Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Celebrate Christmas by Rejecting Mormon Leaders Who Have Rejected the Virgin Birth
This entry was posted in Jesus Christ, Virgin birth and tagged Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Christmas, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jesus Christ, Mormonism, Temple Square, Virgin birth. Bookmark the permalink.
43 Responses to Celebrate Christmas by Rejecting Mormon Leaders Who Have Rejected the Virgin Birth
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yes indeed it’s the “It doesn’t matter!” defense used by Mormons. Really? It doesn’t matter if there were Mormon leaders that deviated drastically from what the Bible teaches?
It’s just not this particular issue, the Virgin Birth of our Lord and Savior, but the way Mormons handle this whole problem of their past leaders teaching things that are now an embarrassment. The major brag with Mormons is that they are a much superior religion because they have a living prophet who is hearing directly from the Mormon god. Brigham Young taught a totally different Mormonism than that which is practiced today. He went so far as to say that the Mormon heavenly father actually had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary.
It’s pretty tough to chalk that sort of bizarre notion up to the prophets opinion or call it folk doctrine. Brigham Young wasn’t into speculation. When he said something, he expected the Mormon people to accept it without question.
Then there’s Bruce McConkie. He was thee guy when it came to defining Mormon doctrine. Now the LDS church publishing arm won’t even print his book “Mormon Doctrine” which was central to the lives of Mormons in McConkie’s era.
So it’s just not the blasphemy that these leaders expounded, it’s the fact that today’s Mormon just sweeps it all under the rug and attaches some lame disclaimer to it. In Brigham Young’s day, he wasn’t challenged. He was the prophet. He was hearing from the Mormon god. He said that the sermons he preached were as good as any scripture. The FLDS still follows his teachings and sees the LDS as apostates. At least the FLDS is consistent.
Modern day attempts to reinvent the LDS religion aren’t going to work until Mormon leadership comes clean and begins to reject these past leaders. Perhaps then they can find their way to the cross where Jesus, having been miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, paid the price for our sins.
Its interesting that this topic came up because I have a question regarding it. I have no intentions of posting any comments regarding the subject. But if anyone has an answer to this it would be helpful. The passage that speaks about a virgin birth is in Isa 7:14. Of course we all know this was a sign for Ahaz and since the miracle happened for him in that time, does that mean that there were actually 2 virgin births that occurred in scripture?
Lots of the prophecy’s have a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment. No virgin gave birth during that time, it was talking about the birth of Jesus to come.
I would probably take a look at the Gospel of Luke for an answer. Specifically, Luke 1:26-37, with Luke 1:31-33 talking about the fulfillment of the OT covenants. God promised Abraham three things; land, seed and blessing. We see that Gabriel is telling the Virgin Mary that this Son to be born of her will be called the Son of the Most High, He will sit on the throne of David, reign over the “house of Jacob”, will have a “kingdom” with no end.
The “house” is the family, the “kingdom” is the sphere of rule, and the “throne” is the seat of government. So Jesus is the completion or fulfillment of these prophesies. BTW, the “blessing” is the New Heart covenant which Jesus spoke of the night before He died when He took the “cup” and said that the wine symbolized His blood and the sealing of the New Covenant.
Mary was perplexed about the conception and asked how it could be since she was a Virgin (Luke 1:34). There’s the OT prophesy being confirmed as the answer is given Luke 1:35.
………………….and for anyone interested, here are some good commentaries that address this particular topic.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/7-14.htm
There is some good scholarship in these commentaries but at the end of the day, it’s what someone thinks about a particular topic anyway.
Thank you Aaron for detailing this important subject. I recall seeing various statements made by LDS prophets regarding the Virgin Birth. Statements which amount to plain denials. I do not know how prevalent this is among the LDS people today, and suspect there is zero support for this even in the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps the foundation for the LDS prophets’ denial of the Virgin Birth is confusing creation for Creator, and vice versa. For instance, God is self-existent, without beginning. But these prophets have applied this attribute to matter, and deny this attribute of their god. In this way their god is bound in by the eternal nature of matter (rather than being its Creator), making it a species of human being, just more advanced. And so it must relate to other created beings as a created being itself. (This could be no further from the God of the Bible.)
