If you object to the teaching of Mormon leaders that God the Father had physical sex with Mary, then BYU professors Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks say you have “a Neoplatonic and gnosticizing disdain for the material cosmos, a discomfort with the body and with sexuality.”
Get ready for a roller coaster ride.
Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks object to accusations that Mormonism is not Christian for denying the virgin birth. They dismiss it as “scattered nineteenth-century speculations,” forgetting Mormonism’s twentieth-century “speculations.” They say it’s unfair to “[hold] Mormons to statements that they and their own leaders have never deemed authoritative or binding,” yet overlook the fact that Mormons look up to their leaders as prophets and apostles, not as mere pastors and teachers. But in case you thought they were repudiating their own leaders’ “speculations” that God had sex with Mary, they go on to claim that “the New Testament is not specific about the mechanism of Jesus’ conception.” So our problem with these “speculations” is unfounded. And apparently the Protestant denunciation of the idea that God had physical sex with Mary is just “a Neoplatonic and gnosticizing disdain for the material cosmos, a discomfort with the body and with sexuality.” And besides, they argue, “While certain early Mormon leaders may occasionally have reinterpreted the concept of ‘virgin birth,’ they never for a moment suggested that Jesus was begotten by a mortal man, nor that his father was any other personage than God.” Oh! That makes me feel better. It’s not another mortal man who may or may not have had sex with Mary. It was the immortal man who had already graduated from his past mortality. In any case, they tell us that “history is replete with such groups as the ancient Ebionites and the modern Unitarians, to whom both scholarly and common usage refer as Christian, who nonetheless reject the Virgin Birth and deny the divinity of Christ. How can those groups be described as Christian, and the Mormons not?”
After reading this, can you at least see a little why people feel inclined to call Mormonism a theological cult?
You tell me what goes on in the minds of people that they would even begin to try and come up with an explanation for blasphemy?
And then, there are Mormons who swallow it all hook, line and sinker.
We see it all the time here on this blog. But in cults the most horrendous, obnoxious, blasphemous concepts are seen as “normal”. Well within cult religions like Mormonism, it is “normal”. In fact in cult religions like Mormonism, the more off the wall and convoluted an idea is, the more it’s embraced. That’s the mind set of the cultist.
What’s working here is the idea within the mind of the cultist that a person has to really be special and super spiritual to understand these deep truths. How do we think that Joseph Smith sold the idea of polygamy? The guy was a master of deception and manipulation. It’s the process of, over time, breaking down the inhibitions of people and to over come their reluctance to get involved in activity that, in their gut, they know is wrong.
We really see how far down the tubes Peterson and Ricks have gone. There thinking and attitudes are beyond twisted and demented. And guess what? They thoroughly enjoy being twisted and demented.
This is just disgusting and blasphemous. I’d rather assume the safe route that it was a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit than take my chances on a very risky, blasphemous claim like this.
As a side note, I HAD to share this with my mrm peeps.
On Friday evening, my husband and I were having dinner when he told me that he now believes he was a member of a cult. He has officially, in his heart at least, left the Mormon church!!! Can we please give God a round of applause for delivering another one out of deception? This took 15 years of prayer. He’s still unsure of certain Christian doctrines (such as the Trinity), so please pray the Lord gives him clarity on these issues. At this point, it’s staying between us because he’s afraid of what his family would think. However, he believes there are others (that he’s close to) that also would like to leave but can’t for fear of the reaction. I’ve learned long ago that God is the one who has perfect timing, not me. I refuse to push him to do anything he’s uncomfortable with. Anyway, I just wanted to share with y’all. Mrm has been a huge blessing for me by giving answers and encouragement when I’ve needed it. Thank you so much!!
I have to point out one thing.
Could someone please actually answer the question asked by these professors? It is put in as the final remark here, and it seems that merely asking the questions is given as proof of cult status. This seems odd.
So, let us ask this again.
Are the Ebionites Christian, even though they deny the virgin birth and divinity of Christ?
Are the modern Unitarians Christian even though some reject the virgin birth, and all reject Christ’s divinity?
Speaking of the Virgin Birth, the Bible does not give the details. In fact, the only place that this is actually mentioned is in Isaiah, where it says “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Not that I am professing belief in actual sexual relations, but where in this is such contradicted?
Think a moment: If there was such a relation then it is still true that Mary was a virgin before it occurred, and she did in fact bear a son. The account of the Bible easily supports it, so what makes it such blaspheme?
Just asking here?
First ok I will answer their question – Ebionites or Unitarians who deny the virgin birth and divinity of Christ are not Christians. That wasn’t hard.
What makes it blasphemy??? Let us suppose for a moment that the Mormon idolatrous view of God is true – that God in fact has a body and can/does have sex. Ok then the Mormon account now is a story of Elohim having sex with his daughter. So this is plain language is both adultery – Elohim is not married to Mary, and incest. Which part of that do you want to affirm?
Peterson and Rice’s gnostic complaint is almost funny if not so sad. It was the Greeks who by the time of the NT had questioned their own chief deity “Zeus” who seemed to have nothing to do but take on human form to have sex with human girls. The gnostic belief was concerned with the divine being (aeon) being trapped in matter. Christians don’t deny or put down matter – we bless it and are thankful for it. We also affirm the scriptures which teach that the Lord God who is a spirit and not material. The professors make a classic category error.
The virgin birth is not a miracle at all in the Mormon sense. The fact that she was a virgin before she had sex – is true of all virgins by definition. It might almost be a miracle to find a virgin today (sad and bad joke) – but the miracle is that she didn’t have sex and Jesus was conceived.
