and ‘spiritual,’ and ‘those living to God,’ because the possess the Spirit of the Father, who purifies man, and raises him up to the life of God.”
The teachings of Irenaeus highlight “the great orthodox doctrines of unity: One God, who is the Father and Creator of all things, immaterial and material, and who orchestrates one harmonious history of revelation and redemption; one Savior, who is both divine spirit and human flesh, both Christ and Jesus; one human nature, which is both spiritual and fleshly, one salvation of both the spiritual and material realms, which is by faith.” (D. Jeffrey Bingham)
These doctrines were received by Irenaeus from those who had passed the apostolic teaching down to him. The orthodoxy he preached protected the flock against the devouring wolves of heresy. This orthodoxy gave the martyrs the faith to endure to the end.
As Christians let us hold fast to that faith once received.
Sub,
As a third party to the animosity between you and Falcon, I have to ask, “Can you knock it off”. The whole “lather rinse” thing is beyond childish, tired, and destructive rather than constructive to dialogue.
As far as the gospel accounts go. I will repeat what I have stated before. If you believe that Matthew and Luke chose the wrong words when they wrote their respective accounts, and that those accounts are inconsistent with one another, then it is difficult towards impossible to chat with you. If you can jettison your scriptures and their teachings then they are not really scripture (at least to you) now are they? As far as being contained in only two accounts, I do not see the problem. Other narratives in the gospels are only found in two accounts, and others are found in only one. Many stories throughout the entire Bible are found in only one place. So now those stories must be recorded in three spots in order to be reliable?
The NT teaches that Mary was a virgin before and after conception. Remember the knockdown-dragout dialogue we had awhile ago about “almah”,”παρθενος”, and “γινωσκω’? The church has steadfastly taught that same thing. 19th century GA’s were aware of he doctrine of the virgin birth and wrote what they wrote in order to counter it. Sub, How do you explain the witness of the primitive church that Jesus was born of a Virgin if the Bible was not clear on this issue?
Chuckle, hate to throw a rock in the mix of THE Evangelical Scholars Church, but if one wants to argue with what is found in our Standard works and something preach-able by any member in any class would be the following:
President Ezra Taft Benson affirmed that Mary was a virgin after the birth of the Savior by citing the Book of Mormon: “He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Ne. 11:20.)”
11:20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
Hmmm, how can one be a virgin before and after one is begotten by the Father, frustration isn’t it? Me thinks the dust has fallen, and covered the dirt of those who proclaim in error what they think our GA’s meant. So, to all of our guest and visitors, you can believe the manipulation of snippets and out of context quotes, by our dear Evangelical friends, or believe in our Book of Mormon what they fail to mention. Our Doctrine is based on our Standard Works, and not one of our esteemed member of Creedal Christianity has proven any of our GA’s preached anything other then our Standard Works. Indeed interesting.
Regards, Richard.
David,
I quit addressing the Mormon posters directly sometime ago with the exception, on occasion, of Ralph. I hold to the view that one should never get in the way of someone who is making a fool of themselves. The Lord has explicitly told me with confirmation, not to cast my pearls before swine and I have purposed to follow His directive.
The writer Thomas C. Oden, author of the book, “The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity” in an article titled “Surprised by Orthodoxy” describes how his life was radically reversed by meeting the saints of classic Christianity. He says that after earning a Ph.D. at Yale and teaching at two seminaries he thought he was teaching theology. His heart was focused, however, on radical visions of social change and on blatant politicizing of the mission of the church. A friend of his, a Jew, told him “you will have to sit at the feet of the ancient Christian writers to discover who you are as a possible person of faith. Without solid textual grounding, you will become lost in supposed relevance. If you are going to deepen to become a working theologian instead of a know-it-all contemporary pundit, you had best get at it.”
Oden says: “As I worked my way through the beautiful texts of classic Christianity, I reemerged out of the secularizing maze to delight in the holy mysteries of the faith and in the recurrent puzzles of human existence. Rather that interpreting texts, I found the texts interpreting me. They freed me to ask a broader range of questions: How can God have become truly human without ceasing to be God? How can human freedom, when so distorted by the history of sin, have been radically atoned in the cross? If God is almighty and all good, how can God allow sin to have such a persistent hold on human social processes?
(continued)
(cont.)
Oden says that every question he thought was new had already been much investigated. He says, ” I was on the threshold of the intergenerational wisdom of the ancient community of faith, which I found was still persisting as a living, caring community. I now stand with in the blessed presence of the communion of saints of all generations.”
Oden reports that what changed the course of his life was attentiveness to the text of Scripture, especially as viewed by its early interpreters like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Chrysostom in the East; Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great in the west.
He said that in a few days of intense concentration he read through the 14th volume of “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”. He calls it an “unadorned report of the definitive canons (including pastoral judgments, not merely the dogmatic decrees) of the ecumenical councils and significant regional councils that fed into the great general councils of the first milennium. He concludes that that reading affected everything I would touch as a teacher, writer, and editor for the res of my life. “I have been searched out and found by ancient wisdoms.”
In cults, ignorance is a virtue. Cult members thrive on it, supposing that it makes them spiritual. For those of us who peel back the layers of the onion skin of false claims and revelation of the cults and their adherents, it is apparent that the psychology of the cultist is built on the dynamics of faulty reasoning and creative mind bending. But it’s all emotionally satisfying and doesn’t take a whole lot of work. For a glimpse of what the occultist Smith was wrought read “Under the Banner of Heaven”. It’s an account of false revelation on steroids and depicts clearly Joseph Smith as the father of this bastard of false revelation.
For the deniers:
“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, p. 7; cf. Come unto Christ, p. 4)
literal: based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolic the literal meaning of a passage
sired: (v. t.) To beget; to procreate; — used of beasts, and especially of stallions. (what does a ‘stud’ do?) This is Bensen’s term for what happened.
beget: 1 : to procreate as the father : sire
“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine)
Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father IN THE SAME WAY that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)
Is there some OTHER way that mortal fathers are (normally) begotten or sired other than sex? Here he says Christ was ‘sired’ by The Father in the same way everyone else was. If it doesn’t mean what it says, then why does he put it that way? Why is McConkie, and the others so explicit? The answer is obvious though some are too blind to see it, or want to admit that their leaders taught this rubbish.
