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?
“First he was 14, then he was 15, then 16 then 17.”
I know of Joseph Smith speaking of being 15 and of speaking of being in his 16th year, but I do not know of him saying he was 14 or 17. This looks like you are being a false teacher who follows false teachers.
“If my pastor were playing these kinds of games, he would be gone or we would be.”
One of the problems with the religion I was born into was the same as you describe here. If we did not believe our minister was a true teacher, we just voted him out and found a preacher that said what we wanted to hear.
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.)
Parkman said
You appear to claim you believe the Bible, But then you say to me
So if your implying I can prove the Bible wrong, and you claim Paul contradicts himself, then you dont trust the Bible and you do feel it is wrong. And you wonder why I am not wasting time with you.
“So if your implying I can prove the Bible wrong, and you claim Paul contradicts himself, then you don’t trust the Bible and you do feel it is wrong. And you wonder why I am not wasting time with you”
I say that if you treated your religion like you treat mine, you would have to admit that it is wrong. It is a matter of you using double standards. You say that something that you think proves my Church wrong and then you do not ask the same questions about your church.
The example of the first visions of Paul and Joseph Smith is just an example. If you were true to what you say about Joseph Smith, you would have to also say it about Paul.
I am not saying that Paul is a false prophet, I am saying that your false teachers have lead you astray by teaching you that someone must say the same thing every time he speaks of an event in his life and then you become a false teacher by reteaching this false test as if it were true.
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.)
Let me say a few things.
First of all, I have noticed that throughout this entire discussion there have been almost no actual references given by any of the non-LDS, except for verses from the Bible.
Rick, don’t tell us what is in the accounts you mention. Give us the accounts.
Honz1, don’t tell us what you have read, but give us the references and quotes that show what you have read.
Mike, please provided the actually references for your claims on the Adam-God theory.
Since no one seems to be worried about actually, backing up what they say, I will join the party.
I have read more than one statement from the early leaders of the church that declared the Father was married to Mary. This they said because of the idea of the relation between the two.
I have also read, in more than one place, where the early leaders have stated directly that we are all spirit children born ‘unto the Father’ and not by him. Meaning that we are born into his family, and are thus under his authority and are part of his glory; but that he is not necessarily our literal Father. We are literally the children of Deity, all of us having a divine father and mother; just not all the same divine father and mother.
I have also read all the accounts of the First Vision. If my memory serves, only two are actually given by Joseph Smith, and have no contradictions. The others are what people say they were told concerning the event, and most were not even told by Joseph, but by someone else. As such they are second or third hand accounts and are thus meaningless.
Falcon
Until you can actually discuss things, rather than your usual tactic of personal libel, reputation bashing, and general antagonistic idiocy, I see no point in responding to anything you say.
I was very serious in what I said, and that is what God has declared. I don’t care if your limited mind can handle it or not. It will be verified when Christ returns.
Rick
Parkman is right. If we are to use your reasoning and standards then the Bible would be proved wrong. This does not mean we do not trust the Bible. It means we do not trust you.
On the other hand, when we use our reasoning and standards the Bible is proven to be a true record, inspired of God, and thus we can trust it to guide our lives.
Honz1
I have seen a lot of accusation, but so far I have seen no proof. I don’t have to justify anything. As I said before, you do not understand the truth of the doctrine, and until you do nothing I say will really mean anything as far as you are concerned.
Doctrines like Adam-god, blood atonement and God having sex with the Virgin Mary are the result of perverted thinking. The initial perversion is the manufacturing of a false doctrine of a restoration of something that never existed in Christianity, the Mormon priesthood. This faux priesthood is suppose to endue the Mormon male with all sorts of power and authority. What it does do , in fact, is lead to pride and all manner of false notions.
Being in a pre-god state, the Mormon male priesthood holder, believes he is on the road to deification. As such, ideas that come floating through his mind and spoke out of their mouths suddenly gain the near status of modern day scripture.
What are some of the other dandy ideas:
“Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.
“As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do — that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.
“He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
“In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your your eyes.”
(The Young Woman’s Journal, published by the Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion)
Again we have Falcon’s inability to actually discuss anything. He continually tries to tell us what we think, how we behave, and what effect or beliefs have on us. I have yet to see any credentials as to his authority in psychological matters, and yet he keeps insisting that he can somehow read our thoughts and motivations.
You may also notice how things generally work around here. The purpose of these threads is not to discuss, but to attack and destroy as much LDS faith as possible. The blog was originally about the concept of the virgin birth, and that topic has been basically exhausted. So what happens? Those seeking the destruction of the LDS faith have to start bringing in as much as possible to use in their relentless, and truly pointless attacks.
