Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have heard this idea put forth in Sunday School classes. (By other class members more than the teacher.) It tended to be mentioned in sort of a nudge, nudge, wink, wink sort of way.
To be clear, I am not saying this is official Mormon doctrine. I am saying that it is not an idea that anti-Mormons concocted out of thin air or deliberately twisted into being. It is a belief some Mormons hold/held (because I heard this more from older Mormons).
Over time I have noticed a pattern to the experiences of former members of the LDS Church. They always seem to have experiences, which shed a poor image on the Church that are not experienced by active members. This post is a case in point. I certainly qualify as an older member of the Church, and I have never even heard a wink, nudge, subtle nod, or a silent “read my lips” regarding a belief in the current topic at hand. In addition, not only am I an older member of the Church, but I have close friends who are decades older than I, and none of them have ever uttered or speculated on this topic. I have attended wards in Southeast Asia, Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Oregon, Idaho, and now Utah and I have never heard any speculation on the topic at hand. Why is it that former members of the LDS Church have these experiences when the rest of us don’t?
Over time I have noticed a pattern to the experiences of former members of the LDS Church. They always seem to have experiences, which shed a poor image on the Church that are not experienced by active members. This post is a case in point. I certainly qualify as an older member of the Church, and I have never even heard a wink, nudge, subtle nod, or a silent “read my lips” regarding a belief in the current topic at hand. In addition, not only am I an older member of the Church, but I have close friends who are decades older than I, and none of them have ever uttered or speculated on this topic. I have attended wards in Southeast Asia, Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Oregon, Idaho, and now Utah and I have never heard any speculation on the topic at hand. Why is it that former members of the LDS Church have these experiences when the rest of us don’t?
SergeantL, it seems to me that you are implying that I am not telling the truth. Is that what you mean to suggest? I obviously can't make you believe me, but I am telling the truth.
Now, could it be that people who have had my set of experiences are more likely to leave the Mormon church than those who have had your set of experiences? Quite possibly. It doesn't make either of us liars.
Over time I have noticed a pattern to the experiences of former members of the LDS Church. They always seem to have experiences, which shed a poor image on the Church that are not experienced by active members. This post is a case in point. I certainly qualify as an older member of the Church, and I have never even heard a wink, nudge, subtle nod, or a silent “read my lips” regarding a belief in the current topic at hand. In addition, not only am I an older member of the Church, but I have close friends who are decades older than I, and none of them have ever uttered or speculated on this topic. I have attended wards in Southeast Asia, Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Oregon, Idaho, and now Utah and I have never heard any speculation on the topic at hand. Why is it that former members of the LDS Church have these experiences when the rest of us don’t?
Thanks SergeantL, you made me laugh and I needed that.
SergeantL, it seems to me that you are implying that I am not telling the truth. Is that what you mean to suggest? I obviously can't make you believe me, but I am telling the truth.
Now, could it be that people who have had my set of experiences are more likely to leave the Mormon church than those who have had your set of experiences? Quite possibly. It doesn't make either of us liars.
No, Mom, I am not implying you are not telling the truth; I am making an observation and pondering. I wonder why someone, such as me, who has experienced the Saints over a very large area and across several cultural lines, has never had your experience. I thought perhaps this belief you experienced was a unique Utah phenomenon, but I now attend Church in Utah and have not heard any such speculation. In addition and after reading your post, I called my neighbor. He is in his 90s, has ranched in Carbon County all his life, and can trace his lineage in the Church to the days of Kirtland. I asked him about what you wrote. He told me he has heard this accusation against the Church all his life, but he knows of no one in the Church who believes it to be true. Now, I’ll grant you he has only experienced the Church in a fairly localized area, but he is pretty representative of the LDS membership in Utah.
What else can I say, Mom? I continue to wonder why the experiences of former members are so different from those of us in the Church.
No, Mom, I am not implying you are not telling the truth; I am making an observation and pondering. I wonder why someone, such as me, who has experienced the Saints over a very large area and across several cultural lines, has never had your experience. I thought perhaps this belief you experienced was a unique Utah phenomenon, but I now attend Church in Utah and have not heard any such speculation. In addition and after reading your post, I called my neighbor. He is in his 90s, has ranched in Carbon County all his life, and can trace his lineage in the Church to the days of Kirtland. I asked him about what you wrote. He told me he has heard this accusation against the Church all his life, but he knows of no one in the Church who believes it to be true. Now, I’ll grant you he has only experienced the Church in a fairly localized area, but he is pretty representative of the LDS membership in Utah.