In this way, following a false god has led them into serious error, which I supose must be expected.
@Rick
That cant be true. If the word for young woman is meant to be virgin and its a prphesy than it would have to happen or Isaiah would be a false prophet.
This is the story.
Isaiah prophesied to King Ahaz that Israel would be sent into exile within a few years and Judah would be left alone. Aram would not bother Judah.
Isaiah offered king ahaz a sign as proof that the prophesy was from God. The prophesy was that a young woman or virgin would give birth to a son and name him Emmanuel. There was even a specific time frame in which these things would occur as indicated by the statement of before the child is old enough to discern right from wrong. So Isaiah is explaining that these things will occur very soon. Aram and Israel will be defeated and Israel will be taken away before the child gains intellegence. Some say the young woman was Isaiahs wife and some say King Ahaz wife but that isnt clear in scripture.
So in order for Isaiah not to be a false prophet this would have had to happen and we know it did come to pass as far as the exile. So my question is, does this mean that there were actually 2 virgin births in scripture?
Very Good Brian!
You may receive the falcon’s award for post of the day. This will automatically enter you in the pool for the Friday drawing.
I try to avoid using the word “cult” on this blog because I know Mormons are quite sensitive to this label when it’s applied to them. So what I’ll say is, aberrant religious group or ARG.
I learned, when I was cutting my apologetic eye teeth on material written by Dr. Walter Martin, that there are about eight areas of doctrine what will be markers of an ARG. One of these is the Virgin Birth and another is the veracity of the Bible.
ARGs always go after the Bible. That’s almost a given. But another area of focus is on the Virgin Birth. The LDS sect does this. First of all they indoctrinate their members that they can’t trust the Bible. So, let’s face it. If a group doesn’t trust the Bible, where are they getting their information from. Most often it’s from ascended leader and in the case of Mormons it’s their prophets.
The really odd and bizarre teachings, revelation from the leaders identified by Aaron in his video is a perfect example. While these guys are alive, the faithful have to fall into line. Once they’re dead, all bets are off.
I wonder how many Mormons/LDS are even aware of what was once taught by the leadership of their church regarding the Virgin Birth of Christ. Probably not at all. For those who do become aware of it, most probably won’t go very far in contemplating what it all means.
The church is “true” and that is that! Because it’s the one true church, any odd, heretical or aberrant teaching has to have some sort of ready made explanation attached to it. The “it happened a long time ago” is a favorite missive to pull-out. The idea is, if it happened a long time ago, it has no meaning for today. There’s a reason why the LDS church goes through an update and revision with just about every generation. Stuff just stops working.
What I’m hoping is that an LDS member who stumbles across this blog might give pause and start checking these things out. Painful as it might be, it’s better than dedicating one’s life to a lie.
cattyjane,
Tell you what, just do a google search on “Where there two virgin births in the Bible?” and you will find enough information to keep you busy all through the holiday season. Keeping with my theme that it’s better for you to discover these things yourself, I won’t formulate an answer. But I will give you the link to begin your search. I’m sure it will be intellectually satisfying for you and allow us to keep this thread on topic; which has to do with what Mormon prophets and other leaders taught regarding Jesus’ conception.
https://www.google.com/search?q=where+there+two+vigin+births+in+the+bible&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=where+there+two+virgin+births+in+the+bible&spell=1
I thought that was the topic and i thought it was a simple yes or no answer. sorry my fault Falcon. I wasnt trying to change the topic. I will send an email to Sharen to take me off this blog. Or maybe she will just read this and do it herself. She can delete my previous posts. Hope that that will make things better.
What Mormon leaders taught about the Virgin birth of Jesus is classic Mormonism . Men like Brigham Young and those he oversaw as teachers in the Church were not ashamed to tell how Jesus was born at Bethlehem — it was the result of the natural action between a male and female , the male was Heavenly Father , and the female was Mary .