Such is the nature of the Adam-God, Blood Atonement, people and the moon, and all the other ridiculous stuff they want to through out there. They don’t want you actually listening to what is being said by the LDS, but rather they want to bury you in as much one line attacks as possible so as to confuse you and blind you to the truth of the LDS church. Don’t let them.
Shem,
You need to pay better attention to what we say. I am not trying to change the subject by mentioning Adam God, blood atonement, first vision etc.
You said the Mary God having sex issue is not binding doctrine. I said, you guys say this to every issue you don’t like or agree with, issues like Adam God, blood atonement, blacks holding the priesthood, etc.
It is at that point you or parkland then ask for evidence of these things, then when we bring it as you guys asked for it, then you put it on us like we are changing the subject or over whelming people.
Shem, Let me say that I’ve always tried to keep my comment on a particular
thread down to just one post at a time( but rarely have I succeeded). I have chosen
not mention most references that I cite from for this reason . So I’m going to ask
anyone who desires a reference to simply ask from now on . I would also ask that if
what I write does’nt seem to read right that you would ask what I meant etc . I try
and do this in reguards to others . Some people are gifted at being very articulate ,
I am not . So please ask. Now as reguards your question about my citing the Adam
God doctrine : this comes from Mormon sources by predominently Mormon
researchers/authors , a few I consulted: “The Position of Adam in LDS Scripture and
Theology, by Rodney Turner ; The Development of The Mormon Doctrine of God, by
Boyd Kirkland; ( Sunstone mag July/Aug 1980) Adam God, by David John Buerger
( Dialogue , Journal of Mormon Thought, v.15 Spring 1982. All these authors are LDS
and all agree that B.Y. taught the Adam -God doctrine . Though not all LDS accepted
it, many did , and this even led to worship of Adam . After B.Y. death it slowly began to
be de-emphasized then discarded . But it seems that some members were still confused
who Adam was in relation to Jesus ( this included His birth) hence the attempt by
Joesph F. Smith in 1912 to have Penrose publish the hierarchy’s view . This whole
episode tells me that I should anchor with the testimony in Matt and Luke rather than
the “new light” on the V.B. offered by any latter-day prophets–Titus2:1
That’s my opinion.
Let’s face it, there’s a certain small segment of the population that will be taken in by religious claims that folks showing any amount of discernment, can see through. Hence we get the Joseph Smith restored gospel scam. He started out pretty conventional in his religious doctrine but being the creative type, he started pushing the envelope. Those who followed him did the same. That’s why we get all of those bizarre teachings coming from Mormon leaders who fancied themselves prophets. As Rick pointed out, now Mormons have to do a whole lot of back filling to try and cover up the nonsense. Hence it is now called opinion or folklore. I’d just call it stupid and be done with it. But Mormons can’t do this.
So they have to do the Mormon mind meld which is on display here several times a day. The LDS church is hemorrhaging members. Once people lose their fear, get tired of the LDS grind and begin to discover the facts that the LDS church would just as soon hide, they’re out the door and they’re gone for good. Once people get a taste of freedom, start breathing some fresh air they aren’t going to bind themselves to a form of religion that is void of the Spirit.
As a former Catholic, I can tell you that those folks venerate the Virgin Mary. Now I don’t agree with their level of devotion to her, but it’s the opposite of the Mormon church who denigrate Jesus’ mother. My guess is that Our Lord and Savior is none too happy with this. I’d really not like to have to stand before Jesus and give an account of this much less the blasphemy directed towards God the Father.
I didn’t think this was that hard, but apparrently I am wrong.
The references for the Father having sex with his daughter are what the original article and thread are about. Seems like that is clear enough.
The references for Joseph marrying other men’s wives is found in many sources, but probably the best is faithful Mormon Todd Compton’s “In Sacred Lonliness” which goes into great detail of Josephs immoral activity.
Parkman – nice spin on what I said. My very clear reference was that if our Pastor was making The Lord God out to be a college frat boy who can’t stop chasing women – then we would get rid of him or leave. That has nothing to do with hearing what we want to hear. I think you know that. Please be honest with what I said.
“Please be honest with what I said.”
All I am saying is that if you were honest about asking the same questions about your own religion as you ask of mine, you would find the questions and statements to be bad. As demonstrated by some of the posters here, your crowd does not want to face the truth about how your crowd treats the truth about the LDS religion.
I was listening to the local radio station that mrm has broadcasts on (820 am). Since mrm is affiliated with this station, the other teachers on the station must also be true teachers of your religion. One of your true teachers was saying that I should check and see if someone who is trying to teach me religion has authority from God to teach religion.
Following your “true teacher’s” advice, please show your authority to teach religion.
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.)
BE HONEST AND TREAT YOUR RELIGION THE SAME AS YOU TREAT MINE
That sounds like something the FLDS might ask of Thomas Monson . Or perhaps this
is something that Hymenaeus and Philetus [ 2Tim 2:17] would have retorted to Paul.