I could address Shem’s questions but as far as I’m concerned that’s really not the issue here. The issue has to do with how cultists think. MAM reports that after fifteen years her husband has come to the conclusion that Mormonism is a cult. Now my guess is that MAM’s husband has at least average if not above average intelligence. So this cult type of thinking really doesn’t have a lot to do with intellectual horsepower.
One of our former Mormon posters told me that it took him five years to get the Mormon form of thinking out of his mind. Sandra Tanner emphasizes how important it is to be patient with Mormons who are working their way out of the cult.
The fact that Shem has some “suppose” about our topic at hand here, speaks volumes about his mind set. All of the logic in the world can’t over-come the cult mind-set. Something has to snap; an “ah-ha” moment has to occur for the “contemplative” stage of thinking to commence.
Folks in cults just have a different way of thinking.
This doctrine is an example of leaving well enough alone , but some Mormon leaders
just could’nt let the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ birth alone as they proceeded to
enlighten their flock with more “truth” about this event. Claiming to relay inside
information from God that only they are privileged to do having been exclusively
allowed to know the mind and will of God and be the conduit God uses to reveal
those deep truths through, it’s no surprise that this doctrine came to be taught by
these men. Considering their God is only a common exalted man who with His wives
“peopled” heaven with children, why not the same with a mortal woman on earth?
We have the choice to accept what was taught by a apostle in the N.T. : Jesus was
begotten by the Holy Ghost , or what was taught by a Mormon apostle in these latter
days : Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost . I’m not going to take it much
farther than that in choosing which apostle’s teaching to embrace. We’re talking about
a miraclous event here , so either take the simple testimony of the N.T. or the
teaching of Mormon leadership about this event because of their claim of being given
the inspiration and power to exclusively, ” comprehend purposes of the Almighty” .
Shem, from what I read in Church curriculum those even today who believe that
Jesus was only ” a revolutionary leader-but not divine ” are to labeled as anti-christ
2Jn 7 is cited, [ Melchiz. Priest.course of Study-1968-9,p76].
So the question becomes, is an anti-christ a Christian?
Let me re phrase that last question I asked : is a anti-christ a true Christian ?
Mam, great news ! I’m happy for you and will praying for your husband.
MaM, thank you for sharing the great things the Lord has done in the lives of both you and your husband. May God continue the work He has begun in your husband’s heart. A round of applause and a hearty Amen! God is good.
Praising Him with you,
Sharon
MaM,
Does this mean you now need to change your Moniker? LOL. congrats, hopefully this will result in other Mormons have the courage to either leave the church or question it.
So Shem.
What would be so outrageous about the Mormon Heavenly Father having homosexual sex (I won’t describe it any further) with a man he wants to be sealed to in the Celestial Kingdom? They can’t procreate but the act shows how much the Mormon Heavenly Father loves his male spirit off-spring who is now a human creature with a physical body.
Get that image in your mind and hold it there. Think about it. Visualize it.
Do you find such a thought/image repulsive and blasphemous?
OK now transfer that feeling and you’ll know and understand how we Christians feel about the Mormon prophet Brigham Young’s revelation. Now in some regards we know that Brigham Young was talking about the Mormon Heavenly Father so he wasn’t talking about God. So I suppose we Christians shouldn’t get all bent out of shape after all.
Did you ever stop to think about the fact that the Mormon Virgin Mary would actually have been the spirit daughter of the Mormon Heavenly Father? I think a case could be made for incest but who cares it’s Mormonism.
This is what I meant by the fact that Mormons think differently than Christians. Walter Martin said that Mormons could think rationally in every phase of their lives but not when it came to their religion.
Ask a former Mormon how their thinking processes have changed since they came to the realization that Mormonism is a cult. I bet MAM’s husband has had a significant change in his thinking.
There’s a reason why the Bible says that we should guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. It’s also why the Bible says we are to take every thought captive. Mormons allow their minds to be influenced by false prophets in a way that takes them away from God.
I am not as kind as the good Doctors at the Maxwell Institute when they say,
“(and we will deprive ourselves of the great entertainment that would ensue were we to call our Protestant critics to account for every speculation advanced by their pastors and reformers of the past five centuries).”
I find it hard to get anyone here at mrm to teach why they accept certain “true teachers” and call others “false teachers”. Since there is very little pro-Christian teaching to go with the wrongful idea that is taught about Mormons not being Christians, all I can go on is that if a link is not pro-Mormon then you must think the teachings come from “true teachers” and what they teach is what you believe.
Honz1
Thank you for answering.
As to the theory of Christ’s conception, I don’t feel the need to affirm any of what you said. As I said before, I am not agreeing with, nor am I denying the concept. However, if it is true it does not follow that it was adultery or incest. These are ideas that are brought to the minds of people who do not fully understand the doctrines of the church, and are false conclusions.
But that doesn’t really matter to the point I was making. The simple fact is that the Biblical account does not make such a conception impossible. What makes it impossible for you is your own ideas concerning God and his nature, not what the Bible actually says concerning the matter.
As to the miracle, I have to disagree. But then we are arguing the meaning of the word miracle, which becomes pointless. In all truth, the Bible never describes Christ’s conception as a miracle, but as a sign (Isaiah 7: 14). The Miracle was who was born, not how he was born.
Mike
I think you miss the point. It doesn’t matter what we believe concerning these groups. I agree that they are anti-Christ. But that makes no difference.
What matters is that there are people who call these groups Christian, and yet refuse to call the LDS Christian based on an idea that these other groups share.
In other words, those who want to say we are not Christian for not accepting their concept of the virgin birth must also say these groups are not Christian; if not they are hypocrites and should be ignored.
Falcon
Everyone thinks in a different way, and only the ignorant claim otherwise. I guarantee that the way you think is vastly different than the way an Italian Catholic thinks; or the way an Eastern Orthodox thinks; or the way an African Evangelist thinks.