Mormon leaders finally realized that to attract new members more easily it became necessary to quietly downplay or even deny publically some doctrines , the Virgin Birth teaching was one of those .
There was a time was Mormons didn’t really care what the “Gentile” world thought of them , but that slowly changed . In the last part of the last century especially, Mormon leaders are very image conscious , trying to appear like just another christian church in the neighborhood etc . That tactic has worked well . Mormonism has acted like a chameleon in some it’s proselyting efforts .
That there are devout LDS today who believe just what Brigham Young and others taught about the Virgin Birth of Jesus only confirms that it was taught by Mormon leadership and considered an important part of the ” restored gospel ” . If Mormons say it does’nt matter it’s because they don’t want to discuss the topic further , that’s all . These types of LDS need to be reminded that it is Mormon leaders who have believed and therefore taught this doctrine , therefore they are tested in light of what the holy scripture teach about God/Jesus , if they fail the test then it behooves rank and file LDS to be faithful to God and walk away from Mormonism . That may be very difficult for a lot of LDS but considering the consequence for following / respecting false prophets ( Isa 9:16 ) it is the wise and honorable thing to do . God will help those who put Him first .
The Mormon people don’t need their hierarchy . If these men only claimed to lead a organization where good moral values were practiced , then that would be another story , however , they claim to be the only true church of Jesus where accurate ,reliable , guidance in understanding spiritual truths of the christian faith are provided . All other churches are part of what constitutes the church of the Devil in these days . That is the claim of Mormonism .
Jesus warned us all , LDS and non LDS , to beware of false prophets in the latter days . ( Matt 24) .
Can some of these prophets dress well and act polite ? Mormons need to ponder that .
Dear cattyjane,
It is very good to have you here on this blog. Sometimes I’ve made a post that was not keeping with the subject. I hope you know we are all very happy to have you participate here. Many of us have friends and family members who are LDS, or of an LDS background. We care about them. We certainly don’t want to do something that causes them hurt. And yet we want to share with them God’s love; his pardon and acceptance.
It is great you’re studying the Bible and the Old Testiment prophesies referenced in Luke’s gospel. I found one of the prophesies in Malachi being referenced early in Luke, identified by the angel Gabriel as having its fulfillment in John the Baptist (Luke 1:11-17). Elsewhere, I found a reference to when the fullness of time had arrived, being identified as the first advent of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:4).
Hi falcon,
Thanks for your kind comments. It was interesting about Walter Martin’s book and how common earmarks include denial of the Bible and Virgin Birth. At times I wonder if the leaders of the LDS church sit in a quiet room, survey the many difficulties their organization faces, and ask, “What went wrong?” As you said, it all goes back to denying God’s word, the Bible, and looking to a prophet who acknowledged that many of the revelations he received did not accord with the Bible. If they would like to correct what went wrong, they need to return to the Bible, jettisoning everything else.
Catty, no one is out to get you. Falcon was not talking just to you: he was talking to all of us.
Now, what is it you expect here from us? Do you expect us to simply accept what you say? Do you expect a loaded question to answered with a simple yes or no?
If you want to grow closer to God, and it seems you do, be willing to let go of a level of comfort. God is not comfortable. When we accept him, life does get more comfortable, but that does not mean that he is comfortable. God is out to change us from the inside where we push him away most. Letting him go to the most difficult places in our lives is an incredibly invasive activity. It hurts us, but letting him in makes all the difference.
My point: drop the defensiveness and learn to love God and make it less of an intellectual activity. Law is intellect; God is love. I think you want this, but are very afraid, and perhaps rightly so. But we, as an online community, are not here to argue with you just to put you down. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you choose to leave, so be it, but you will be missed, and we will continue to pray for you.
MJP and Brian,
I just didnt want to cause a problem. I thought sharon might be able to remove my posts off this topic so they werent distracting. I will be more careful with my posts from here on out.
Just a side note. When I was LDS I didnt put much thought into the virgin birth or how it happened or why it happened. I also didnt think God was literally with Mary to get her pregnant. Just saying.
Catty,
Your question is a good one it has to do with the NT use of the OT .