David W
normal coitus that occurs between husband and wife
You obviously do not understand that the analogy drawn is not one of coitus but one of “sealing”…the Ev maintains a physical nature of matrimony while the Mormon hold it to be something higher.
The Ev insists on their own “cognitive dissonance” about the inconsistencies in the two nativities. To ignore the “contextual” influences of the scriptures is rather irresponsibe dont you think?
Nowhere have i “jettisoned” the scriptures, but unlike many Ev believe, they are not above inspection…for it is through inspection, inference, intuition, and inspiration that a knowledge of the Word is developed.
Though multiple locations in the Bible are not necessary for a story to have creedence, but when there are, one has to consider the implications of any differences between them – not to disregard the message, but rather to clarify it.
John 5:39
As for your question about “early witness”, many speculations are available…but consider these:
political = response to Jewish claims that Jesus was illegitimate.
mystical = Mary was the “new Eve” the obedient virgin contrasted against the disobedient “old Eve”…condemned then saved.
These “early witnesses” also add direct prayer to Mary as an intercession to Grace….is this not a step towards apostasy?
How ironic that St. Irenaeus is mentioned, because he clearly “adds” to the work on the cross by maintaing that Mary is instrumental to salvation…as well as her “free will”.
The Ev muddies the water here with Catholic doctrine.
Ephesians 4:17-19
Those who often criticize the LDS for “feeling”
Pray on your reading of the book of John.
Do we not read about Jesus’s grief, anger, joy? (eg. for Lazarus)
Also consider how God expresses “anger” or “jealousy” – particularly in covenants.
emotion can be vital to revelation.
Mormonism is not only based on a continual flow of false revelation, but it’s adherents are fed a constant diet of false information especially as it pertains to the early Church. Armed with a few pithy sayings and mottos regarding early Church councils and the Biblical text, the ignorant Mormon skips merrily down the path of a false religion that eventually leads him over the cliff of spiritual destruction.
These Mormon lemmings follow a host of false prophets and wolves thinking that the spiritual bait set in the religious trap will satisfy their hunger. In reality, once trapped, the prey is devoured by the ravenous appetite of a false religious system.
We have been treated to a display here of what proper cult brainwashing can do to a true believer. The character of God and His redemptive work have been reduced to Mormon brothel doctrine and gutter language. Reading the postings of our Chirstian writers exposing the smut minded Mormon prophets and the Mormon responses attempting to justify or gloss over what these wolves were actually saying, is about as disgusting as it gets. Having had rolled around in the mire of this false revelatory pigsty, the Mormon apologist has taken on the same scent.
For the Mormon reader, who has been following this discussion, you have reached a stage of knowing that something is not right in Mormonism. God, through His Holy Spirit, has signaled you that the time is right to bolt the spiritual trap you have found yourself in. Our purpose here is to remove the shiny vineer that covers the dead corpse of Mormonism.
God promises you new life in Christ Jesus through faith in His finished work of the Cross. But it’s important to come to a right understanding of who God is, who Jesus is and what salvation through Christ is. God through His Holy Spirit directs us to the Father through the Son and causes us to be spiritually born again. The free gift of eternal life is offered as a gift. Will you accept it?
Guilt is also a feeling. So is embarrassment. Guilt for about 150 years of racial bigotry. Embarrasment over policies that were stifling the growth of a cult. Desperation (another feeling) over the fact that they were being backed into a corner with the advent of the civil rights movement. It sure is funny that the two major ‘revelations’ of the mormon church after smith came at times when it was crucial for the church to change in the face of law and the changing culture of america.
The church could have stood it’s ground, after all polygamy was commanded by God to be practiced by all who it was preached to. Did that change with a ‘feeling’ too?
And it sure was getting pretty hard to tell who had that ‘blood of cain’. The timing is suspect, the means are suspect, and feelings can come from anywhere. Their process does not indicate a ‘divine revelation’, it indicates a hidden agenda, a surrender to the US Government, and ‘feelings’ of guilt and shame over the heinous doctrines of bigots.
Free gift to all, we LDS preach the Gift of Salvation is indeed free.
One does not have to be pre-ordained or chosen, a concept that our fellow friends and members of the Church of Scholars promote and believe in. Question, how can it be free yet has to be offered as a gift. Hmmm, do I see a oxymoron in these words of confused scriptural translations. So what was free? how about that all will be resurrected and judged according to their works. Free to accept the commandments of God, free to follow them completely, free to be baptized and become a member of Christ Kingdom here on earth and Heaven. Yes, only Christ could satisfy justice, and in do so paid of our debt. We must be willing to accept, and the works required are Faith and Repentance. For those who reject this gift will find that there is a judgment and have chosen to stake out for themselves a lesser degree of Glory, but still will feel the results of a all-encompensing sacrifice by the only one who could perform this magnanimous act of love.
Regards, Richard.
Sub,
You obviously do not understand that the analogy drawn is not one of coitus but one of “sealing”
That is because I understand the words “same way” and the context in which they were given. You may see or mean “sealing” when 19th century GA’s talked about Mary, but that is not what they meant (again if words have meaning).
To ignore the “contextual” influences of the scriptures is rather irresponsibe dont you think?
I do but I do not see how that does not mean, or even suggest, that Mary was not a virgin before or after conception.
Nowhere have i “jettisoned” the scriptures, but unlike many Ev believe, they are not above inspection
No,you just cherry pick from them and when they say something you do not love (like παρθενος) you say they got it wrong. If I just blew off a verse by saying the author got it wrong, the hue & cry that would ensue from Mormon posters here would be enormous.
So, if a story does not need a triple witness then what is the problem of the infancy narratives having two?
These “early witnesses” also add direct prayer to Mary as an intercession to Grace….is this not a step towards apostasy?