We all think in a way that we have been raised and that has been influenced by our own experience. Just because someone doesn’t think in the way that you personally approve of is not proof of a cult.
Personally, I would love to see your credentials in Psychology that give you a basis for making these kinds of claims.
It actually sounds like perhaps these two Professors are coming around to seeing that their
hierarchy did in fact convey true doctrine to their flock about the Virgin Birth [ a exalted male
person came down and slept with a female person which naturally resulted in a baby –Jesus.]
Though the party line has been to deny this doctrine has been taught by those in leadership
positions it could be that these two Professors are coming to see that this behavior is counter
productive since they also tell everyone that the only source for pure, un- polluted doctrine
guidance is following the living oracles of the Church because God exclusively uses them to relay
His important spiritual truths through to His church . As there are Mormons today who have no
trouble with embracing what Brigham Young and other apostles taught on this , I’m sure
that fact is not unknown by these two professors. This episode is why the Mormon people would
have been better staying with what the apostles in the New Testament taught about the Virgin
Birth and anchoring there , instead of following apostles who felt they could move beyond that by introducing “new light” on this important doctrine . This would’nt be the first time that
some religious teachers tried to introduce doctrine not in accord with what the apostles
of Jesus taught—2Pt 2:1 We are all warned to beware of false prophets/apostles in these
latter days —Matt 24:11,24
Thanks everyone. God is amazing. And yes, I’m praying that God will use him to reach others.
Rick, I may have to change it! lol! Just not sure what to now?
Your “true teachers” do not agree with each other, one says we have to do something to be saved and another says that you can do nothing to help ourselves.
Why do two of your “true teachers” teach opposite ideas?
Is it because men are adding scripture definitions to the Bible?
“Only those who personally choose to believe in Christ are saved. This is the consistent testimony of the biblical Jesus.”
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Invitation.html
To “choose” is to do something.
“We believe that God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life.”
http://www.aomin.org/articles/statement.html
PS Has anyone found in the Bible where God says He will not give more scripture?
shematwater – Now you have me confused. If a father has sex with his daughter – this is not incest? If a man who is married has sex with a woman he is not married to – this is not adultery? Please explain how this does not follow given what the church leaders have taught.
Mike
So, are you agreeing with the point I made? You don’t really seem to address it again, so I am curious.
As to everything else you say; while I neither accept nor deny this theory, I do not see any difficulty in it. But that doesn’t really matter because these professors are correct in that the idea, while taught, was never considered binding doctrine, and thus to reject it or accept it makes no difference as to a person’s standing in the church. It is a concept that many believed in the past, and that many believe today. But it doesn’t matter because believing it or not has absolutely no effect on eternal salvation.
Honz1
As I said, it requires a full understanding of the doctrine, and that is why it is no longer taught and why it was never presented as binding doctrine.
Note that when I say a full understanding I do not refer to that doctrine that is required for one to attain exaltation. I refer to that which has been revealed in the past, but which is not vital to our salvation, and is the extra that given to the faithful. When the faith of the people lessened so did the outpouring of the spirit and thus the understanding of these doctrines, as they are meant only for those of truth faith.
Without discussing too much detail, let me speculate.
First, there is nothing that says the Father was not married to Mary. In fact, several of the Leaders have expressed the opinion that they did have a marriage relation of sorts, though the exact nature of it has never been fully revealed.
Second, consider that it is in the standard works that many gods participated in the creating of this earth (see Abraham chapters 4 and 5). So, if many gods worked to build this earth, can we not assume that the children of all these gods have been born onto this Earth? As such, Mary is not necessarily the Father’s daughter, but his niece. Abraham married his niece.
Considering the doctrine in full, neither of your conclusions are required, and thus neither one really matters.
honzi,
You just made my day. You have entered and exposed the realm of cult thinking.
Ask anyone who has spent any time at all in apologetic work with Mormons and they will tell you a couple of things. First of all, Mormonism is a maze. It’s an Alice in Wonderland world. It’s the Mad Hatter. The normal rules of logic are suspended. It has to be this way for the Mormon because it’s the only way that Mormonism works for them.
I must admit to getting frustrated but then I have to go back and remind myself of two specific things. Number one, this is cult thinking. Number two these folks have given themselves over to a spirit of deception and have had their minds seared. They are rebels shaking their fists at God as my friend Andy Watson says.
Listen, these folks believe that an angel with a sword appeared to Joseph Smith and threatened him with death if he didn’t practice polygamy. Now seriously, who’s going to believe something like that? That’s why at a certain point I won’t engage in certain discussions with Mormons because it just serves to reinforce their cult thinking.
Former Mormons feel a tremendous sense of relieve and after a time a new feeling of well-being. People don’t know that they have been walking in darkness until they find the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Here’s a good video that illustrates my point. I think Aaron has posted it at one time or another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2I9LpDF708
honzi , you stated it succinctly when you said about the virgin birth, ” but the miracle is that
she did’nt have sex and Jesus was conceived . ” Amen . That’s what followers of Jesus have
been taught . Even those people who joined the Mormon church when it was first established
were taught that as gospel truth —-for a while . When in Utah the hierarchy offered new light
on the scriptural testimony in the Bible , by refusing to stay on solid ground they drifted into
adding to what Matt and Luke have simply recorded, and ended up with Jesus’ birth being
the result of God coming down in person to visit Mary and sleeping with her .What we look upon
as a supernatural event is only a natural one [ a male and female making a baby etc] to Mormon
leaders, so we have to disagree with them here . It would be nice if this would be taught at
Conference next month , that way all LDS and investigators could decide who to
follow —either Jesus’ original apostles or Mormonism’s apostles.
This is the problem I have. According to the Bible, Joseph thought since she was pregnant that Mary His soon to be wife cheated on Him, and he was going to divorce her in a privet way so as not to embarrasses Mary. God told Him in a dream to Marry her since she did not cheat on Him.