What else can I say, Mom? I continue to wonder why the experiences of former members are so different from those of us in the Church.
Thanks for clarifying.
The church is a large organization made up of many, many individuals. It would probably be more surprising if we all had the same experiences.
Regarding this particular issue, I know the people I heard it from were mostly well-educated, from the Wasatch front (which is where I was when I heard it), and had been adult members of the church during the 1960s and 1970s when the church was not as correlated and more members were reading the Journal of Discourses and other writings by early church leaders. (In fact, Deseret Books used to publish a set that included Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, etc.)
We are still waiting for you to answer Coolcat's question. Why are you avoiding that? How long must we wait?
Jesus was not created. We agree. He is the Firstborn spirit of our Father in Heaven and is described as "one like unto God" in the scriptures (LDS scriptures). Even so His intelligence is co-eternal with God.
Is God an exalted Man? Yes. Jesus said "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."
Do we teach that we may obtain godhood? Yes.
On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow.) It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. (Gordon B. Hinckley 1994)
Is Mormonism "far outside of the realms of Christianity"? On many things no and on many things I would agree we are far outside mainstream sectarian Christian theology. I look upon that as a blessing not a curse, as source of enlightenment not a heresy, as proof of truth not error.
Preterist, you may be scandalized all the rest of your days at Mormon theology but alas, you are not the arbiter of who or what is Christian--Christ is.
I am sorry, but I am not avoiding Coolcats' question. What was it again? I will look for it.
Having said that your beliefs are far outside the Christian theology, do you agree, then, that you should not tell those of mainstream Christianity that you believe in their God and their Jesus. That has been my entire point all along. If you want to be Mormon--fine. That is your right. No one is denying you that right. The battle has come about by your church attempting to align itself with us and using our terms with different meanings and failing to clearly delineate the irreconcilable differences. I commend you for finally doing that.
Our Jesus is not your Jesus, so therefore, we do believe in a different Jesus.
Your God is not our God, so therefore, we believe in a different God.
That is important. Why do so many Mormons, then, find it so strange that those of us who have such a different understanding of the nature of man and the person and nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit would seek to defend our beliefs against those who claim to be one of us while making of our God something totally foreign to what we believe and teach? You know full well that your church finds our doctrine of the Trinity abominable. Do you tell non-Mormons that? Why not? You clearly believe that God was once a man and that a worthy man can attain godhood. Do you make those beliefs clearly known to others? If not, why not? If it is part of your distinctives and part of your faith, why not clearly spell it out?
Most Mormons I have contact with simply want to say "I believe in Jesus, so I am a Christian." The untaught, naive, and unsuspecting will take that at face value without any further thought.
Just what is it that you base your faith upon? Do you disavow the writings of your own "prophets?" Is there one God or are there many gods? Didn't Joseph Smith, your founder and prophet say:
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and THREE GODS" (Teachings of PROPHET Joseph Smith, p. 370). Is this not the polygamy of which Mormonism accuses historic Christianity?
For us, this concept that a man can become a god comes right out of the lie told by Satan himself in the Garden of Eden. Man is like God only in some of his God-given attributes. Again, God is OTHER than we are. He is the Creator; we are the created. It will always be so.
I am going to try to find Coolcats' question. Was it on this thread or another?
Yes, our beliefs are very different, and frankly, I'm grateful You only want to ask the hard questions. You do not want to answer them. May God in His infinite wisdom determine whether your attitudes and methods have any inkling of true Christianity. I have my own opinion, and I believe others do also. But we will let God be the judge.
I believe you employ the concept of the "Big Lie." If you are familiar with the concept, it states that if you are going to lie, make it big and repeat the lie enough times so that people will begin to believe it. People here can see through your techniques and it is not working. I will generally ignore your posts, but may from time to time clarify things if you continue to lie. Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of other readers.
Coolcats: Do not call someone a liar without spelling out the lie. What was the lie, Coolcats? That Mormonism teaches that Jesus was created through some relationship between the Mormon Father and Mary? Your own leaders and prophets said so, I didn't. If you want to deny what they clearly said, that is your prerogative. But do not call me a liar when I simply posted their OWN WORDS.