Actually, no they do not. Marian idolatry is a (much) later development. We know from where some of this Marian (im)piety comes from and it is not apostolic. The pseudo-Isodorian decretals, and other gnostic texts, are the basis for much of what passes for an early “witness” to Marain devotion. While Marian devotion could be considered “early” it is not primitive (unlike the virgin birth) and it does not show up in full form until the last couple hundred years. I would love for you to produce some documented quotes from Irenaeus, or any other church father, on this issue. Whatever, the reason for the “early witness” to the virgin birth it is legit as it happened in the apostolic era – it is primitive (a.k.a. pre-apostasy).
David W
..it is legit as it happened in the apostolic era – it is primitive (a.k.a. pre-apostasy).
then you rely on the speculation that historical facts support, that the context supports.
So, it was a reaction to the Jewish accusation that Jesus was illegitimate. Matthew adressing the Jews and Luke addressing the Gentile…both groups, of which, in the wake of things still fellowshipped together…thus necessitating a cohesive response. Furthermore understanding the cultural differences between the Hebrew and Greek make clear the use of “virgin” and “young maiden”. The translators at that time surely made their choice in the context of the time.
This, however, does not make her virginity “legit”….again, a step towards.
I do but I do not see how that does not mean, or even suggest, that Mary was not a virgin before or after conception.
Matthew missed the mark on a few prophecies, so misunderstanding Isaiah is not a stretch. Matthew also had reason to promote a virgin in the nativity (Jewish erosion of church by questioning legitimacy of Jesus)
….again this notion of a virgin Mary has no meaning to Salvation nor any influence on what Jesus accomplished on the Cross….so, curious enough, why does the Ev find this as arguable doctrine?
But it’s important to come to a right understanding of who God is, who Jesus is and what salvation through Christ is
sez you…where is the scriptural foundation for this?…either i am saved by the work on the Cross…or i am not…please, clarify where God commands or Jesus exhorts a “right understanding” being necessary for salvation.
tersus , eluo , quod revolvo
HankSaint
well done!
Sub,
Do you not believe in apostolic charisma and passed on authority? Do not the articles of faith touch on this? Don’t get it twisted. The historical facts support what I and many others see in the Bible. No one in the first century was believing what 19th century GA’s believed about Mary.
“Matthew missed the mark on a few prophecies”
That is just a plain rejection of the Bible and thus #8 of the articles of faith. You are not just objecting to the translations out there, you are objecting to Matthew in Greek. Furthermore, the KJV, JST, and the BoM are on my side on this one. Do you think Joseph Smith mistranslated “almah” when he wrote “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14? Do you think a few GA’s misspoke about Jesus being the groom at the wedding at Cana?
You are alleging a corruption of Christianity before even all the apostles died off. It is not an apostasy if the church was not even fully formed and yet was already going astray.
BTW, how did you come to know the historical context Matthew was writing in? Either you got that info from the Bible (which you allege that in at least in two spots was not ever accurate) or you got it from extra-biblical writings in which case you are putting historical writings over the Bible. Do you see the problem? Either you are trusting something else other than the Bible (and I do not agree with your take on the historical context) or you believe the scriptures contradict themselves and thus pit scripture vs. scripture. Consider – if Matthew got it wrong is it not equal possible that Isaiah got it wrong first? Perhaps, the context you place Matthews narrative (possibly from other scriptures) is wrong? Why pick one over the other?
Everyone – it is statements like the ones Sub has made that make non-Mormons feel like Mormons only pay lip service to the Bible.
HankSaint wrote
Read the quotes from your prophets that Grindael posted.
Since when did the Mormon movement decide to shift from “we know everything (and everyone else knows nothing)” to “we know nothing (and neither does anyone else)”?
If the Mormon Prophets can’t help us here, then sack them and get someone who can.
How do you sack a Prophet? Well, I guess you start out by refusing to pay them, and you withdraw your support (time, money and material) from their enterprises (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
Maybe you should stand up to them and scream into their face “Don’t you know what a Prophet is? Its your JOB to know! That’s what we PAY you for!”. Its not a pleasant strategy, but neither is the situation that Mormons have come to (under their leadership).
When are Mormons going to hold their “prophets” accountable for their consummately self-evident incompetency?
Hank, I believe someone, maybe grindael, already pointed out that the teaching of the GA’s on the virginity of Mary, and the conception of Jesus not being of the Holy Ghost, was contrary to the teachings of the BoM.
Sub asked David, “please, clarify where God commands or Jesus exhorts a “right understanding” being necessary for salvation.
How about John 8:23-24, “And He said to them, ‘Your are from beneath; I am from above. Your are of this world. I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Also, 1 John 2:22-24, “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.”
In John 8 Jesus tells the Pharisees that unless they believe that He is God, the I AM, they will perish in their sin. They begin to question him to make sure they understand what Jesus is claiming. In John 8:41 it appears that the Pharisees were aware of the nature of His birth as they accuse, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father-God.” Later in John 8:58 Jesus removes all doubt from the Pharisees mind that He is God, claiming outright, that He is I AM, YHWH incarnate. There is no doubt that they understand exactly what Jesus is saying as they pick up stones to throw at Him for blasphemy.
You have a perveted view of the Godhead. You believe in the wrong Jesus. Jesus blood covers you by His grace, not your admission of His name as Christ. You like to make allusions to Matthew 7:21-23 and say, “You never knew Jesus.” Actually the text says Jesus will say, “I never knew you, depart from me…” Does Jesus know you?
falcon wrote
falcon,
Matthew 7:6 is commonly used to justify a person’s decision to withhold information in case someone else might misuse it. Whereas I understand your frustration at the Mormons’ habit of misusing your information, I get very prickly about anything that leans towards an “I’ll keep my secrets to myself” agenda.
I think there is an alternative interpretation of Matt 7:6, which fits the context better.