So If God the Father really did have sex with her, we have a problem. First off, If God did not marry her before hand, She committed Fornication. The Bible teaches this is wrong and is sexual immorality and all who practice sexual immorality will not enter heaven. If God Married her first, then the Bible neither mentions this, and means Joseph married a women already married. That also poses a problem.
MaM, You can change your moniker to MaFM, Married a former Mormon, LOL.
The following I offer on this thread . When the Mormon leadership decide to distance
themselves from a doctrine once taught by their former colleges ,( usually in an effort to
appear closer to mainstream christian community and thus attract more converts) , they
allow the paid apologists (BYU) to handle the heavy lifting in trying to convince their
flock and investigators of the change , then this activity trickles down to non-paid apologists
of whom we have had visit here. So it is important that anyone desiring to know exactly what
Mormon leaders have taught to their flock in recent years then go to the source , not paid
or non- paid apologists . Remembering that Mormon authorities claim to be appointed by God
to provide reliable, consistent gospel teachings , that to keep His doctrines pure God has one
source , one channel, in these latter days —Mormon prophets . Following is some relevant
info on this issue of the virgin birth and Mormonism that may address some of the questions
raised on this thread: For some time it has been the party line by Mormons speaking publically
to say concerning if the Mormon church believe that God and Mary had sex to conceive Jesus ,
” The church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived …” This is their answer today
but was this always what was conveyed by Mormon authorities ? Past Mormon teachings are
only speculation , not doctrine say some Mormon apologists. They sure seem to use this tactic
a lot . But when Mormon apologists pull their “speculation” card, might they be offering only
their own speculation ?
cont.
Shem brought up how we differ in our belief on what is a miracle , he’s right, and that makes it
difficult sometimes in talking with some Mormons. Now Mormon authorities have said that
Jesus’ conception is a miraculous happening . They have said that Mary was a pure woman
( law of Chastity ) . I have always been taught that she had never had sex with any male
before Jesus’ birth — a impossibility , a miracle . The twist Mormon leaders have added since
they departed from simply accepting the Bible’s ( and BofM) testimony many years ago is that
Mary did’nt have sex with a common ordinary male , rather God came down in person and slept
with her and that resulted in the “virgin” birth of Jesus . I think that the Scriptures teach
that Mary became pregnant without any kind of help from any kind of man , or a man of any
kind — neither the un exalted or ” exalted” variety . We find out from Mormon apostles
that God is a polygamist in heaven . Amist His wives and a vast number of maternity wards He
chose to acquire another wife , this one on earth — the pure woman Mary . Again concerning
Mormon teachings about God this is not surprising , albeit it might be shocking to many LDS
now. What about this view of the virgin birth being not binding on LDS as a gospel truth ?
While it’s certain that a church wide vote was never taken to make it binding on all members,
still , since when did that stop many LDS from practicing/believing an important doctrine
their leaders were ? Mormon leadership is still accountable–Gal1:8
Shem, concerning your question about what the two BYU professors stated about the
Unitarians beliefs etc. You said , ” In other words, those who want to say we are not
Christian for not accepting heir concept of the virgin birth must also say these groups
are not Christians ; if not they are hypocrites and should be ignored.”
I do believe those groups are not Christian . In my opinion a Christian believes that Jesus is
God (His Divinity) and His virgin birth . I do not believe that Mormon leaders teach correctly
on those two doctrines and as such are false apostles , and for those Mormons who have
accepted their doctrines that puts their lives in jeopardy spiritually ,there is a consequence
in following false prophets—Isa.9:16 ; Matt 15:14 . This is not to say that everyone that sits
in a Mormon Ward every Sunday is not a Christian , those that know Mormon doctrine are
the ones in peril . , but I can’t judge the others hearts . These are in danger the longer they stay.
I’m aware that some Mormon authorities have declared that Mormons are the only true
Christians which is’nt surprising I guess . I think if we take the common dictionary definition
of “christian” then Mormons can be called Christians , but I have to embrace the Bible’s
definition for that term . Anyway , I lean towards what Seventy Bruce Porter said in a speech
a few years ago . After laying out why he feels that Mormons are Christians he stated :
a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate–unorthodox,HERETICAL
… but blanket statements that we are not Christians are a poor substitute for…informed
argument…”
Ok, Mormons at one time Taught Mary and God had sax, but then know people like Shem are saying it is not binding Doctrine. I’m calling BS on that and here is why.
I asked Shem and parkman, if LDS cannot agree with one another or even their prophets How can we Christians trust them to have the truth and why should we believe them over another Mormon?
Shem replied with this verse from the D and C
Now here is the Biggest part of the D and C I want to focus upon,
Now you cannot sit here and tell me I am twisting this, you quoted this saying this is how I know you are correct in what your talking about and why I can trust you. So according to this verse if the Holy ghost moves upon you, it is scripture. Now here is the problem, I suspect all LDS would agree with this verse if I asked them who do I trust? Also the LDS claim, the prophet is the only person who can speak for the Lord in everything. (cont)
So at one time, Mormon prophets and presidents who taught Mary and God had sex and believed this verse where therefore speaking Scripture. Mormons who heard LDS prophets or presidents claim Mary and God had sex and were aware of the teaching in the D and C were lead to believe they were teaching scripture. So it seems yet again we have a problem? Who do we trust and why?
As I said before, LDS pride themselves on claiming they have a prophet who speaks to God, then speaks to them, so how come these prophets never and I mean never seem to be able to go to God, pray about all these confusing problems, IE, Lack of evidence for the BoM, did Mary and God have real Sex, which of the first 9 vision is true, Blood atonement, Reformed Egyptian, Etc, and simply get an answer from God and then go forth unto a GC na dset the record straight once and for all.