I would argue that the first virgin birth was a foreshadowing of the second. So there is one TRUE virgin birth just like there is one TRUE high priest.
Check this out you might find it helpful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVf0dpqBCZg
I think you are getting close to the heart of the difference between the Old and New Covenant. I hope you stick it out till the end
peace
@FMM
Thanks 🙂 I will look at that link.
Cattyjane,
It really is not a big deal if we get side tracked with questions if their are no mormons here and if no one says anything then we will simply have a dead blog. So dont sweat it.
Now here is a reply to the virgin birth. The verse’s say,
This reply below is from Pastor Chuck Smith, he is now home with Jesus, but he was senior pastor of Calvary Chapel in california. This is his reply.
So these kings, Rezin and Pekah, are going to be wiped out.
Now herein is where the prophets wrote as they were inspired of the Holy Spirit, but did not understand the things that they were writing about, and how that he was writing of a local instance, but yet it had a prophetic aspect towards the future. And much of prophecy has a two-fold interpretation. They call it the near and the far. And this is true of much prophecy. In fact, it says that these men wrote of things that they did not understand. Earnestly they desired to know these things of which they wrote. But they really didn’t understand but they were writing, inspired of the Holy Spirit.
And in the near prophecy, a child was to be born. Or, before a child born at that period was old enough to know evil, to choose good, or the age of accountability, twelve, thirteen years old, or what he is saying, within twelve or thirteen years, both Pekah and Rezin are going to get wiped out. They’ll no longer be reigning over Syria and over Samaria within twelve or thirteen years.
But the prophecy in its long-term was a prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ in that, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” We know that that is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, because it is interpreted by the Holy Spirit in Matthew’s gospel, chapter 1, verse 23 as a prophecy. When it speaks there of how Mary and Joseph were engaged; before they had had relations, Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, that it might be fulfilled according to the word of the prophet saying, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” So Matthew’s gospel, as Matthew writing by the Holy Spirit interprets this passage of scripture. He interprets it to be a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Now the Hebrew scholar Gesenius who has written a Hebrew lexicon and is recognized as one of the outstanding Hebrew scholars has suggested that the Hebrew word here translated virgin should be translated “a young maiden.” You know why he suggests that? Because he said he doesn’t believe in miracles and it will be a miracle for a virgin to have a child. And so that’s why he said, and that’s why he translates this young maiden. And of course, Revised Standard and a lot of the new translations pick up the unbelief of Gesenius and translate this, “a young maiden shall conceive.”
Well, what so much of a sign about that? That happens every day. It takes away the whole thrust of the scripture. But a virgin shall conceive. The Greek word that was translated by these seventy scholars who translated the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament 200 years before Christ, they chose to translate this Hebrew word with a Greek word that can only mean virgin. And that God intended virgin is obvious because of Mary. “Therefore, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Which means, “God is with us.” Beautiful name. God is with us.
So that is the far interpretation of this prophecy. The near was that within twelve years a child born now within twelve years, by the time he’s age of accountability, knows good from evil, both these kings that have conspired against you will be wiped out, and that was true.
Now he does predict the impending invasion of Judah.
Thanks for this post, Rick. I learned a lot from it. I once heard Chuck Smith on Christian radio. He has written several fine books, including a commentary on Romans, as well as a biography titled, “How Grace Changes Everything.”
I hope everyone has a happy Christmas. As a famous character in The Christmas Carol once declared, “God bless us, everyone!”
I meet Chuck In person a few times. But I was in Maine for 17 years and now in Saint Paul Minnesota. I go to a calvery chapel, so I like Chuck.
As I was reading rick’s latest post it alluded to Mary and Joseph having sex. When I was Catholic, the idea that Mary and Joseph had sex after the birth of Jesus was a real “NO WAY!”. I think recently I heard this again as I stopped by the Catholic radio network.
So think about this. Catholics were as uncomfortable as it can get with Mary and Joseph, who were married, having sex after the birth of Jesus. Then we have a Mormon “prophet” saying that God had physical sex with Mary. Tell that to a Catholic and that’s all they’d ever have to hear about Mormonism to conclude that it’s totally nuts.