Fact of the matter is that there is a standard to follow if one accepts Paul as one who
received his standard from Jesus Himself , this is disclosed in Gal. 1:6. Mormons
once declared the Bible as revealing sufficient truth about how a person could
be made right with God and receive His fullest blessings and eternal life in heaven .
But men can veer from that gospel of salvation and such happened to those who led
the Mormon church . Paul wanted Timothy to follow the pattern of sound words that
he had learned from Paul , then Timothy could pass that sound doctrine down to
others . But like Mormon leaders have done , so did men in Paul’s day, they swerved
from sound doctrine and wandered away into embracing another gospel , an imitation ,
a look alike , but one that had revised Pauls’ gospel by adding their own ideas they
felt were from God’s Spirit , this diluted the true gospel of salvation rendering it
unable to save those who embraced it . Nothing is new even today .Is the true
gospel that Paul preached being revised by those who claim to be prophets for
our day with a testimony that they heard from God to deliver new requirements
for receiving eternal life from Him ? the choice seems clear : choose to embrace
what the New Testament records is the gospel that saves or what or modern day
prophets have added as being necessary. If the recognized standard is what Jesus
gave Paul to teach, then we’re all on the same page by starting there.
Now do the same with your religion.
Pay extra attrition to where the idea of the trinity was added and is not in earlier versions.
I John 5:7-8
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.)
Parkman,
You really need to stop. You keep saying,
So since you keep saying it, let me break this down again for you. Your called a troll because You dont care what we say, you ignore what we say, and no matter what we tell you, you simply say we are wrong and dont have a clue. It really is hard to prove something to you when no matter what we say or show you, you either ignore it, or dont care.
As far as you saying
Let me share something things with you, I dont have religion, I have a relationship with the true and living God and that is exactly what Christianity is. It is a relationship not religion. Religion is man trying to work his/her way to God, relationship is God Died for us and is seeking to have fellowship with us. The entire story of the Bible is God creating us, us falling away and sinning, Then God trying to redeem us through the death of His son.
They had a video posted on MC about Religion vs relationship, It is Jesus and… That is religion, or Relationship, Jesus (Period). Nothing more. Jesus even said on the cross, it is finished.
Now as far as you keeping on about us treating you the same, Did you ever stop to think how your church treat us and things your church said about us? I bet you dont care what your church has said about us or thinks about us. Lets re-cap for you. (Cont)
(Cont)
Lets see, It was YOUR PROPHET that claims God spoke to him and said what we Christians believe and teach is an abomination in the sight of God. So I think it is ok for us to defend what we believe, that and the Bible does tell us to contend for the faith.
Then it is YOUR SCRIPTURE that states1 nephi 14:10
Wow, Whore of the earth and mother of abominations? Really? So why can your leaders and scripture teach this and we cannot say anything back?
Now lets see what else your leaders have said about us Christians.
So we are ignorant people? John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr Taylor)
Heber C. Kimball christians-those poor, miserable priests brother brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (j.o.d 5:89)
Whoremasters? Thats what we are? And what were you saying about us treating your religion the way you treat us? You might say, I dont believe that, or I did not say that, but it was said, and we can defended ourselves. (Cont)
Now you always saying we never listen to you guys or your leaders, so let me refresh your memory, I do listen to your prophets and sometimes do, do what they say, here is a few examples.
Read pg 188 of Doct of Salvation vol 1.
So I am doing what your prophet said and yet you dont like it? Here is another one
If I am your enemy which I don’t feel I am but if I am it says meet me in public to talk about this stuff. Jesus said love your enemy.
D and C 66:7 68:1,9 go into the church’s public or private to discuss this stuff. D and C 6:9-11 say convince us of our error if we have any. why do I get accused of being hateful for doing what the scriptures teach.
One last one for you parkman. (cont)
Parkman, re-read what I said, you missed much. I gave you my reason why we should
all abide by the standard that is the N.T. if we claim we are followers of Jesus . That is
where we can start , and if there is anything that I hear that goes beyond that then I
personally will be skeptical and proceed with caution ever mindful of the danger of
being misled by false prophets/apostles today. I do not take my belief in the Trinity
any farther than the Bible , especially the N.T. This is my opinion, if you disagree
then that is your right . Now let me say that I’m pondering the decision to no longer
respond directly to you unless you drop that ridiculous ending to your comments .
It’s silly .
Orsan Pratt the seer pg 15.
.
I am just trying to look at Mormonism in a logical way and point out what I believe are problems. I find it interesting that Mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks. but it does not appear to be that way today.
When Jesus said that He was the truth, the way and the life and no one could get to the Father except through Him, He meant just that.