It’s an easy answer, They are following a false god and cannot pray for answers since they know their god is false and they could not make something up that would make sense and answer everyone. And if they really prayed to the true and living God, He would tell them to repent of their false gospel and deceiving people and then the prophets would have no profit’s to keep their life style and then they would need a real job, and God forbid that should ever happen.
Get your mind out of your paints.
First off, we believe that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father and not the son of the Holy Ghost.
In response to a letter “received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 10: Do you believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, as described in Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35?
Answer: We believe that Jesus of Nazareth “was the only begotten of the Father.” It is not stated in either text cited that he was “begotten of the Holy Ghost,” and the contrary is described in Luke 1:35. It was the “power of the Highest” that overshadowed Mary, and Jesus was “the Son of the Highest.” The Holy Ghost came upon her, she “conceived” under the influence of that divine Spirit, but Jesus is nowhere declared as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but as “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14; Hebrews 1:5.)” http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Conception#endnote_penrose1
SECONDLY, since modern doctors can implant the male half of a baby in a woman without her losing her virginity, and in doing so create a healthy, normal baby; and God had to be smarter than modern doctors; I like to think of it this way, Heavenly Father begot Jesus and the Holy Ghost acted as doctor.
“As I said before, LDS pride themselves on claiming they have a prophet who speaks to God,…”
Mind reading, and not very well. Keep your day job.
“It’s an easy answer, They are following a false god and cannot pray for answers since they know their god is false and they could not make something up that would make sense and answer everyone.”
I am called a Troll because I keep asking you to prove that your version of Christianity is true. I believe you should treat your religions teachings and doctrine like you treat mine. Getting useful answers from you is like pumping water from a dry well.
THE TROLL
Rick,
You need to understand, as I know you do, that Mormons are fighting a losing battle. Their entire faith is based on one false premise after another and held together by a “feeling” that is their major indicator that their church is true blue.
It’s a sad thing but it’s the end result of a totally messed-up mind. We see this sort of thing with dysfunctional families who deny everything from physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, drug addiction, alcohol addiction and any number of other deviant behaviors.
Families will deny these things up and down hence the saying “the elephant in the living room”. In-other-words there’s this huge problem staring them right in the face and they can’t see it.
I go back to one of my other posts and ask the question regarding what former Mormons say about how they thought when they were Mormons. Typically they’ll say things like, “I can’t believe I believed that” and “Why couldn’t I see it?”.
It’s the LDS elephant in the room.
Speaking of the LDS people, “Their entire faith is based on one false premise after another and held together by a “feeling” that is their major indicator that their church is true blue.”
An interesting statement from someone who says he believes some because they are true teachers and does not believe others because they are false teachers. And all of this based on who agrees with him.
THE TROLL
(I am called a Troll because I keep asking you to prove that your version of Christianity is true. I believe you should treat your religions teachings and doctrine the same as you treat mine.)
Mormonism has a history of not only false and fraudulent claims, but of nonsensical thinking that should embarrass Mormons into silence.
We had a former Mormon who posted here at one time who wrote that he left Mormonism in part because he got sick of defending it. He figured it out. For those of us outside the cult it’s a mind-blowing experience interacting with those who buy this fraudulent religion.
When I began doing this I thought that all that was necessary was to point out to Mormons the clear evidence that Mormonism is built on a series of false claims. Then I realized that these folks think and process information in a whole different manner.
So we write here with the expectation that there are Mormons out there who have come to the conclusion that something just isn’t right with the religion they have pledged their time, energy, money and unfortunately their eternal destiny to.
A person thinking rationally would look at the information presented here regarding Brigham Young’s statement on the incarnation of Jesus and be appalled and sickened. Not the dedicated Mormon. He will spin himself into the ground and totally suspend credulity to come up with some fantastic explanation regarding what their prophet said.
There are any number of red flags within the Mormon narrative that should be a clear tip-off. Those who have come to the place where they have serious doubts about Mormonism will find ample evidence to support their notion to leave.
This is kind of an interesting quote that I wish I would have come up with to apply to Mormonism. It can be applied to all sorts of situations where people get taken in by people, organizations and movements.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Now people can get taken in by all sorts of groups. I have an acquaintance whose college aged son got taken in by what I’d call a Christian cult. Is there such a thing? You bet there is. Just because a group may have most of their theology lined-up in an orthodox fashion, the unusual amount of control they exercise over members could put them in this category. The parents, who are dedicated Evangelical Christians, are beside themselves not knowing what to say or do to get their son’s thinking flipped. The young man doesn’t see it because in some way his personality and life situation pre-set him for being taken in by the group.
This sort of thing was happening quite a bit in the 1970s with various religious groups. In fact I remember desperate parents basically kidnapping their kids and getting them deprogrammed. It’s a trial de-warping warped thinking.
Reality has to take precedence over ideology if someone is going to free themselves from cult thinking.
Parkman said
Parkman, I am calling you a troll because you refuse to listen and you keep bearing false witness.
You keep saying we listen to our true teachers. As I said, I quote the Bible, the teachers I quote are Jesus and the apostles. Near as I can recall, Falcon and Mike also quote the Bible and not popes, priests and other people. If and when we do quote prophets, or people it is LDS prophets and teachers.
So this makes the 3rd time I have told you this, Go back over the last few years, look over every topic and read everything I wrote, you wont find me quoting “Teachers”. I quote the Bible. If this were my blog I would ban you because you keep bearing false witness with out evidence.
Then you claim you keep asking us to prove our version of Christianity true. Again, do you not know how to read? I gave you a list of evidence proving the Bible true, for one you have not been able to disprove the evidence, and 2, I keep asking evidence from you and Shem to prove the BoM and Mormonism true, and outside of a feeling, you have not been able to provide evidence for reformed Egyptian, and archeology just for starts. So yes you are a troll.