Coolcats: Do not call someone a liar without spelling out the lie. What was the lie, Coolcats? That Mormonism teaches that Jesus was created through some relationship between the Mormon Father and Mary? Your own leaders and prophets said so, I didn't. If you want to deny what they clearly said, that is your prerogative. But do not call me a liar when I simply posted their OWN WORDS.
Preterist
The lie is your implication that we believe Mary and God had sex. That has clearly been debunked. Furthermore -- you are still not answering whether you condone protesters at the funeral of Gordon B. Hinckely.
Preterist;
Coolcats question is on page 5, post #50... which I think he's referring to.
Sergeant, you had mentioned that some of the Methodist teachings were not biblical, which caused you to look into other churches that included LDS. At first some of the teaching of LDS seemed "were way out". Can you recall what struck you as "way out" at the time? I mean, what teachings that seemed "way out" at the time.
Coolcats, did the protesters show up, if so how many?
In none of those quotes does it say that God the Father had intercourse with Mary. You are implying that we believe in a sexual conception. It only says that she conceived in a natural way. I don’t know what that means, and I don’t know exactly what they mean because the quotes are ambiguous. If I had to interpret, I would say they are claiming a conception occurred with a sperm and and egg. As I posted last night, modern medicine can unite a sperm and an egg in many non-sexual ways, so why could not our Father in Heaven do the same if he so desired? Neither, you nor I nor anyone else knows exactly the physical mechanism by which Jesus’ body was created. You have some people offering their opinions as to if it was supernatural or physical, and you are trying to make it look like we believe in some sort of divine orgy.
Coolcats: If God the Father, who is a Spirit, has physical sperm which He can pass down, your God is not the God of Christianity. I accept the fact that you do not believe your god had sex with Mary. I still contend that your prophets were teaching just that. But the bottom line is that you believe that Jesus was conceived through the uniting of a physical sperm with a physical egg. That is your Jesus.
But according to mainstream Christianity and the Bible, Jesus' conception was NOT a NORMAL conception as your teachers have declared. There was NO union of a male sperm with the female ovum of Mary. It was the ALREADY EXISTENT and ETERNAL Christ who was miraculously planted into the womb of Mary. It was a one-time, never-to-be-repeated biological miracle! This is how the eternal Son of God, Jesus, avoided Adamic blood that is passed down to us all and makes of us all sinners from the womb! This is how Jesus was the spotless Lamb of God. He did not attain it--He was it--from the beginning! The eternal, perfect, holy, Son of God took upon Himself human nature and it was united to his divine nature (hypostatic union) There was NO sperm!
What does Mormonism teach? Again, here are the very words of your former prophet, Heber C. Kimball from the Journal of Discourses, Vol 8, p. 211):
"I will say that I was NATUALLY (emphasis mine) begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father IN THE FLESH (emphasis mine), and there was NOTHING UNNATURAL (emphasis mine) about it." What did Kimball mean by "nothing unnatural?"
Not having this book myself, I can only rely on what others have quoted, but does the family home evening manual say, p. 125-126 (1972) that "Jesus is the only person who had our heavenly father as the father of HIS BODY." According to Mormon teachings, we all, as spirit children of the Father, gain our physical bodies through physical conception--the uniting of the physical sperm and egg of our human fathers and mothers. The only difference between us and Christ, according to Mormonism, is that He got His body from the Father. This suggests that the Father passed on His physical sperm. But God the Father of Christianity has NO sperm! If you want to deny actual physical relations between the Father and Mary, that is commendable. But the fact still remains that your Jesus is, then, a procreated being who had a beginning. Consequently, there can be no denying that you do NOT believe in our Jesus (i.e. the Jesus of the Bible)
To say that Jesus was conceived as we are all conceived (i.e. through the union of a physical sperm and egg) is to make of Him something totally foreign to historic, mainstream, biblical Christianity. And to say that the eternal, unique God over all who is and always has been a Spirit has physical sperm is TOTALLY outside any concept found in biblical Christianity.
How much different can something be and still constitute the same thing? How can such diametrically opposite viewpoints as the doctrines of Mormonism and the long-accepted doctrines of Christianity belong in the same category? They simply CANNOT!
Preterist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
