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.
Typical Mormon evasion. Please agree or disagree with the writings of YOUR own leaders. Was Jesus procreated through sexual relations between Mary and heavenly Father?
Preterist
Are you saying that a Church authority stated or wrote that God the Father had sex with Mary????? If you are, then show me.
Are you saying that a Church authority stated or wrote that God the Father had sex with Mary????? If you are, then show me.
Sergeant1: That is EXACTLY what I am saying!!!!
Do you have a copy of the Journal of Discourses or McConkie's Mormon Doctrine? Are these still standard works of Mormonism? I have other quotes from other works, but I do not personally possess them, so I will provide quotes only from my own copies of Mormon works.
What did Brigham Young say in the Journal of Discourses Vol. 8, p. 115?
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."
Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 51).
Look up in the Journal of Discourses Vol. 4, p. 218). Brigham Young said:
"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits."
Bruce McConkie, a former member of the First Council of the Seventy wrote in Mormon Doctrine, p. 547:
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."
And on page 742 he wrote:
[SIZE=2]"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Heber C. Kimball of the first presidency is quoted in the Journal of Discourse Vo. 8, p. 211:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." [/SIZE]
There are many other such quotes, some even more to the point, but they are taken from writings I do not possess, so I cannot personally verify them.
Do you accept the content of the Journal of Discourses and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine as authoritative teachings of the Mormon church?
If so, what do you make of the teachings found within them?
Mormon Doctrine is not and has never been official Mormon Doctrine. In fact, when it was published, it created quite a fuss among the Quorum of the Twelve. Two apostles were asked to review it, and came up with hundreds (the exact number escapes me) of "doctrinal errors." Of course, there are lay members who do consider it authoritative (although fewer now than in the past), but that has never been the official church position.
Likewise, the Journal of Discourses is not considered a standard work. But I do think it is more problematic.
Here's a question I have. Are the Journal of Discourses and other similar publications considered the opinion of the person who wrote them or were/are they considered inspirations by God to men to illuminate them? I have a difficult time understanding why a church leader/prophet like Brigham Young and others who were/are highly regarded would write something that either lended no creedence or illumination to the doctrine that was in place. Any ideas?
The reason I ask is because I remember a comment by President Benson where he stated something to the effect that the church prophet was more important to the church than the doctrines because they received direct inspiration from God relevant to the day (I don't remember how it was worded exactly so forgive me if I presented it slightly out of context).
So, in your opinion, what is more important; the doctrine itself or the prophet, or are they pretty much equal in importance? I know it's a tough question but it's one I've wondered about myself. Thanks and God bless.
Mormon Doctrine is not and has never been official Mormon Doctrine. In fact, when it was published, it created quite a fuss among the Quorum of the Twelve. Two apostles were asked to review it, and came up with hundreds (the exact number escapes me) of "doctrinal errors." Of course, there are lay members who do consider it authoritative (although fewer now than in the past), but that has never been the official church position.
Likewise, the Journal of Discourses is not considered a standard work. But I do think it is more problematic.
MomtoFour: And the fact that such writings by Mormon PROPHETS and high-level Mormon leaders are down-played is problematic. It is difficult to ascertain just what constitutes the source of Mormon doctrine. What is the source of Mormon "truth" today? Also, are Mormons not troubled by the fact that the truths contained in the writings of their prophets and leaders are called into question or contradicted by their own church?
Is there something that supercedes the Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine that spells out clearly what Mormonism teaches about Jesus and His "origin?" How much has Mormonism changed from its roots? And if Joseph Smith was called to restore the lost Gospel, why are not all of his teachings highly respected? Was Joseph Smith wrong? Was Brigham Young wrong? Was Bruce McConkie wrong? Was Orson Pratt wrong? How can any Mormon trust anything spoken by the current president?
MomtoFour: And the fact that such writings by Mormon PROPHETS and high-level Mormon leaders are down-played is problematic. It is difficult to ascertain just what constitutes the source of Mormon doctrine. What is the source of Mormon "truth" today? Also, are Mormons not troubled by the fact that the truths contained in the writings of their prophets and leaders are called into question or contradicted by their own church?
Is there something that supercedes the Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine that spells out clearly what Mormonism teaches about Jesus and His "origin?" How much has Mormonism changed from its roots? And if Joseph Smith was called to restore the lost Gospel, why are not all of his teachings highly respected? Was Joseph Smith wrong? Was Brigham Young wrong? Was Bruce McConkie wrong? Was Orson Pratt wrong? How can any Mormon trust anything spoken by the current president?
Preterist
Preterist, remember, I'm an ex-Mormon. I've answered those questions for myself, but the thread isn't about what ex-Mormons believe.
But if you want to discuss "official" Mormon doctrine with Mormons, you'll need to stick to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. (And the Bible, of course.) And I believe the Proclamation on the Family is considered official doctrine, but I'm not positive on that one.
Here's a question I have. Are the Journal of Discourses and other similar publications considered the opinion of the person who wrote them or were/are they considered inspirations by God to men to illuminate them? I have a difficult time understanding why a church leader/prophet like Brigham Young and others who were/are highly regarded would write something that either lended no creedence or illumination to the doctrine that was in place. Any ideas?
The reason I ask is because I remember a comment by President Benson where he stated something to the effect that the church prophet was more important to the church than the doctrines because they received direct inspiration from God relevant to the day (I don't remember how it was worded exactly so forgive me if I presented it slightly out of context).
So, in your opinion, what is more important; the doctrine itself or the prophet, or are they pretty much equal in importance? I know it's a tough question but it's one I've wondered about myself. Thanks and God bless.
Urban, I assume you are asking Mormons, right? I just wanted to clarify in case you are waiting for an answer from me.
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.
I have a question for Preterist. A few days ago, I posted about the protesters who are planning to picket Gordon B. Hinckley’s funeral this Saturday. I noticed you were conspicuously silent on the matter. Similarly, at every LDS general conference, protesters stand outside with signs and slogans against the LDS Church. I have a question – do you denounce such techniques? Why or why not?
I say this because I believe your crusade against Mormonism to be full of misguided techniques, not that dissimilar to those who protest at LDS funerals and General Conference. Don’t get me wrong, I think you are acting out of concern for us. But I think your techniques are dangerous. At best they create hostility between us and you. At worse, they perpetuate falsehoods that people could use to justify any manner of hateful behavior. I’m sure you have seen the movie “The Godmakers,” because many of your accusations come from that line of thought. Did you know in Arizona, a group of religious leaders reviewed the movie and spoke out against it? And the group that spoke out most about it were the Jewish members because it reminded them of the techniques the Nazi’s used in their propaganda films. Now I don’t think you harbor the hate those groups hold. But I worry that your techniques could give such people ammunition to justify all sorts of un-Christlike behavior.
So I ask again: Do you specifically denounce those protesters who will be outside the funeral tomorrow? Do you see any danger in such techniques?
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.