“A person thinking rationally would look at the information presented here regarding Brigham Young’s statement on the incarnation of Jesus and be appalled and sickened.”
An honest, self-thinking person is able to see how this statement is designed to make the reader feel like Brigham Young meant something other than what he was conveying. This is odd because they say that you should not use your feelings when understanding religion.
“Then I realized that these folks think and process information in a whole different manner.”
Which is good considering that mrm is dedicated to get people out of Mormonism and it is blinded to any other idea. The idea of destroying Mormonism is so strong that mrm-ers have a hard time teaching what they think Christian really is. Just look at how they answer, or don’t answer the questions about their own faith.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.”
A very interesting quote, given how many teachers there are and how traditional Christians cannot agree on which teachers are “true teachers”. And the confusing idea that it takes extra Biblical revelation to prove that there will be no extra Biblical revelation tells a lot about who is truly bamboozled.
THE TROLL
(I am called a Troll because I keep asking you to prove that your version of Christianity is true. I believe you should treat your religions teachings and doctrine the same as you treat mine.)
RICK
Now you are changing your stories; altering your questions in your favor.
You asked how you could know, not how you did know. By what I said can know, but as I said in the rest of my answer (which you fail to mention), if you can’t feel the spirit you will never know, and that is not my problem.
I hold the Priesthood of God, and when I speak as his spirit directs it is scripture. The same is true of every other worthy priesthood holder. But the hearer must also have the spirit touch him so that his understanding may be enlightened. If you do not have the spirit you will never truly understand scripture, no matter who speaks it.
Oh, and your whole thing on fornication and the whole difficulty of the issue really doesn’t mean much. What God commands, and what God does is good and righteous. It matters not what men think concerning it, nor does it matter what he has commanded in the past. He is good, and that is all that really means anything.
For instance, God commanded men not to kill; yet when He came to Abraham and commanded that Isaac be sacrificed, Abraham did not say in his heart “God would not require such an act, for he has said it is evil.” He did not reason away the commands of God. He had the Holy Spirit with him so that he was able to recognize that the command did in fact come from God; and he had the faith not to question it, but to obey.
So, would the theory constitute sexual transgression on the part of Mary or Joseph? No; it was a command from God, and nothing he commands can be
Rick
You say ” You keep saying we listen to our true teachers. As I said, I quote the Bible, the teachers I quote are Jesus and the apostles. Near as I can recall, Falcon and Mike also quote the Bible and not popes, priests and other people. ”
But who wrote the Bible? Was it not men? Nothing in the Bible was directly written by the Father or Jesus Christ. It is all the witness of men concerning them. You accept them as true teachers, but why? What is your reason for doing so? How do you know that the apostles were right, and not false prophets?
You want to put the writers of the Bible into a different category, as if they weren’t men like everyone else. These are what you consider “true teachers” but you have nothing to back that up.
Now, you do mention a list, which I do not remember, but let us be picky here. Where is the proof of the Virgin Birth? Or of the resurrection? What of the miracles of Moses, or the Great Flood, or the Garden of Eden? What of Sodom and Gomorrah?
You have yet to prove any of this.
Speaking of the Book of Mormon, there is plenty of evidence for it; but it generally ignored by people like you, because you don’t want there to be any evidence. There is more evidence found every year, and when Christ returns he will declare its truth to the world.
There is no point in offering such evidence on a thread like this, however, because it will be ignored as has been proven in the past on so many other threads and blogs.
Rick,
One of the things we know for sure, and we can prove it looking back over the years we’ve been doing this, is that Mormons who show up here to defend Mormonism are, in a religious sense, seriously disturbed people.
They will defend a prophet who proclaims, not just speculates, that God had sex with Mary. This is way outside the scope of what is normal thinking. They will defend Joseph Smith’s polygamy and even his marrying girls as young as fourteen and women who were already married to other men. Pretty kinky stuff. These folks who defend and excuse these things are incapable of feeling shame regarding their prophets. There is no sense of decency.
On a positive note, Mormonism is experiencing a steady stream of people not staying with the program. There is a hard core group who have fallen below the level of reason. Not knowing Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior or experiencing the power of His resurrection, they have settled for a form of religion void of the Spirit of God.
The Bible makes it abundantly clear who Jesus was and what form His incarnation took. What Brigham Young proclaimed was the result of a man rejecting God and suffering the consequences of his (rejection).
The Bible tells us that if anyone is in Christ Jesus all the old has passed away. We are new creatures. Mormons need to turn to God and experience the new birth of the Spirit.
shemwater – You are dodging what the BYU profs have admitted and what your prophets said. After the fact whitewashing (e.g. they must have been married) and flat out denials of what your leaders clearly teach/taught (We are all, including Mary, Elohim’s children in the preexistent world) which means again that Elohim had sex with his own daughter in order to produce Jesus, are not helping your argument at all. The BYU profs face up to the complaints (sort of) and claim the problem is in the eye of the beholder. Hence the neo/gnostic ad hominum. But do you really think this build a case for Joseph as a true prophet who he and his prophetic food chain paint a very clear picture for all to see of God who is no different then the every horny Zeus or Krishna??? It seems much more obvious that the problem is not in the beholder, but in the doer. Your god committed incest, according to your own teachers. If you can spin that away, then your defense of multiple adulterer, polyandrous Joseph now comes into clarity. Do these things not violate your own conscience? Would you try and pull these kinds of stories on your wife/husband? I think deep inside you know this is morally bankrupt, and you are allowing your commitments to your religion to suppress what you know to be wrong. Incest is wrong, adultery is wrong, marrying a woman who is already married to someone else is wrong. You know this – I know this – we all know this. The true God has given you a conscience and you know the law of God in your heart.