Firstly, it appears in the Sermon on the Mount. It doesn’t matter if this Sermon on the Mount is a single sermon, or a collection of Jesus’ teachings, Matthew opens by saying that Jesus “went up the mountainside” (Matt 5:1). In other words, Jesus deliberately spoke to a public context in order to make his message known. This scenario conflicts with any initiative to “keep stuff secret”.
Secondly, the “keep stuff secret” agenda conflicts with the Parable of the Sower in Matt 13:1-8. Matthew (note same author, so same perspective) follows with a discussion about the difference between receiving the message, and understanding the message. The “moral” of the parable is that we should broadcast the seed everywhere (including the places where you think it might be wasted), and expect that it will not bear fruit all the time.
My view is that the “casting pearls before swine” isn’t about transmitting information about the Gospel.
Its about surrendering the things that are precious and valuable to you to unworthy causes or leaderships. In context, I believe Jesus is challenging the rank-and-file Jews not to surrender their valuables (their material possessions, their souls, their heritage) to the unworthy leadership of the Pharisees and Priests, who would trap them and consume them in the Temple Cult. Your previous posts about cult entrapment amply demonstrate the outworking of this parable.
…ctd…
…ctd…
This would fit with Matthew’s particular agenda, which is his criticism of how the Jewish leadership dealt with the Messiah.
So, I’m going to follow the Lord’s standing orders to continue to sow the seed, even in places where I think it might be wasted. Who knows where it will bear fruit and where it won’t? The history of the Kingdom of God is full of stories about it sprouting up in the unlikeliest places.
That’s why I post here, actually. I know that engaging with some people is more frustrating than engaging with others. My job isn’t about predicting the response. My job is to broadcast the message.
Sub,
I thing that I finally figured out why some LDS
like you seem to call into question the Bible’s
testimony on a subject. The reason is, in my
opinion, that the scriptures in the Bible were
written by dead prophets and apostles, and LDS
are counseled to listen to the “living” oracles
in the Church ( LDS apostles and prophet). Since
the living oracles today don’t teach the same
way as the dead ones, on this topic, then LDS
simply take the current counsel.Who cares what
the dead leaders said!
Today, the highest Priesthood holders in your
Church use the word, “virgin”.This is the word
they choose to use and have elaborated on that
word, and yes it’s what all Christians know to
be the case: a young pure woman ( having had no
sex before marriage.Think law of Chastity).
The Church publication,New Era, gives the inter-
pretation of Isa.7:14 =
” Isaiah, a prophet in the O.T., prophesied that
a PURE woman would give birth to Heavenly
Father’s Son.” [New Era 12-2008,under,Dec.13th].
In the LDS gospel reference book,True To The Faith
p.29 =
” Chastity is sexual PURITY…You must not have
any sexual relations before you are legally
married.”
The LDS living oracles promise:
” neither the President of the Church, nor the
first Presidency,nor the united voice of the
First Pres. and the Twelve will ever lead the
Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world
that is contrary to the mind and will of God…”
[Ensign July 1972,p.88]
Let’s see what this counsel was concerning Isaiah
7:14 =
” Here is another example of what happens when men
revise the scriptures without the inspiration
of the Spirit.Isaiah, in predicting the birth of
Christ, said,’ Behold a virgin shall conceive and
bear a son…’ When Isaiah used the word,VIRGIN,he
was saying THAT A WOMAN WHO HAD NOT KNOWN A MAN
should dear a son. The modern translators put it
this way: ‘Behold a young woman shall conceive
and bear a son…(Holy Bible
cont.
Revised Standard Version,1952) ‘
You see, they do not believe that Christ was divine, so it does not make any difference to
them whether they say a young woman or a virgin.”
[New Era.May 1976. Marion G.Romney, LDS First
Presidency]
Well, is this “counsel” true?
A recap on this doctrine:
The LDS KJV Bible(1979) Isaiah 7:14 = virgin
The Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 17:14 = virgin
LDS living oracles = virgin
But how could this virgin become pregnant?
cont.
Does it matter how she became pregnant?
At one time the LDS living oracles did.Since it
is claimed that Mormon authorities give the
correct interpretation of the written Word, we need to go to a Mormon leader who gave an
interpretation.But he’s dead. Yet, the living
oracles have recommended his teachings:
” Though more than a century has now passed, his
words are still fresh and APPROPRIATE for us
today…” [ Church curriculum,Teachings of the
Presidents of the Church, Brigham Young ]
” …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…The
very babe that was cradled in the manager, was
begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but
by ANOTHER BEING.Do you inquire by whom? He was
begotten by God our heavenly father…”
Brigham Young Aug.19,1866
lather, rinse, and repeat
tersus , eluo , quod revolvo 🙂
Richard.
Chuckle, here is a great dichotomy of the Church of the Scholars and very problematic. 🙂
“Multinational, multilingual, historical, cultural and theological understandings can be harmonized by a group of everyday EVs into very problematic arguments for Mormons are glibly reduced to –oh those old arguments–time and again.”
Someone say old arguments, Hmmm lets see what the Church of Scholars also admits.
“In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be “the definitive” book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors’ integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.”
Church of the Scholars members, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen
In this thread I have posted six posts that are quotes and references from LDS General Authorities or publications approved by them. The baseless charge put forth here by Mormon apologists is that these statements are not accurate and taken out of context. I would urge the LDS reader/lurker to look them up and see for yourself. The quotes are exact and the sources cited are as well. I have always preferred to let the LDS leadership speak for themselves when it comes to what they have said in the past. They also need to be held accountable for it too.
The title of this thread and question was: “Was the virgin birth a product of the great apostasy?” No! Based on what I just said in the previous paragraph I think it’s time to let those of the primitive church speak for themselves. I am talking about the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. This is the first 300 years of the Church BEFORE Nicea.
The “great apostasy” conspiracy theory by the Mormons is only in the figment of their heretical imaginations. They aren’t alone. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the same theory as the Mormons. The mistake both of these false religions have made is that they have NOT gone and done the research to see if their “great apostasy” theory lines up with the historical record.