But this is what happens when you get these so called Mormon prophets starting to move ever so slightly off course to the point eventually where there’s no course at all; just meandering about speaking forth out of the corruption of their minds.
I’ve mentioned often that the more convoluted and revolting an idea, the more those in cults embrace it. It has something to do with the idea in their heads, that they have this very special super spiritual insight to be able to accept these bizarre notions.
Catty,
You’re welcome
That link is more technical and scholarly than you normally see and it’s a long slog (three plus hours) I think.
so hang in there.
I promise when you are done you will at least have a better understanding of the issue.
peace
So would you guys consider the doctrine of the virgin birth to be equal in importance just like the trinity doctrine? What im asking is if someone says they dont believe in the conception of jesus in the same way mainstream christianity views it, would you say their soul is lost?
Cattyjane,
I would say the answer to your question is YES!.
The reason I say that is this, First off, if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then that means He would have been born from a human man and that would mean the issue of sin has passed onto Jesus.
The Bible tells us that the man has the seed, and if a man any man had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus than that sinful nature would be passed on. God the Father who is sinless over shadowed Mary and Did Not Have Sex with Mary. So this means the real father of Jesus is God, and Jesus was born sinless.
The other thing is, In the OT, any sheep that was killed needed to be checked out first and with out blemish. Jesus was checked out by the religious leaders and was found to be with out sin.
Remember when Abraham went to sacrifice his son Issac, Issac asked where the sacrifice was. Abraham said, God will provide HIMSELF the lamb. Abraham might not have understood what he was saying, but he was saying God is that Lamb. He did not say, God will provide FOR himself, but will provide HIMSELF. Hope this helps.
Catty,
The only thing that will cause you to “lose your soul” is not knowing and being known by Jesus.
Things like the Trinity and the virgin birth are important because they deal with who Jesus is.
The most important question that has ever been asked is
quote:
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
(Mat 16:15)
end quote:
If Jesus was not virgin born then he can not pay for my sins and I’m with out hope in the world.
That’s why this is important
peace
rick,
Oh man is my Catholic theology coming back to me. How about this; the Immaculate Conception? That’s another of the doctrines I grew-up on. I probably shouldn’t bring it up but as long as we’re talking about fundamental Christian doctrine regarding the conception of Jesus, I thought I’d throw this into the mix:
“The doctrine that God preserved the Virgin Mary from the taint of original sin from the moment she was conceived; it was defined as a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in 1854.”
“Pope Pius IX wrote that “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
“the Blessed Virgin’s “freedom from sin was an unmerited gift of God or special grace, and an exception to the law, or privilege, which no other created person has received.”
“Another misconception people have is that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was necessary to ensure that Original Sin would not be passed on to Christ. This has never been a part of the teaching on the Immaculate Conception; rather, the Immaculate Conception represents Christ’s saving grace operating in Mary in anticipation of His redemption of man and in God’s foreknowledge of Mary’s acceptance of His Will for her.”
“In other words, the Immaculate Conception was not a precondition for Christ’s act of redemption but the result of it. It is the concrete expression of God’s love for Mary, who gave herself fully, completely, and without hesitation to His service.”
I know I probably shouldn’t have posted this but the part I find quite interesting is that this doctrine was “revealed” from God. I operate under the assumption that basic Christian doctrine flows from the Word of God, the Bible. In it, we have God’s full revelation.
The Bible reminds us that in the latter days there would be many challenges facing Christians , and one of the most serious is the rise of many false prophets with their counterfeit gospels . Many of these messengers would be normal looking and acting individuals they will talk about living moral lives and even about following Jesus . They will talk about how everyone else have been misled concerning important biblical truths , and they will offer the correct understanding . A right standing with God would be dependent upon joining their church / organization and learning the truth about God, Jesus etc . Mormon leaders are one example of these latter days messengers ( prophets/ apostles ) .
The central part of the Christmas story is the virgin birth of Jesus . It is a fundamental truth of the Bible . The true identity of the one who hung on the cross starts with the truth about how His birth at Bethlehem came to be .