No religious system can take the place of the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing someone to God the Father. Mormonism is a religious system that teaches those who follow its false prophets that if they contribute 10% of their income, put on funny costumes and go to a temple and participate in some rituals borrowed from the Free Masons and conform to certain behavioral standards they will become gods. Not only that but the men are promised if they get in line with the teachings of the false prophets and do all of the above, they will be granted something known as the Mormon priesthood which comes with all sorts of power and authority.
Is it any wonder then, that we get these male Mormon posters who can’t even begin to think straight. They are fighting like mad to preserve something which at every turn promises them deification in the next world and power and authority in (this one).
Rick has rightly pointed out that Christianity as we practice it is not a religion it’s a relationship with Jesus Christ. In order to have such a relationship a person actually has to know who Jesus is. Mormonism is not only a false religious system with false prophets and teachers but it is also a religious system with a false god. Borrowing some names from the Bible and applying (those names) to certain manufactured deities will lead to a result the opposite of what is promised for those who know God.
The Bible tells us that people will reap what they sow. Mormons have sown a seed which will lead to a crop failure.
If you are goingto reference an idea, you need to look at thewhole of the idea.
“If we cannot convince you by reason nor by the word of God, that your religion is wrong, we will not persecute you, but will sustain you in the privileges, guaranteed in the great Charter of American Liberty: we ask from you the same generosity — protect us in the exercise of our religious rights — convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds. Come, then, let us reason together, and try to discover the true light upon all subjects, connected with our temporal or eternal happiness ; and if we disagree, in our judgments, let us impute it to the weakness and imperfections of our fallen natures, and let us pity each other, and endeavor with patience and meekness to reclaim from error, and save the immortal soul from an endless death.”
I notice you leftoutthe part that says Come, then, let us reason together, and try to discover the true light upon all subjects, connected with our temporal or eternal happiness. All I get fromyou here at mrm is you following and teaching your unopen, narrow-minded understanding of myreligion. No reasoning together. In addition, I find a lack of willingness fromyou to teach what makes your religion right. The best I get is that your “trueteachers” agree with you so you follow them.
THETROLL
This should make mrm less uneasy about a Mormon President.
“So since you keep saying it, let me break this down again for you. Your called a troll because You dont care what we say, you ignore what we say, and no matter what we tell you, you simply say we are wrong and dont have a clue. It really is hard to prove something to you when no matter what we say or show you, you either ignore it, or dont care.”
As I see it, you are here to teach me what you think is the right way, but most of what I see is why the LDS Church is wrong. You do toss in a little about following the Jesus in the Bible, but the only thing you will say about which Bible only teaching is correct is that the one you believe in is the correct one.
(cont)
“Let me share something things with you, I dont have religion, I have a relationship with the true and living God and that is exactly what Christianity is. It is a relationship not religion. Religion is man trying to work his/her way to God, relationship is God Died for us and is seeking to have fellowship with us. The entire story of the Bible is God creating us, us falling away and sinning, Then God trying to redeem us through the death of His son.”
“Rick has rightly pointed out that Christianity as we practice it is not a religion it’s a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
re•li•gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Since you ignore the first and most widely used definition of religion I would like to know what “MC” stands for and I will need a link to your “true teacher” MC, whatever that stands for. I found this – – Mississippi College, affiliated with the Mississippi Baptist Convention, is a private, co-educational, Christian university. It is MC and it is teaches some of the
(cont)
“Now as far as you keeping on about us treating you the same, Did you ever stop to think how your church treat us and things your church said about us?”
Another proof that you care more about putting down the LDS Church rather than build up your version of religion, even though you do not call it religion.
“So I think it is ok for us to defend what we believe, that and the Bible does tell us to contend for the faith.”
I see lots of putting us down, and very little about what you think is God’s way. You cannot defend something unless you teach what it is you are defending.
“Whoremasters? Thats what we are? And what were you saying about us treating your religion the way you treat us? You might say, I dont believe that, or I did not say that, but it was said, and we can defended ourselves.”
What some of the leaders of the LDS Church have said offended you, so you spend your time offending instead of teaching what you think is the truth. As for treating your religion or non-religion as you call it, I just think you should ask your religion/nonreligion the same dumb questions you ask about my religion.
“I find it interesting that Mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks.”
I guess my postings here are “of old”, unless your statement is false. It is just that most LDS are more refined them I am. I have not given up all the habits I learned growing up in your camp.
(cont)
“I do not take my belief in the Trinity any farther than the Bible , especially the New Testament.”
I do not understand how you can believe with all the nonLDS proofs that the idea of the Trinity was added to God’s Gospel long after the New Testament originally was written. Of course, you disagree with these teachers so they are “false teachers” to you.
“When Jesus said that He was the truth, the way and the life and no one could get to the Father except through Him, He meant just that.