The fact of the matter is that what Christendom teaches today and believes on the Incarnation/Virgin Birth of Christ is exactly what was believed by the early Church Fathers who were discipled by the original Twelve who were discipled by the Lord Jesus. Christianity has a successive timeline of history to back up its claims. The early Church Fathers never taught or believed anything that Mormonism believes today.
I have been working on a research project which has led me into much reading of these Ante-Nicene Fathers. I kept coming across numerous references on the Incarnation. The amount of material is enormous. My set of this time period (first 300 years) is 10 volumes and consists of almost 6,000 pages.
Ladies and Gentlemen, “court” is now in session. Mormonism has made its claim against the primitive church and the Church Fathers stating an apostasy from the Scriptures. These Fathers will now take the “witness stand” and let the world now hear them. I call Tertullian as my first witness.
Father Tertullian, how did Jesus Christ arrive in the Virgin and who was Jesus?
“We…believe that there is only one God, but under the following dispensation…that this one only God also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without nothing was made. HIM WE BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN SENT BY THE FATHER INTO THE VIRGIN, and to have been born of her – BEING BOTH MAN AND GOD” (Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 2)
“Now, what is that ‘foolishness of God is wiser than men,’ but the cross and death of Christ? What is that ‘weakness of God which is stronger than men,’ but the NATIVITY AND INCARNATION OF GOD?” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 5, Chapter 5)
“GOD SUFFERS HIMSELF to be conceived in a mother’s womb” (Tertullian, On Patience, Chapter 3)
Thank you, sir. You may step down. I now call Father Hippolytus to the stand. Sir, I ask you the same question. How did Christ get here?
“Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that GOD THE WORD CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, (AND ENTERED) INTO THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name…as the Word and the earthly (nature), as taking to Himself the flesh from the old Adam by the medium of the Virgin, He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Sections 17-18)
Thank you, Father Hippolytus. We know that there is much more you have said previously, but we give you rest. I now call Father Irenaeus to the witness stand. Father Irenaeus, you are popular with the Mormons for some reason. How would you answer the same question?
“…the Son…being the Word of God, DESCENDING FROM THE FATHER, BECOMING INCARNATE, stooping low, even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 18, Section 2)
“Superfluous, too, in that case is HIS DESCENT INTO MARY; FOR WHY DID HE COME DOWN INTO HER if He were to take nothing of her? Still further, if He had taken nothing of Mary, He would never have availed Himself of those kinds of food which are derived from the earth, by which that body which has been taken from the earth is nourished” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 22, Section 2)
Thank you. What would you say to any Mormon who thinks Christ was somehow procreated by the Father or anyone else?
“FOR WE DO NOT SAY, AS THE HERETICS SUPPOSE, THAT SOME PART OF THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD WAS CONVERTED INTO THE SON, OR THAT THE SON WAS PROCREATED BY THE FATHER out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding.” (Origen, De Principiis 4:28)
Father Irenaeus, the world thanks you for making that “crystal” clear for anyone willing to listen to your testimony. We will ask you to return one final time at the end.
I now call Gregory Thaumaturgus to the witness stand. Father Thaumaturgus, please share with us how Christ got here at the Incarnation and who He was.
“THEREFORE GOD SENT DOWN FROM HEAVEN HIS INCORPOREAL SON to take flesh upon Him in the Virgin’s womb; and thus, equally as thou, was He made man; to save lost man, and collect all His scattered members.” (Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Epistles on the Arian Heresy, Epistle no.5, section 5)
“We believe therefore, that IT WAS WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO THE DIVINITY that the incarnation of the Word took place with a view to the renewal of humanity. FOR THERE TOOK PLACE NEITHER MUTATION NOR TRANSPOSITION, nor any circumscription in will, as regards to THE HOLY ENERGY OF GOD; but while that remained in itself the same, it also effected the work of the world; and the Word of God, living on earth after man’s fashion, maintained likewise in all the divine presence, fulfilling all things, and being united properly and individually with flesh” (Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of Faith, Part 2, Chapter 6)
Do you agree with the Gospel accounts of Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20?
“How could one say that Christ was born of the seed of man by the Virgin, when the holy Gospel and the angel, in proclaiming the good tidings, testify of Mary the Virgin that she said, ‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Wherefore he says, ‘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 the Highest.’ And to Joseph he says, ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: FOR THAT WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY GHOST.’” (Gregory Thaumaturgus, Twelve Topics on the Faith, Topic 4, Expication)
We concur with your findings and proclaim anathema against Brigham Young, Ezra Benson and Joseph Fielding Smith for saying that is WAS NOT the Holy Ghost.
Father Thaumaturgus, Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie has made the following statement:
“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)
Father Thaumaturgus, what would you say to Mr. McConkie?
“If ANY ONE AFFIRMS THAT CHRIST WAS BORN of the seed of man by Virgin, IN THE SAME MANNER AS ALL MEN ARE BORN, and refuses to acknowledge that He was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary, and became man of the seed of David, even as it is written, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.” (Gregory Thaumaturgus, Twelve Topics on the Faith, Topic 4)
Thank you! The Mormons state that Jesus was created by God – God’s first creation; first child in the LDS preexistence between their god and his “mother in heaven”. Please give us your thoughts on the teachings you received from the Lord’s disciples, the orginal Twelve.
“We therefore acknowledge one true God, the one First Cause, and one Son, very God of very God, POSSESSING OF NATURE THE FATHER’S DIVINITY, – that is to say, being the same in substance with the Father; and one Holy Spirit, who by nature and in truth sanctifies all, and makes divine, as being of the substance of God. THOSE WHO SPEAK OF THE SON OR OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A CREATURE WE ANATHEMATIZE.” (Gregory, Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of Faith, Part 2, Chapter 15)
We thank you for your testimony. We bid you peace and God’s blessings. Your Honor, I now call Irenaeus back to the stand. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s now hear from Irenaeus on two specific texts mentioned in Holy Scripture – the Bible.