It is like your prophets are laying out the old “well what are you going to believe – me or your lying eyes” line. The muslims have to play the same game when it comes to the clear pedophiliac and adulterous activity of their prophet Muhammed. All spins, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how repugnant, become possible to ward off the complaints of non believers. Is that really the game you want to be part of? You say that this was never a part of official doctrine – everyone on this blog know how problematic that idea is to pin down. But lets run with it for a second – are you happy with prophets and teachers who even think this way in their spare time as it were??? If my pastor were playing these kinds of games, he would be gone or we would be. So if the teachings are part of the mormon body of doctrine (clearly intended to be seen that way by Brigham and the others – the teachings and the teachers of those teachings are reprehensible. If your defense is still that its not official – then the teachers are merely reprehensible when they are off the clock – I am not sure that is an improvement of your position. I implore you to value God’s holiness, look into your conscience and see that they are not teachers of righteousness, but of filth and sin. Turn away from such men/people – and discover who the Lord really is. The Bible tells us who God really is and there is no other like Him.
“One of the things we know for sure, and we can prove it looking back over the years we’ve been doing this, is that Mormons who show up here to defend Mormonism are, in a religious sense, seriously disturbed people.”
“There is a hard core group who have fallen below the level of reason.”
Can’t prove your religion is true so you call us names to divert attention.
“On a positive note, Mormonism is experiencing a steady stream of people not staying with the program.”
Yes, the internet has helped make it easier for Social Mormons to find another society to interact with. Yet there are many of us that find our understanding of God’s latter-day-gospel, and our relationship with Christ, is improving because of your actions.
“The Bible tells us that if anyone is in Christ Jesus all the old has passed away.”
Nobody has bothered to reply to why two of your “true teachers” disagree on how this is done.
“We are all, including Mary, Elohim’s children in the preexistent world) which means again that Elohim had sex with his own daughter in order to produce Jesus, are not helping your argument at all.”
Do you also have a problem that Adam and Eve’s children had to marry brothers and sisters? If you condemn one action, you must also condemn the other, if you are to be constant.
“All spins, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how repugnant, become possible to ward off the complaints of non believers.”
I keep asking about the spin put on the Bible by forcing everyone to interpret God’s teachings through the man-made definition “Trinity”. Also, the idea about the Bible being the only revelation God will give and then proving it with an extra-Biblical revelation really makes one’s head spin.
THE TROLL
honzi,
Good post. You nailed it.
Now think about the contortions a person believing in Mormonism must go through in order to keep their faith in this scam afloat.
How much of their integrity, credibility, morality and just plain decency will they sacrifice on the LDS altar.
This is a problem for people who have as mottos, such things as “When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done.”, “Follow your leaders, they will never lead you astray.”, and finally “The church is perfect but the people aren’t.”
Mormons earn a merit badge for learning all of these abhorrent things about Mormonism and its prophets and still believing in Mormonism. There are even little mottos like, “Our leaders have answered all of that a long time ago.”, and “I learned that a long time ago and it doesn’t bother me one bit.”
Notice the phrase, “a long time ago”. That’s to give the impression that it’s old, out dated and not really up-to-date information. “It doesn’t bother me” sends the message of “Why does it bother you. Are you weak in your faith. I’m not.” “Our leaders have answered” translated means, “Are you questioning our leaders?”
I think your posts will be very useful to those Mormons who come here looking for answers. As to those who defend this trash, their spiritual odor is evident by how much they wallow in it.
Shem said
Wow Shem, You really are bound and determined to believe a lie and refuse to come to the truth as the Bible says.
You speak of this priesthood, yet no place in the Bible will you read Jesus or the apostles ever saying, You must have, or, it is required to have priesthood authority to do or say something.
Then it is your prophet JS who said, No man can see God and live with out the priesthood, yet JS did not have this priesthood when he had these 9 first visions. Yet I know as usual this is not a problem for you, you will go search Farms/fair and come back and give me some party line answer that you will feel answers that problem.
Then it was/is you church that teaches the prophet cannot lead the church astray and the prophet speaks for the Lord in everything. Yet it was your prophets that taught Adam God was/is scripture, Now you church teaches this is false. It was your prophets that Taught Blacks can never hold the priesthood and this is an everlasting law of God, yet again this changed.
Then it was your church and BoM that taught Blacks would turn White, but when that did not happen, it said, they will become Pure. I can see a black man turning white, but not pure. Yet I know, none of this bothers you.
Shem,
You definitely are on an ego trip! Did you really write this on your own or are you quoting one of those magnificent prophets of Mormonism?
“I hold the Priesthood of God, and when I speak as his spirit directs it is scripture. The same is true of every other worthy priesthood holder. But the hearer must also have the spirit touch him so that his understanding may be enlightened. If you do not have the spirit you will never truly understand scripture, no matter who speaks it.”
You really can’t believe this about yourself. I’ve read some pretty demented things coming from Mormons but this is beyond description.
Please explain to me who the spirit of Mormonism is. I want a description, precise and without all of the usual Mormon smoke screen.
And there’s more information proving the BoM is true (coming out all of the time)? You really do live in a dream world.
“As to those who defend this trash, their spiritual odor is evident by how much they wallow in it.”
I see you like to use the we and they mentality. Make them look bad by creating a feeling of them being less than you are. Using the mental picture of a pig in its pen helps you put across your weak argument by creating a feeling of sloppiness. And this on top of you teaching that it is wrong to depend on feelings. Talk about being a confusing teacher.