No religious system can take the place of the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing someone to God the Father.”
You must also think that Jesus did not form a religious system of authorized teachers, called apostles, to continue His work after he returned to Father in Heaven.
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.)
Mary was told she would become pregnant , she responded , ” How shall this be , seeing I
know not a man .” [Luke 1:34]. That has been the incredible message of the virgin birth ,
the story of Christmas . Mormon authorities are fond of claiming that they have been given
exclusive access to the mind and will of God and thus act as His sole channel which He uses
to reveal important spiritual truths to mankind. Thus Mormon leaders felt it was time to
reveal new light on the virgin birth of Jesus, the Bible’s account was by dead apostles , but the
living apostles of Mormonism reveal fresh new truth in these latter days. One such new
teaching is that despite what Mary proclaimed, she did in fact “know” a man , it was’nt Joseph
rather it was a human male who had come down from heaven .Mormons have called this man
“the first of the human family”. He had been born and raised on another world , had died and
resurrected became exalted and then God. He is busy with His many wives pro creating
babies in heaven, but He took time to come down to earth to wed Mary and father a child ,
who became Jesus. This was taught to be a natural act between a male and female and is said to
be a literal one not a figurative .This is what was conveyed by several prominent Mormon
leaders. One Mormon authority once said that the Jesus he believed in was one who has been
revealed in these latter days , the last dispensation by Mormon prophets.This is the point
here–prophets teaching about Jesus that are false,are false prophets .We are to Beware
of them—Matt7:15
Rick
Let’s be honest here. You are not here to discuss anything, and so your attempt to appeal to Orson Pratt is hollow and hypocritical. You don’t care what we say, because you are already convinced that you are right and nothing will ever change your mind in regards to the LDS church.
What you are here for is to lay out as many negative spins against the LDS church that you can, and hope that no one catches on to you. You purpose is not to save the souls of those you believed damned, but to destroy an organization and system that you feel some kind of personal hatred against. You try to justify yourself through guises of charity and love, but it cannot hide the truth.
You appeal to Orson Pratt, claiming that we are not willing to discuss like he was. The Problem is that he would have said the exact came things to you that we are saying, and he would have demanded of you proof. So far, you have failed to provide such, but have consistently insisted that because you believe it than it must be true.
You call Parkman a Troll, not because he won’t listen (as that is exactly what you refuse to do) but because he won’t cower and bend over to your supposed superior understanding of something that you have no clue about.
(Just note, it was Orson Pratt who vocally spoke out against your precious Adam/God theories, for which Brigham Young refused to action against him)
Mike
I will admit that my generalized statements are not generally made with you in mind. In all honesty, you are the only one here that I can actually believe has a desire to save others souls. I do not think you really understand the doctrine of the church, but I do believe you are sincere in what you are doing, and I thank you for that.
I do also thank you for your references, but let me just say one thing. Unless I have access to these books so that I can actually read them and verify what they say, as well as the sources they use to back up their claims, they do me no good. I appreciate that you read about some of the things you talk about in books written by historians, and that some of those Historians are members. But unless I am able to check what they say I have no real cause to believe it. I know there is a lot of credibility tossed around by them, and they are likely good sources, but they are not good enough for me to abandon my faith.
Please understand this. I am not saying to not make use of these writers, but if you really want to convince me of anything I need to be able to read it myself, and check the sources. Which means that actually quoting them would be a big help.
On other things; Galatians chapter one tells us not even to trust Paul or the other apostles. This passage does not make the Bible a guaranteed source of truth, nor does it make it the final authority on the gospel. What it does is makes God the final authority, as He communicates through His
(continued)
Speaking of the Virgin Birth, again what you quote does not mandate what you have accepted as truth. You quote Luke 1: 34 where Mary says she has not known man, and questions what the angel has said to here. In verse 35 the angel answers:
” And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Notice how the ‘power of the Highest shall overshadow’ her, clearly meaning that the Father was present, which is why Christ is called the Son of God. No details are given, but the account does not preclude this concept of natural conception.
When she made this statement she had not, as yet known man. She went without knowing man before she conceived, and until Christ was born she knew no mortal man. None of this is contradicted by the actual account as given in the Bible.
I understand why think it false, and why you call it heresy. But please understand that your declaration of this if not sufficient to prove it to be so. You have failed to reason out your position logically, and thus I am no more inclined to accept it than I am to accept a natural conception.
Shem said
Adam/God is not a theory, BY taught it and believed it and said it was scripture.
Heber C. Kimball, declared on June 29, 1856,
How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God…Then he said, “I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation…I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle…” (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308; Deseret Evening News,
Who was the Savior begotten by?….Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days.