Father Irenaeus, we are grateful for your patience and for taking the witness stand. We would like to hear your thoughts on the texts from the manuscripts that you looked at which later became known as our Bible today. What were your thoughts on Matthew 2:11?
“And that it is from that region which is towards the south of the inheritance of Judah that THE SON OF GOD SHALL COME, WHO IS GOD, and who was from Bethlehem, where the Lord was born [and] will send out His praised through all the earth…Thus he [Habakkuk] indicates in clear terms that HE IS GOD, and that His advent was [to take place] in Bethlehem, and from Mount Effrem, which is towards the south of inheritance, and that [HE IS] MAN.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:20:4)
Thank you…and what say you about Isaiah 9:6?
“For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, CALLED GOD, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, GOD, AND LORD, AND KING ETERNAL, AND THE INCARNATE WORD, PROCLAIMED BY ALL THE PROPHETS, THE APOSTLES, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man….He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:19:2-3)
Thank you! Your testimony has been most helpful as we refute the ludicrous, baseless and unfounded accusations, claims and conspiracy theories that have unfortunately taken the minds of the Mormon people from their leaders who have withheld this information from them.
Your Honor, the defense rests!
[email protected]
Hank,
We are chatting about the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Do you care to join us?
Did some soul searching today while sitting in Sacrament, when a Epiphany took hold of my mind and spirit. I was pondering the why of my need to post at Mormon Coffee, also being very aware that some of the responders were very intelligent souls. “Why, I asked? do I need this in my life, this constant bombardment of accusation, false misrepresentations, false witnesses, borrowed talking points that only reflect the question of what some one else researched.
Then it all came to me, it was like a bolt of lightening, kind of like a warm fuzzy feeling came over me, was it revelation? Hmmm, most likely not, but at least I did some serious soul searching, and why not? what could be a better place then here in the Chapel of the Lord.
I have recently notice my testimony has grown even faster then before, It was even more sold then I could ever remember, I have seemed to have grown spiritually, found that truth was ever more within reaching distance, and any shadow of doubt was being replaced with solid confirmation that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, was true and could never fail.
Why was this, well it was because of my Creedal Christian friends, those who placed before me question that I had never even considered before, quotes I had never read, accusation I never really considered, and criticism that seemed worth looking into. To my total amazement, and through diligent research and study of the Standard Works, I came to realize that nothing that was being suggested, or presented as facts and evidence could hold up to the light and knowledge I was receiving regarding the truth of Mormonism. Wow what a wonderful benefit to all my worry and fret over whether this was a good thing or a bad thing to devote so much of my time to, answering questions and finding facts and proof to refute my friend of the Church of Scholars. I came away from Sacrament Meeting a better man, more uplifted then ever before, and committed to sharing the Restored Gospel with all.
perhaps someone could help me find the post where i state and/or claim that i or the LDS church do not believe in the virgin birth?
so much “intuition” by the Ev…i wonder at times what drives their determination to “read between the lines”
All the canonized doctrine i can find has affirmed the LDS position of affirming the virgin birth (including McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine). All other positions are speculative, and speculation is permitted.
falcon ad Martin of B
Matt 7:6 is also often used for self-preservation.
pearls before swine is perhaps more about a notion
of “physician heal thyself”….otherwise this is a rather transaprent ploy and the lurker should take notice of the timing of such things.
Martin – interesting take on Matt 7:6, thank you for your eloquence.
Andy Watson
i am assuming that your “court” was presenting a mock trial…are you wanting that we bring the Catholic Doctrine into this dscussion?
David Whitsell originally asked “Was the Virgin Birth the product of the Great Apostasy?”
In response to the repeated, detailed, explicit quotes from their prophets to the contrary, HankSaint and Subgenius appear to want to subscribe to an orthodox view of the virgin conception of Jesus.
Heaven only knows why they would do this. Perhaps they think their religion would be slammed as a pile of manure by orthodox Christians if they actually defended their prophets’ teachings.
OK, so let’s suppose that modern Mormonism believes in a miraculous, non-sexual conception of Jesus, in direct and unequivocal denial of the teachings of the Mormon prophets.
David’s question thus changes to “Was the Virgin Birth the product of a Great Apostasy in the Mormon Church?” – an apostasy led by the likes of HankSaint and subgenius.
Mormon Lurkers:
Before you take too much stock in the ‘warm fuzzy feeling this has to be true because I feel good about it” approach; propagated by smithian deniers (of mormonism’s true teachings) and mind controlled missionaries; along with these old narcissistic men, there are some things you need to know.
Mike R. hit the nail on the head (or was is hammered the last nail in the coffin of this Mary Heresy with this observation:
“we need to go to a Mormon leader who gave an interpretation. But he’s dead. Yet, the living oracles have recommended his teachings…”
I have a set of those Teachings of the Presidents of the Church books, and here is what is just below the quote from them that Mike used:
“President Young declared that as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we possess the “doctrine of life and salvation for all the honest-in-heart” (DBY, 7).* He promised that those who receive the gospel in their hearts will have awakened “within them a desire to know and understand the things of God more than they ever did before in their lives” and will begin to “inquire, read and search and when they go to their Father in the name of Jesus he will not leave them without a witness” (DBY, 450).
Good Advice. I advise all to ‘inquire, read and search” all of Young’s sermons. But that book is like all the others released by those in authority, edited heavily and devoid of the full scope of Young’s teachings. Why? Because Young taught false doctrine and some of his teachings can’t be trusted. And who said this? Another mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie. What did he say about Young? Read for yourself, then go and read unedited versions of his discourses for yourself:
“I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory.
President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing.
This puts me in mind of Paul’s statement: “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: “And all those who preach false doctrines, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!: (2 Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us. (Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to Eugene England, 1981)
McConkie contradicts himself here, saying: ”he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. If Young taught false doctrine, then he will reap the penalty quoted by McConkie from 2 Nephi. (CF Matt 18:7, 1 Tim 4:1) And all who believe in what he taught will follow him to hell.