“…9 first visions”
You teach that one of the evidences that My Church is wrong is because all of the versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision do not have all the information from the whole of the First Vision in each of them. If I were to believe that then you are also saying that Paul is a false teacher because he related more than one version of his first vision and he like Joseph Smith, did not relate the same information in each instance. That means by applying your thinking to the Bible you would prove the Bible to be false. This is another reason that shows you are a false teacher.
“You really can’t believe this about yourself. I’ve read some pretty demented things coming from Mormons but this is beyond description.”
More mind reading with a big put down thrown in for good luck. Goes right along with the we verses them mentality that is taught here.
THE TROLL
(I am called a Troll because I keep asking you to prove that your version of Christianity is true. I believe you should treat your religions teachings and doctrine the same as you treat mine.)
True Parkman – Adam and Eve’s children married each other. This is allowed until the Mosaic law is given. But nowhere, NOWHERE is it allowed for a father to have sex with his children. Which is what your leaders have taught. This is not even touching the ontological problems that are inherent within your view of God and humans being the same types of beings.
You ignored the context of my spin comment. Please respond to what I said and not use it as an opportunity to go after other people on this board. Thanks
A final thought on this topic of the Virgin birth . That Mormon leaders conveyed the “how”
it happened was a natural act between any male and a female , and though the man
in this case was said to “exalted” ( a God) it still was taught as how any male and female produce
a baby . That this is such a unacceptable view of the V.B. is evident in how even most LDS are
shocked to hear of it. Is it binding on the whole church to believe it ? Does it affect one’s
salvation ? Many LDS embraced this doctrine because of their allegiance to their leaders to
be trustworthy guides in spiritual truth, and that is what ultimately matters to a person’s
spiritual welfare —either their leadership has correctly taught on this doctrine or
they did’nt , not the number of sincere Mormons who followed after them in sharing this heresy ,
one is to many , and there more than one . Can this doctrine adversely affect a person’s salvation
if embraced ? Well , the Mormon church has taught that a false view of the Virgin Birth can
affect the plan of salvation, that would tend to shed some light on the importance of this doctrine.
Interested persons can judge for themselves upon comparing what Mormon authorities taught
on this doctrine and compare that with what the N.T. teaches , then decide which is safe, sound
doctrine and worthy of their devotion –2Tim 2:15; 6 :3
Will this doctrine again be conveyed by Mormon leadership to their flock ? Perhaps at
next Conf. ? Those LDS who believe it would welcome that.
Parkman cited another reference to his apologetic organization for an authoritative Mormon
description of the Virgin birth. It Concerned Question #10 and a statement by Charles
Penrose . Some points to consider on this. Controversy was still present concerning the fact
that some LDS were still embracing Brigham’s teachings on Adam being the God for this
planet , the Father of Jesus’ spirit and mortal body etc. in 1912 . Joseph F. Smith was the
Prophet, as an apostle he had once embraced the Adam -God teaching of prophet Young, but
now faced with the struggle of discarding some of Brigham’s doctrines he had to convince his
flock that the identity of Jesus’ Father in the Virgin Birth was no longer Adam , it was rather
who Mormons today view as their Father God . Penrose used the official church magaizne to
publish the new view on this doctrine in 1912 , and following (1916). What’s interesting
about this whole issue is that even though Brigham was inconsistent in his 25 year
preaching on Adam , he once said that it did’nt matter if the Scriptures agreed with it or not but
under Joseph f.Smith discarding of Young’s doctrine the scriptures were declared to be the
established Standard used to reject it ! In recent years another Mormon apostle has declared
that Young’s doctrine is false teaching and worthy of damnation . So relative to Jesus’
“paternity” and who beget him at Bethlehem , Mormon authorities have failed to heed the
simple message recorded in Matt and Luke and instead have allowed many of their flock
to share in aberrant doctrine by teaching beyond what the Lord has actually revealed there.
Matt 24:11
Parkman,
why dont you and Shem go sit around a camp fire and tell stories. Shem claims that you guys read the Bible, you trust the Bible, Your church teaches the Bible, and he claims he has the priesthood proving he has god directing him. Yet You challenge the bible at every turn and clearly dont trust it.
Yet I would bet you would agree with Shem, that you also are a Mormon who has the priesthood and God is directing you. Yet you two dont seem to agree on the Bible and can it be trusted.
Then when I mention JS and his 9 first visions, the first you you do and always do is throw the Bible under the bus and claim Paul had two accounts that differ. So I will tell you the differences in the nine first visions, feel free to tell me the differences in Pauls account, then tell me why JS is not wrong.
Between the first and 9th account of this first vision the years go from 1827-1844 that is 17 years. So over a span of 17 years we have 9 first vision accounts. it is hard to keep the story straight and you can claim he added more info as he remembered it, but that wont fly since his info goes like this.
First he was 14, then he was15, then 16 then 17. Did he forget how old he was? If he did, he does not say so, he only changes his age when it supposedly took place.
then one account says it was God, then another Jesus, then another was simply an angel, then it was 2 angels that visited him, then another account claims, Many angels visited him. So which was it and why?
“Yet You challenge the bible at every turn and clearly dont trust it.”
It is not the Bible I do not trust, it is the manmade definitions you force upon God’s Gospel that I do not trust. You have not proven yourself a true teacher. Since the different accounts of Paul’s vision are in the Bible, you can line them up and see if they are word for word.
To look at Paul’s different versions of his first vision check out Acts 9, Acts 22, and Acts 26.
In Acts 26 is the only time he related the detail about Christ prophesying Paul’s work among the Gentiles.
(New Testament | Acts 26:16–18)
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Why would Paul include this previously unmentioned detail only on that occasion?
If you were to follow your own teachings about retelling you will prove the Bible wrong.
But, to keep from showing the Bible wrong you use one set of rules for my religion and you live another set of rules for your religion.
THE TROLL
(I believe you should treat your religions teachings and doctrine the same as you treat mine.)