(Pres. B. Young, Feb. 19, 1854; Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives; Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 179 in chronological order, Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11
Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God…It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven… (President Brigham Young, in the Tabernacle, General Conference, October 8, 1861, 10:30 a.m.; Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864, Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 in chronological order, Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8)
You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding…I do not believe that portion of the Bible…. (Pres. Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, Journal Of Discourses 2:6).
*******
Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” (President Brigham Young, April 20, 1856, Journal of Discourses 3:319).
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT of Days! about whom holy men have written
about whom holy men have written and spoken – HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. (Brigham Young, April 9, 1852. Journal of Discourses 1:50)
These references show that Brigham Young, show clearly that President Brigham Young taught that not only was Adam God, but that he was also Michael the Archangel, and he called it doctrine and a revelation from God.
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner. If you read this then I believe you fall under Inhabitant of the earth, B young said NOW HEAR IT.
this is his teaching.
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. pause. let me point out how can ADAM HELP MAKE THIS WORLD WHEN THE BIBLE TEACHES GOD CREATED IT FIRST WITH EVERYTHING GOOD TO GO, HE CREATED ADAM FROM THE DUST. Start up again, He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken– He is our FATHER and our GOD. and the only God with whom we have to do.
Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, MUST HEAR IT, and will know it sooner or later. notice B Young claims we will hear it sooner or later, and every man must KNOW IT. you fall under every man, you heard it. . This is very important here, notice B Young claims “Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause. notice he said all who hear, you heard and he said they are doctrines. resume, before they make
they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their SALVATION or DAMNATION.
Now Shem, Please do as you always do, reject everything your prophets said and taught, tell me I simply have no clue and really dont understand what was really meant, and in reality BY did not really say what he did.
Feel free to do this, but remember, your church has debated this issue believing BY meant what he said, and said what he meant, and your church calls it false and rejects it. That alone tells me your church fully understands what BY said and taught. If you believe Adam God, you are following a false prophet. If you reject What BY said, then your not believing and trusting your prophet and then how can you say he really is a true prophet if you cannot trust him.
But we both know, yet again this wont bother you and you will simply say I am wrong.
Shem, I agree with your comment about not being able to check any sources that I may cite .
However I’m going to continue to cite any source I feel is pertinent to the topic at hand as I
feel this is important , I cannot do otherwise . I realize that I may be in your shoes should
you do likewise with is fine with me . Concerning Paul’s warning in Gal.1:8-9 :
This is a valid criteria to use in evaluating anyone today claiming to be a prophet or apostle.
Jesus said that in the latter-days false prophets would be numerous and this is the
way I test their gospels . Is it the only test ? perhaps not , but if someone’s preaching fails that
test then it’s very incriminating . People were forgiven and received eternal life to live with
God by embracing Paul’s gospel of salvation when he preached in his missionary travels , that
same gospel can bring the same results today . I understand why you look at this differently
since Mormon leadership has chosen to supplement what Paul taught with additional
requirements for eternal life , but I see most any would be prophet today needing to take a
similar position in order to make room for their “new truths “. I can’t accept that coming as
it does 1900 years after Jesus sent apostles out to preach the gospel of salvation , that gospel
is still mighty to save . The legitimacy of Gal1 :8 is solid ,as a result it should be used today,
and it is—-even by Mormon authorities when they choose to warn their flock of other gospels .
Shem, concerning the Virgin Birth, as I mentioned else where this is a classic example of why
I can’t trust Mormon apostles . The fact that there is ” no details given “, as you say, is enough
for anyone to leave the testimony recorded in Matt. and Luke alone . But Mormon authorities
did’nt do that . Unlike you they were not so indecisive at declaring how Jesus was conceived .
They sought to convey to their flock how it was done —- a female “knew” a male etc. This
issue is a burr under the saddle of today’s leaders that they just can’t admit what was once taught
about it . Now you’ve given me your reasoning on this doctrine , that’s great. However , I think
those who preached this doctrine in the first place knew a little more about it than you.
But thanks for sharing your opinion .
Back to the issue of God and Mary having sex, Yes LDS prophets and Presidents did teach and believe God and Mary really had sex.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., said
(Religious Truths Defined, p. 44).
President Joseph Fielding Smith said
(Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 18)
Bruce R. McConkie said
(Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-47)
(p. 742)
The Mormon writer Carlfred B. Broderick made these comments:
(Cont)
(cont)
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, pp. 100-101)
President Brigham Young had this to say concerning the birth of Christ:
(Deseret News, October 10, 1866)
This same type of reasoning led Apostle Orson Pratt to say:
(Cont)
(The Seer, p. 158).
Brigham Young added that
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)
Brigham Young also said
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
Their is to much evidence to say, No one can know for sure. (Cont)
(Cont)
It is very clear, Mormon Leaders and the Mormon people in general taught and believed God the father had real sex with Mary to conceive Jesus.