And who is responsible for this: Brigham Young. To show how false the mormon system is, we have this quote by Wilford Woodruff, about 20 years after Young died:
“The Lord will lead [the President of the Church] where he wants him to go. We know God is with him, and has led him all the time. . . . It requires [the prophet] to tell us what is right and
what is wrong in many things, because that is his place and calling.. . A perfect channel exists between the Lord and him, through which he obtains wisdom, which is diffused through
other channels to the people. That we know. We have got to learn to bring this knowledge into practice. The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.” – Wilford Woodruff
So which is it, mormon lurkers? Who will you believe? Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, or Bruce R. McConkie? Where is the harmony? Where is the Lord in all this? You have one prophet telling you that you leaders will never lead you astray, that God would remove them our of their place, and another teaching false doctrine until the end of his days. Will you be caught up in the ‘warm fuzzy feeling of deception’ or will you come to the Lord Jesus Christ and abandon the confusing maze of Mormonism? The choice is there for you. So when you go to your Sacrament Meetings, think on these things, and pray earnestly to Jesus to show you the truth. He will show you the way out. Believe me, many have taken this step and are far happier and secure for having done it.
Hmmm, I can’t speak for Subgenius but as for me I feel you have taken the opportunity to as usual misrepresent something you may have thought I stated. That being said lets review what I did or did not say. I did quote one GA who stated it was a miraculous conception of Jesus, and was followed with, since it is of a higher nature we are not privy to the mechanics of it all.
1). “There is no Biblical bearing on Salvation by the virginity or non-virgintiy of Mary.”
2). We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes.
3). “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.”
As for my own opinion, since there is nothing definitive in the Scriptures or our Standard Works, I feel that eventually it will all be revealed to us, and some will be shocked to find out that the ways of God are not our ways, nor are His thoughts like ours.
What I do know is that God is Morally pure, and would cease to be God if He allowed any Sin to enter in. With that and the accusations you have made against our GA’s I would bet my life that not one of them would smear God or find Him to be immoral. Nice try ya all.
R.
R.
Peter understood and wrote about wolves like smith & young who would come and introduce destructive heresies like God having sex with Mary, Adam-God, Polygamy, Blood Atonement & a False Priesthood that usurps the authority of Christ. smith received his ‘swift destruction’ for his blasphemy and lechery, and God put an end to their polygamous debaucheries in Utah. Mormon deniers would do well to heed his message:
”But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute, In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLE50xkthZw
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels,
although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit, and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”
Martin,
I need to respond to your critique of my “pearls before swine” comment. Let me first put some context to the remark. I was referring to a specific instance where I shared a series of personal experiences on MC that have significant meaning for me. God had intervened in my life in a miraculous way at a point of my conversion and His actions got my attention and let me know that, yes indeed, there is a God and He is “I am”.
Unfortunately, as God had warned me, my words zoomed right over the head of the Mormon I was interacting with here. I was reminded of Proverbs 23:9 which says “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.”
In a sermon posted here on MC some months ago, Mark Driscoll had a few things to say about sheep, swine, wolves, and dogs. He said feed the sheep which, while the responsibility of pastors and elders also applies to all of us. We are all called to speak the gospel to one another in ways that promote our sanctification and maturity in Christ. We are to be kind, gracious, encouraging, edifying in our speech towards the sheep. But we are not expected to act that way with wolves.
We should “rebuke the swine”. In scripture we have many examples of God rebuking his “believers” when they don’t act like sheep and instead act like “swine”. (Isaiah 3:16-26, Amos 4:1; Amos 6:4-6; Ezekiel 23:17:21) Driscoll says “The Bible is easily read when talking about “them”. It is painfully read when talking about us.”
We should “shoot the wolves”. The wolves are false teachers and even Jesus has no love loss for hypocrites and false teachers. Martin Luther said, “With the wolves you cannot be too severe. With the weak sheep you cannot be too gentile.” We shoot the wolves because we love the sheep.
Barking at the dogs is similar to the advice on shooting the wolves.
Finally, pray for the shepherds. Defend, encourage and support shepherds.
(attribution: Promise & Pleasure)
I think we’ve all seen very clearly here what the Mormon prophet-wolves have taught about the incarnation of Jesus. It is repulsive and clearly demonstrates the spirit by which Mormonism operates. Mormonism and its prophet-wolves insult and challenge God and His holiness at every turn. They are beyond disgusting. So Mormons are left in a tough spot. They can support the blasphemous teachings of their prophet-wolves or they can deny them in which case Mormonism falls totally a part. But no, as Mormons often do, they try to find some fantastic explanation which is suppose to explain why what the prophets clearly meant didn’t really mean what they said.
This is a clear example of suspending credulity and doing whatever it takes to maintain faith and support for a false religious system that has its foundation clearly in the occult. Mormons try to dress-up their hideous counterfeit with spiritual sounding language but for anyone with an ounce of discernment, it’s pretty easy to see the Satanic foundation on which Mormonism is built.
But this type of thinking is very common in Mormonism as it is with any cult. My series of postings on cognitive dissonance points out the lengths people will go to support a false belief in order to maintain a false but comfortable equilibrium.
So we have just another of a long winded meaningless and trite sermon producing nothing meaningful or enlightening regarding the Restoration of the Gospel as taught and lived by Mormons, taking up two posts by a Member of the Church of Scholars.
Interesting that nothing but characterless substance is ever gleaned from any of these sermons except for the noted testimony that is once in awhile stated.
Aw, the agenda of hatred in anything Mormon, I wonder if the above preacher of righteousness ever has seen or heard of at least one redeeming thing, doctrine, or scripture that he could incorporate into his own life, methinks his blindness will continue to darken his mind of all and everything to do with Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.
So to all you visitors and guest, what think you of one who has cast off any serious study of Mormonism and tossed it into the heap of dung that was created by those who misrepresent, falsely accuse, criticize with out evidence, and smear and pollute the Doctrine of a Great Church which can never and will not fail.