After the death of Joseph Smith Mormon leaders began to aggressively publically denounce what they called ” Christendom” for it’s errors about God, Jesus , salvation . Mormon leadership advertised to be the channel through which God was revealing the real truth about Himself and thus to avoid the erroneous notions about Him and His Son’s church that all other churches had been teaching it was necessary to follow Mormon prophets / apostles , because salvation was at stake .
The doctrine about the virgin birth was one such teaching that Brigham Young zeroed in on to provide his people and mankind with the correct understanding about this fundamental truth .
He claimed that it was his duty to see that only sound doctrine would be taught to his flock , to protect it from the false views which had infected ” the Christian world” ( non LDS ) .
Since the Bible warns about latter days false prophets/ apostles ( Matt 24; 2Cor 11 ; ) who would be identified by the fact they have drifted from the truth ( Gal 1:8 ; 2Tim 4:3,4 ) let’s see how the apostles of Mormonism compared to the apostles Jesus had appointed 1700 years earlier concerning how the virgin birth of Jesus came to be :
– the latter days apostles of Mormonism : it ( the V.B.) was a natural occurrence — a man plus a woman = baby Jesus . The male was Heavenly father , the female was Mary .
Jesus’ true apostles : it was a supernatural event . No man , just a woman = baby Jesus
– latter days apostles of Mormonism : a man ” did it ” ( B.Y , Jof D. v 4 p 218 )
– Jesus’ true apostles : neither Joseph nor any other man did it .
the latter days apostles of Mormonism : Mary had ” another husband ” , who ” did it ” with her .
Jesus’ true apostles : Mary had only one man as husband ( betrothed ) and he did not ” do it ”
– latter days apostles of Mormonism : Jesus begotten by a Holy Man , a male from heaven .
Jesus’ true apostles : Jesus begotten not by any kind of man or a man of any kind.
So a decision must be made , who to follow : either the apostles in the New Testament , or men 1700 years later who claimed to be their latter day counterparts directed by the same Jesus ?
In view of how the Bible advises us to be on guard for latter days prophets / apostles who come with claims of appointment by Jesus , and how these individuals may be nice well meaning persons , we must be faithful to what Jesus apostles taught about fundamental truths . Verses like Gal 1:8 and also 2Tim 4:3, 4 are appropriate to help guide us in identifying these latter day counterfeit prophets
The Mormon people who love God need to be faithful to Him and hold their prophets accountable because God does not look favorably upon those who do not take serious prophets who introduce false notions about Him or His Son . The Bible contains what God wants mankind to know about the central part of the Christmas story , and those religious leaders for whom that information is not good enough we should not give any of our time . Those Mormons who followed Brigham Young should have done the right thing and been true to God and dismissed him from their lives . Today’s LDS should place his name on the same list as other prophets in the latter days who have drifted
from the truth and spurned correction .
Mormonism is not the answer .
Even if Mormons go to their fall back position with Brigham Young’s ridiculous statements, i.e. he didn’t really mean them or some variation on that theme, what does it say about the reliability of these prophets?
If it were just this one thing it would be bad enough, but he and the others made a whole host of statements that are just as inane.
“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?… when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fathers. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized”.8
http://www.mrm.org/moon-men
Now it’s a real treat to see the Mormon apologists over at FAIR spin themselves into the ground coming up with seemingly rational explanations for these bizarre comments by their prophets.
As goofy as this and other statements are by past Mormon leaders they can be passed off as sheer ignorance.
But when they get into the area of basic Christian doctrine like the Virgin Birth of Christ, this is when they become real dangerous. They are dangerous because people accept what these guys say like they are the oracles of God. There has been some attempt in recent days for LDS leadership to water down these guys and say they are/were just men. They certainly are that but the main concept in Mormonism is that they have living prophets speaking for God therefore the LDS church is the “one true church”.
Mormons are known for wanting it both ways. It only works for a while and with the truly gullible. The more the membership digs into the history of the sect the more likely they are to leave this “one true church”.
I wont lie. Sometimes i miss the church and wish i wouldnt have removed my membership. I just miss my friends and the social connection. Its being reminded of all the wacko doctrine and inconsistant teachings by the prophets that make me remember why i left.
Cattyjane, I dont see why you can’t make new friends some place else.
What im trying to point out is that much of the reason for making excuses for the things that are said by the church doesnt have to do with defending a set of beliefs but maintaining a way of life. People dont want to give up their friends, family and church connections. Its easier to just push a few doctrinal things to the side and say its not a big deal. Most members dont hear much about these things anyway so why should it hold weight? As a member i would have asked myself if it was worth cutting myself off from friends, family and social groups just because of a difference in view of the virgin or not virgin birth. Does God expect me to understand the virgin birth or trinity? Does the outcome of where my soul ends up depend on my understanding of how God operates? I hope not.
Cattyjane,
would I let you perform surgery on me if you did not understand what your doing? No, I would not. God is very clear in the bible as to who he is and false teachers distort that. So if we get him all wrong we can’t be saved, God is very clear on this.
Also you would be really mad if people used your name and started making up stories about things you said, when in fact you never said them. It seems people ignore what God says about himself, yet expect him to be ok with that. Well it doesn’t work that way.
Catty,
No, we are not expected to fully understand how He operates. He is God, after all, not us. However, He does expect us to know who He is. The virgin birth, as others have demonstrated, gets into who God is.
And catty, refresh me, if you are comfortable doing so, do you have a church you go to? Or just your two small groups?
Relationships are out there to be made. You are also not alone. I am quite confident someone else out there has been where you are now.
@MJP
No i dont have a church. To be honest I wouldnt know where to start looking for a church. The group in my town I just do dinner with on friday nights. I dont go to their bible studies. The one out of town I just attend once a month. Ive tried a couple of churches in my town but it feels weird.
The best thing to do to find one is to start going or to ask friends. You’ll usually quickly decide if the church is for you or not. The biggest thing to remember about a church is that it has to be sound as to its core beliefs. You probably know a lot of those from our discussions here. Another thing to do is to ask questions of people at the church, even the pastor. If something confuses you, ask.
I’m sorry the churches in your town have felt weird, but finding one you are comfortable at will help you on your journey. I happen to believe a Christian can be a believer alone, ie without fellowship with other believers, but its a lot easier when you have them. That is to say that God created us for fellowship with others. They help us answer questions we have and we are able to help them, too. They will hold us accountable, and they will help us grow closer to God. Even getting a weekly sermon in will be helpful.
As with any organization, good friends may take some time, but they won’t ever come if you don’t start making them.
I don’t mean to be “preachy” here or paternalistic or anything like that. I do think it is very important, but forgive me if I intrude too much here.
Merry Christmas!
Well it’s another one of those, “should I say something or not”?
I’ve been all over the ball park when it comes to church attendance. I’ve been hyper-involved and hyper-not involved. I had a friend tell me one time that he doesn’t know how I do it. He said if he wasn’t actively involved in a church he’d be back being a drunk. I do attend a church now, but it took a while to find one that I liked. “Fellowship” has never been a big item for me. For some people that’s a real important part of the church experience.
I want a church that has solid doctrine although I don’t sweat the little stuff. I want strong preaching and a certain brand of music; contemporary(?).
I think for people who are trying to find their way doctrinally or facing some significant life challenges, church is vital.
Believe it or not, MC is a big part of my Christian involvement.
This appalling belief we see come to be introduced to the Mormon people by their leaders is the natural result of the false doctrine that preceded it , namely that God was only a common man from another planet who worked hard and eventually learned how to become an Almighty God ,consequently He was given this planet to create and populate with progeny from His wives . He is a human male ( ” exalted” ) to become an Almighty God who together with a female (Goddess ) sired
many spirit children in heaven , these children raised to maturity in their heavenly home were then sent to earth to be born as humans . According to Mormon leaders the first such spirit child was a male who would eventually progressed rapidly in learning and eventually became a God in heaven he was called Jehovah , he would be sent to earth to be the Savior of mankind and his conception and birth on earth was in the same literal way that all babies are conceived and which he was conceived by his mother and Father in heaven prior to coming to earth . Whereas his Father had sexual relations with one of His wives in heaven to produce Jesus as a spirit son likewise heavenly Father came down to earth and slept with Mary , she conceived and bore a son he was called Jesus .
THAT is what Mormon leaders have taught , then repeated later on so that their belief in the virgin birth would be known by their flock . This is part of the latter day ” restored gospel ” these men offered the world , and sadly the Mormon people follow them .
These latter days imitators of Jesus’ true apostles are exposed when people examine their gospel preaching record . The Mormon people find themselves to busy in the church system that is Mormonism and with the daily rigors of life to make the time to do such a examination , they blindly follow their leaders and trust them , but that can be a dangerous way to live and it is ripe for deception to occur . The apostle John advised his flock to test anyone who come to them claiming to be a prophet/messenger with God’s recommendation — 1 Jn 4:1 . May the Mormon people do likewise , spiritual safety is at stake .
The Mormon people did’nt obey God and dismiss their leaders like Brigham Young who ” looked beyond the mark ” ( Jacob 4:14) and drifted outside the boundary God had established ( the scriptures ) and therefore succumbed to teaching aberrant doctrines , and his teaching about the virgin birth is probably the most egregious . Those Mormons today are harboring a false prophet if they don’t turn him in — admit he was a false prophet . Why would anyone want to take Mormonism seriously if Mormons do not take seriously Jesus’ counsel in Matt 24:11 and test their prophets ?
This appalling doctrine is not for public consumption so Mormon leaders now have to dodge, downplay, or even deny it in public venues . (It’s still sacred “meat ” but only the spiritually mature
can understand it and embrace it , supposedly ) . When Mormon leaders made the decision to aggressively start promoting their church as a bit less Mormon and a lot more ” Christian ” , in order to appear like just another Christian in the neighborhood , doctrines like the virgin birth needed to be quietly kept out of the spotlight or else cleverly presented in a way that sounds like what Christians for centuries have believed about the virgin birth as recorded in Matt , and Luke .
This tactic has worked well .
God give those LDS , who want to stand for truth and not give safe harbor to men who are proven false prophets , the strength to not give these men any more submission . God will direct the paths of such LDS who put Him first and walk away from Mormonism and to Him . Prov 3: 5-6 .
Merry Christmas to the staff of MRM . Thanks for your labor of love to the Mormon people .
Here’s some food for thought for those struggling with the idea that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father.
At the Council of Nicea it was homoousios that was at issue. Is the Son “one substance” with the Father?
If the Son was the Word inside of the Father before his begetting in eternity past, then he is one substance with the Father. In other words, he’s made of the same divine “stuff,” “substance,” “material,” or “essence” as the Father because he came out of the Father.
If he was created from nothing, then God must have used something to create him; probably whatever he created the angels with. Greek Christians simply called that substance “matter.” If that’s what the Son was made from, the Nicene council reasoned, then he’s not really God.
The doctrine of Arius, that the Son was created from nothing, made him matter and not the substance of God. Arianism denied homoousios.
” … the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, one in substance [homoousios] with the Father …”
The Son, because he is the Logos of God, and always was the Logos of God, is of the Divine substance. Therefore he is “God from God … true God from true God.”
There’s a lot of good info in this link about Jesus as Son of God. http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-symbol-of-faith/son-of-goddew
Oops something was wrong with that link above. Trying again. http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-symbol-of-faith/son-of-god
makeitshine,
That was very good. It gave me a burning in the bosom therefore it must be true! I couldn’t resist that but honestly it did quicken my spirit.
So the Word was inside of God and proceeded from him (begotten) and is therefore of the same substance or essence. Jesus is not a created being. If He were then He wouldn’t be God. If He were not God then He would not be the perfect Lamb necessary to be sacrificed for our sins.
That’s why it’s so important to get Jesus right.
Reading the first chapter of the Gospel of John tells us what we need to know about the Word who proceeded from the Father. The Word is eternal. There never was a time when He didn’t exist.