This is a false teaching and you can try and claim all you want we dont know what were talking about, We know Mormon doctrine better than you guys want us to, and your fighting very hard to believe a lie. You guys can tell me all you want I dont know what I am talking about, but that wont change when you die and stand before God.
Read your Bible, It is clear, their is a real Hell and a real lake of fire and your headed straight for it.
Read Matthew 13, Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and the tares. You cannot say I dont understand what Jesus said or meant since in this parable, Jesus said to his disciples, This is the meaning of the parable, then went onto explain it. Jesus was clear, The tares are children of the devil and at the end of the age they will be plucked up and tossed into fire that never ends.
This idea of hell and children of the devil is denied by the LDS claiming hell is not real and we are all Gods Kids and only a real select few will enter outer darkness which is not hell or the lake of fire as the Bible teaches. Sadly you guys refuse to believe what your teachers said and taught, and make excuses for them. So believe what you want, just know the Bible has warned you of these false prophets and teachers and the results that will come from following and believing them.
Mike
I understand your position, and I have nothing to say against it. I am taking note of the books you site and, when I am able, I will read them. Understand that it is not that I do not believe you did not read these things in these books: It is more that I do not really trust anyone making such claims. Call it what you want, but that is how it is.
Back to the Virgin Birth, I understand your point, but to understand mine. Your argument is that because they added to the account they must be false teachers. To me this makes no sense. As long as they did not contradict the existing account I see too reason to think them false for adding to it, especially given the fact that I know them to be prophets of God.
Consider this: What if Peter had said the same thing, but we are just missing that record? What if Paul had made that claim in one of the epistles he wrote that we no longer have?
To reject something simply because it offer more detail and understanding than what we have does not seem logical, and is not a persuasive argument.
Speaking of Galatians chapter one, I agree that it is a viable test, if the test is understood and used properly. People try to claim that this tells us to judge everything according to the Bible (usually meaning their interpretation of it) and I do not believe that is what Paul meant. He wants us to apply this test to everything, including the Bible, as seen when he includes himself in the statement. He was us to try all things by the Spirit of God,
Rick
You know what is funny? I never once claimed that these things were not taught. I never once denied any of the quotes you give. I still say that you do not understand them, but that doesn’t mean anything. Honestly, I have read all the quotes you give, and I don’t understand half of them. I know you think you are mentally superior to me, but I highly doubt it.
I am not going to discuss the topic of Adam God at this time because it is not the subject of this blog. When it becomes the subject of an article then I will discuss it.
Now I have never denied that the early church leaders taught that the conception of Christ was a natural act. I have exercised my right in declining to state whether or not I agreed with them, but I have never denied they taught it.
And by the way: I have read the Bible, more than once. Yes, there is a very real Hell, but thanks to the grace and mercy of Christ I have no fear of ending up there, for he has ensured my salvation. I also know that you will most likely escape an eternity in Hell as well, for which I am also grateful.
You only show your own ignorance pertaining to the LDS church by the statement you have made, for we do not deny the reality of Hell, though we have a clearer understanding of what it is than you do.
Shem, concerning what some Mormon authorities taught about the Virgin birth , you said:
” To reject something simply because it offers more detail and understanding than what we
have does not seem logical , and is not a persuasive argument.”
That is true , but is that what we’re talking about with what Mormon authorities conveyed to
their flock about the Virgin birth? I don’t think so . Ask your leadership today if this is
“more detail” and the answer is that it’s “speculation”, guessing , not really factual/endorsed.
When your hierarchy publically states that it is more detail / truth , then I’ll take them
serious , until then it’s only your own theory . Strange how those who teach in the
Mormon church at lower levels are told that speculating on important doctrines is not allowed
yet it appears that Mormon apostles can and do . Brigham was heard to state that he was adding
more detail, building on what he had learned from Joesph Smith in some of his teachings, and if
my memory is correct one of those teachings concerned more about Adam ( as in Adam God) .
After Young’s death his “more detail” was relegated to the false doctrine bin by his
successors . Mormon authorities were offering the correct view of what Matt and Luke record
as their way in explaining the spiritual “meat” to their flock because what those in apostate
Christendom were teaching about the Virgin birth was inaccurate .But in doing so they looked
beyond the mark in their search for an answer they did’nt stay with the simplicity of the gospel
record[ 1Tim6:3 ; cp. Jacob 4:14 ] .
Shem,
I am not asking you to debate Adam God at this time, I only gave you the quotes showing your leaders taught it because you said
”Paul mentions this in Gal 1:8-9, you have another gospel, and your going to be eternal damned for teaching another gospel that does not line up with Gods word. You can reject this and tell me I am wrong, But I believe Paul over you.”