Regards, Richard 🙂
Dealing with the mind of a cultist is a challenge for God’s people as they defend His Church against the heretical and aberrant doctrines of the ravenous wolves. The emotional buy-in required by a cultist is such that it blinds him to all reason and evidence that what he believes is pure folly. Cultist will defend their heretical beliefs precisely because the cost to the ego and their emotional well being is so great. To continue on in the face of over-whelming evidence that what they belief is false, earns the cultist extra points with the cult. It’s a badge of courage to proclaim, Oh I know all of that (evidence) but my testimony is stronger than ever.” The buy-in to the cult organization is so strong that any rational thinking is surrendered.
Dr. Walter Martin said, “the problem is that Mormonism has altered the thinking process of Mormons in the area of religion! A Mormon can think very rationally about his job, what clothes to wear, and things like that, but when you push the button on religion he stops thinking and gives you what he has been taught.”
Mormons fail to think reasonably about their spiritual life. They are blind in the area of the spirit. They have given up their right to think independently and surrendered to the Mormon organization. The Apostle Paul said, “If our gospel is hid, it is hid because the god of this world had blinded their minds.” It’s is very frustrating dealing with a people who totally and blindly submit to the Mormon church hierarchy.
Dr. Martin also said, “Talking about spiritual things to Mormons, is like trying to describe a rainbow to a blind man. You are talking about a rainbow to a guy who doesn’t know what color is.”
The teachings of Mormonism stand in direct opposition to the Bible; and Mormons are proud of that:
*Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Satan.
*Jesus was conceived as the result of physical sex between God the Father and the Virgin Mary; He was not conceived by the Holy Ghost.
(cont)
(cont)
*The wedding in Cana was the wedding of none other than Jesus Christ Himself, who wed three women: Mary, her sister Martha, and “the other Mary”. And He had children by them. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 259-260:Vol. 1, pp. 343-346.)
*Every worthy member of the Mormon Church can become a god-just like God Himself. In fact, Mormons teach that God was once a man who “progressed to godhood.” One Mormon authority recently published a widely received book in which he declared that God could “cease to be God” if He lost the support of the other gods. (W. Cleon Skousen, The First 2,000 Years, Bookcraft, pp. 355-356)
*The doctrines of the holy Trinity and salvation by grace are, in the words of Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie, “the two Great Heresies of Christendom.” He also said in a speech at BYU, warned students that striving for “a special personal relationship with Christ is both improper and perilous.” (March 2, 1982)
Again, one of the attractive features of Mormonism to Mormons, is that it opposes Christianity. These folks would rather follow an occultist with a magic rock than the living God. Thus is the deluding influence of the spirit of darkness that permeates Mormonism. ExMormons call the mental and emotional contortions that Mormons must go through to maintain faith in this corrupt and false system “mind bending”. And so it is!
The list is actually endless of what needs to be pointed out regarding the false religious system of Mormonism. God’s people have been fighting heresy since the inception of the Church. Mormonism isn’t so much a heresy as a deceptive religious system that seeks to keep hidden the hideous and blasphemous teachings of its prophet-wolves.
I’m confident that if Mormonism is exposed there will be two effects. One, those that might be seduced by the cult will be warned off and two, those within the cult who are beginning to see the corruption of the Mormon system and its teachings, will be given a clear path out.
grindael
for all the brevity But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.
interestingly enough Peter is also concerned with those who would “add” to the original truths (Jude 4)…how ironic that the modern academic Ev would invoke this scripture while not realizing that many view the Ev in this same light. For as you clamour about concerned with the “importance” of virgintiy, you sully the atonement and the truth of Jesus Christ.
falcon
you will not answer because you can not answer, but let us reveal this to everyone here
who is the father of Satan? Where in the scriptures does it state that Satan was created by someone/thing other than God?
(warning-dont go by way of Ezekiel 28:15, because that just further supports ‘free-will’)
…and as if you are determined to fulfill the prophecy of 2 Peter 2:1 – the LDS church does not teach, and therefore is not “proud”, of Jesus being conceived by physical sex (typical perverted twisting by Ev)
…wow, your hair is as dirty as it has ever been.
genius
I used to be a mormon missionary, remember? I am well aware of how that scripture is used by smithians… but in the light of truth, it shines the brighter on smith the lecher, smith the adulterer, perverter of young women, smith the liar and false prophet.
Of course you shroud you answer with ‘the LDS Church does not teach’ hiding behind the ‘watered down’ standard works.. those were picked clean long ago of all the errors originally there…
What you can’t get around is your prophets taught it, believed it, and had no unity between themselves on any of their heinous speculations.
smith never met Peter or any of the other apostles, they would have been sick to come near him. Your ‘Jesus’ was sullied by those wolves long ago, and exposed to the light, and backed into a corner like McConkie was, he could not help but call Young a teacher of false doctrine. If you live by ‘those prophets’ you will die by ‘those prophets.’
Sub,
How do you know Jude did not get it wrong like Matthew? Same goes for Ezekiel or Peter? Who is to say that the passages where you think you learned about the atonement or free will were not wrong (again like Matthew)? How or why is the atonement central but the virgin birth is not?
Ah the paralel universe of Mormonism. The point isn’t who created a being that became known as Satan, the point is that Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers. I’ll help out a little bit here. Mormonism: mother and father god procreated spirit children. Jesus and Lucifer are both the spirit children of the Mormon god and his goddess wife.
Now what better way for Satan to attack God as he did as Lucifer, wanting to steal God’s glory. In Mormonism, Jesus isn’t “God”. He is merely a spirit offspring. It’s repulsive blasphemy and if someone is a Mormon they are stuck with this hideous attack on the very character and nature of God. But remember “the more obscure and convoluted an idea, the more profound it must be” to a Mormon. Talk about a total flip of the brain!
We have had endless quotes here by Mormon false prophet-wolves concerning the means by which the Mormon god impregnated the Virgin Mary. It’s pretty plain to all but our fully indoctrinated Mormon cultists what the Mormon prophet-wolves meant. It’s so hideous that even the Mormons can’t stand it but they are stuck with it.