I also believe Paul; I just do not believe the men that forced the gospel of the Trinity on the Christian world. You, on the other hand, have said that you trust the men that added the definition of the Trinity to what God taught us through Paul.
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 ask the same dumb questions of your religions teachings and doctrines as you ask of mine.)
MIKE
That is exactly what we are talking about. Speculation is the filling in of missing details. These statements may have been speculation, but it was speculation attempting to give a more detailed description and understanding of event.
No, the idea is not binding doctrine, and thus it doesn’t matter if one agrees or disagrees, as the truth will eventually come out and all will understand it. But to say these men are false teachers for speculating on the details is just as illogical as saying they are for actually teaching it.
Rick
You really need to try and understand the English language better.
It is your precious theory, not because you came up with it, but because you treat it like some kind of ace up your sleeve. You hold onto this, and seem to slip it into every conversation, thinking that it somehow ends all debate. Thus it is precious to you for your purposes.
Now, I made the statement I did to prove to you that, even though they were taught, Brigham Young did not believe them binding on the membership, and thus I don’t really care what anyone said on the topic, and your continual harping on it is pointless. It was never intended to be binding on the people, and the fact that one of the Twelve Apostles rejected it vocally and was not reprimanded shows how silly it is for anyone to try and use it as proof of anything.
Now, I believe Paul over you as well, and I have to say that the LDS church is align a lot closer with the Bible than you or any other Christian church or theology out there.
Just to show my point, you claim that I can’t show that people will not eventually come out of Hell in the Bible. Let us look at this and see.
Revelation 20: 13 “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”
Isn’t it wonderful? Hell, in which the dead dwell, will deliver up those dead so that they can be judged. And what will happen at this judgment? Let us read a little more.
1 Peter 4: 6 “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”
Again, beautiful news, for the dead that are in hell have been provided the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel, and thus live according to God.
Clearly there will be those who go to hell as death that will not remain there.
You also made the claim that Book of Mormon doesn’t teach this, once again proving your ignorance (and persuading me that you have never actually read the book).
Read 2 Nephi chapter 9, as it is all there, clearly taught for anyone who is actually seeking the truth.
Here is a sample:
10 “O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.”
12 “And this…spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore…hell must deliver up its captive spirits…”
15 “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.”
So, clearly it is also taught in the Book of Mormon.
Mike
One last thing. Specualting is fine, and always has been. What is not right is declaring your speculations as binding doctrine. I speculate all the time, and I have been corrected at times. But none of my speculations really mean anything, as they are speculations.
The same thing should be held in mind when reading the words of the Early leaders. I have seen people quote Brigham Young and claim it as church doctrine. Then, when I was able to go back and read what he actually said, he prefaced it with a statement that he was going to do some speculating.
This is the problem with what most people want to dig up from the past and claim as LDS doctrine. It is speculation, and thus should be treated as speculation and not doctrine.
Speaking of mysteries and speculations, I have always liked this quote from Brigham Young (Journal of Discourse 1, pg 65; http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-01/)
“When your face is turned from the body, let mysteries alone, for this is the only place for your to be corrected if wrong. Preach the simple, unadorned truth; work out your salvation with diligence, and do that which will guarantee you a warrented deed, an undeniable title to eternal lives.”
I refrain from speculating on blogs such as this, at least as much as is possible, for this very reason. I leave the mysteries alone because no one here is really in a position to correct me if I am wrong.
Shem, you said , ” I speculate all the time….” I’m beginning to see that ! Listen , I’m not
talking about some generic “spectulating or guesswork here, this issue is about teaching
correctly and avoiding doctrinal aberration. Speculation? That’s not how the principle
players in this drama described it , rather it’s how some Mormon apologists are trying to
spin it . I heard something on Fox News today that is useful here. It features a speech where
Mitt Romney was saying how great some speakers are with words but he reminded his
audience that they need to ” cut through the words and review the record “( Obama’s record) .
Likewise , investigators should cut through the words of Mormon apologists and simply review
the teaching track record of Mormon apostles . Harold B. Lee warned ” Teachers should not
speculate on the matter of Christ’s birth”. Yet relegating what former Mormon leaders taught
on this issue to mere speculation is the partyline now. Brigham cautioned Elders not to teach
doctrine that they did not understand . But he did understand and he did teach ( I appreciate
your reference to JofD vol. 1 but it proves little —unless we can hear Thomas Monson
agree that Adam was a polygamist and raised on another earth . This is also from vol 1 ] .
Speaking of mysteries , this doctrine was said to clear up confusion there was nothing figurative
or beyond one’s comprehension to understand —there is no mystery in HOW a male and
female make a baby , and that was the point . Former LDS Latayne Scott in discussing how
Mormon advertise that have a way to avoid doctrinal confusion states: