You all don't seem to be paying attention to the 3 quotes given in the video starting around 30 seconds in.
Even saying that the conception was natural does not imply sex. In Mormon theology, miracles or anything else God does is all considered "natural", even if we don't understand it. Any church leader saying that the conception is "natural" does not necessarily mean sex. Especially when ALL of these men repeatedly confirm that she remained a virgin, precisely as the Book of Mormon says.
@smpf38 Brigham Young, Parley Pratt and others have said God came to earth and gave Mary a thumping. He never belied what you say. And when he said the above it wasn't to confirm 2000 years of Christianity, it was to CONTRADICT It. that was the point. You know Mormonism Contradicts Mainstream Christianity along many lines. And this is one of them. Again, this quote is to Prove Mormon doctrine, not to prove or confirm Christian doctrine
In one aspect you are correct, but in another you are wrong. I have read the context of these quotes in their entirety. The point wasn't about the virgin birth if you read the context. It was about WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST?
The overriding message of Brigham (again, if you read the context) was that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ. This was contrary to the erroneous view that the Holy Spirit was the father. The Holy Spirit was present, ... but was not the father.
Expose: "Brigham Young, Parley Pratt and others have said God came to earth and gave Mary a thumping"
Two points made in this video:
1) Brigham never actually said this. This is an assumption that some people make (especially, those who want to make Mormons look bad).
2) Even if some Mormon leaders did believe this, it is contrary to official doctrine and therefore your everyday average Mormons don't believe it. Nor are they required to, because prophets aren't viewed by LDS as infallible.
Brigham Young and other have couched their "natural" statements in very coy language so as to suggest intercourse. Truthfully, we'll never know what Brigham, Kimball, Pratt and the other early Utah leaders meant because of their coy language so we can only speculate as to what they meant. But don't be so surprised if Young did mean intercourse. It wouldn't be the first false doctrine he taught. See Adam-God.
GohModly: Brigham and others have couched their "natural" statements in very coy language so as to suggest intercourse.
I don't think he was being "coy" or "couching" his language. Brigham Young probably never imagined that his words would be scrutinized to the degree they have been 130 years after his death. I don't think he ever imagined this "controversy". Yes, we are speculating, but I speculate on the side of "official doctrine", what the Book of Mormon says about the virgin birth.
This is where Anti-Mormons go completely off base.
Why do you think Mormons MUST believe what certain people assume LDS leaders meant in statements like this.
Adam-God is a perfect example. LDS scripture is very clear that Michael was an archangel who then was born as Adam. Brigham also taught this. The Adam-God theory as anti-Mormons would have us believe is not only contradictory to Brigham's own statements, but more importantly...contradicts official scripture. Yet we must believe it?
Of course he didn't talk about DNA or zygotes or haploids. But he did say that Mary was a virgin and he also taught that God the Father was literally the Father. In the 1800s, these two concepts may have been difficult to reconcile. However, with the knowledge of modern science, we can easily see how someone can literally be the father of a child without any physical involvement.
From the New Testament "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," No mortal can withstand the presence of God without protection from the Holy Spirit (like Moses on the Mount. " 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."
As we see here (and elsewhere in the Biblical text) God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ, but no method of conception is specified ... by ANYONE that I know of.
Brigham Young clearly taught that Mary Conceived in the way all of us were. He said it more than once So did Parley Pratt and others. She was still a real virgin.
Not quite. ElderJoseph actually posted the words "The birth of the Savior 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 are of our fathers." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115)
His BIRTH was natural as ours was and in the way all of ours was. That is what he said.
... I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person.... I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ. (Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 238)
"Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.... And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."
So again, the official book says that Mary was a virgin. We also believe that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. So, LDS reconcile those two doctrinal points by believing that God had a way to "overshadow" Mary and fertilize the egg without actually having intercourse with her.
What's the big deal anyway? Who cares if God the Fahter came to Earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary? You believe in modern-day revelation right? Then beieve Brigham and stop putting words in his mouth.
Goh: What's the big deal anyway? Who cares if God the Father came to Earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary?
There are many problems with it. First and foremost, it contradicts LDS scripture.
Goh: beieve Brigham and stop putting words in his mouth.
I think it is you who is putting words in his mouth. At no point did Brigham Young specify the actual method of conception (again, Brigham's point was that God the Father was the Father. The point WAS NOT an explanation of exactly HOW).
Here is another point that is worth making because anti-Mormons constantly ( and I believe purposefully ) get this wrong.
LDS don't believe that everything every church leader ever said throughout LDS history is doctrinal truth and must be accepted. That simply is not how it works. If the prophet receives a new doctrinal truth to be accepted by the church, it goes through a canonization process. Do you understand what that means?
The birth of the Savior 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 are of our fathers. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115)
Brigham Young said that the same being who was in the garden of eden was the Father, but when you look at the context you can see that he was referring God the Father who was in the garden and Eden (Gen 3:8)"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden bin the cool of the day". Anybody who wants to pretend that Brigham didn't know the difference between God the Father and Adam(Michael the archangel) are neglecting everything that Brigham ever said on the subject.
Stema: well, that about sums it up right there. at least you're not denying you're history.
Can you think of ANY religion that has infallible leaders? (Peter denied Christ 3 times, for example.) Mormons never pretended that their leaders are 100% correct 100% of the time. Now if you dig through the extensive written history (Mormons wrote EVERYTHING down if they could) and compile every mistake, then it seems like a lot, but it really wasn't that much in comparison.
of course no religion has infallible leaders. but we're not talking about an issue of morality or mistakes. we're talking wholesale doctorinal changes. and it's especially important because your religion claims that your leadership HEAR DIRECTLY FROM GOD. that is the issue.
Let's look at the topic at hand, when has it ever been a doctrine that God had sex with Mary? Never. So where was the so-called "wholesale doctrinal change"? There was a misconception that some Mormons may have had, but that isn't the same as Church doctrine.
actually, i was referring to the "black folks" response. the wholesale doctornile changes refers to the more recent revelation about black priests that coincided nicely with the tale end of the civil rights movement...sorry about that, i was WAY off topic and unclear. as far as the sex with Mary thing; it seems more like a sensational topic than anything else. (even though BY seems to allude to it)
stema: it seems more like a sensational topic than anything else. (even though BY seems to allude to it)
It is meant to play off a deeply rooted idea that some people have about sex supposedly being bad. But Brigham DID insist that Mary was a virgin. Mormons have maintained that there was another means by which God was the Father. Not just conventional sex.
What further shows the bearing false witness done by anti-mormons, is that to the couple of times Brigham Young touched on this subject in a way that makes anti-mormons think "sex", Brigham in fact at least a 100 times directly said Mary was a VIRGIN, the same way we have always believed!!!!
Yay, go Mormons! I would make a video and tell everyone everything about us, Mormons, but I dont have a camera :(. So, I can't. But thank you for making everything up and clear.
Well done, I'm a return missionary. I have heard this same crazy idea in church that God the father had sex with Mary. Besides people do not want to accept that Brigham Young may have taught things that were just plain wrong. Again well done, Oh by the way don't try to explaine the trinity to the Anti mormons you'll just give them a reson to tear you down. Let them continue to tell each other that God is like a chicken egg. LOL
Hey man, my mission president taught us in a meeting with other elders that God came on earth to create Jesus Christ on the flesh, using sexual contact for this purpose, if you don't know what you are saying is better you don't say anything
Funny how ex-mormons have all these stories about how so and so said this and a mission president said that. It is especially interesting since the Presidents of the Church have explained that they don't know the method by which it was done and that no teacher should pretend that they know. So does the President of the Church have the right to reveal doctrine, or do supposed hearsay from mission presidents against the counsel of the President of the Church have that right?
grumpy: are you a Mormon..? do you believe that god lives on a distant planet?
See my other videos in response to the Godmakers cartoon propaganda. I answer those questions. Otherwise go to FAIR (dot) org or Jeff Lindsay or some other Mormon site for information.
A miracle is something beyond man's understanding. But even then, some people consider the advances of science and medicine to be modern day miracles?
I am not even sure if it was artificial insemination though. All I know is that Mary did not have what it took to form a zygote, therefore God had to provide what Mary was lacking.
No problem. The light above is on the frits. You can see it flickering on and off in some of my videos. I have the camera attached to the computer for simplicity's sake so I don't want to film it elsewhere.
Let's see. LDS go through 4 years of seminary in high school, institute classes after that, a two year mission, 3 hours of Church every Sunday for their entire lives along with many other religiously oriented activities throughout.
Sure, LDS are called "lay ministry", but they aren't that "lay".
It is very commendable, don't get me wrong. Let's face it though, most Mormons are not close to as faithful as you in their studies. Most slept their way through seminary; most people glaze over during Sunday Services; the Priesthood, as a whole is notorious for not being nearly as zealous in preparing and participating in lessons as the young women and Relief Society are. You, smpf, are a refreshing rarety.
I do think, however, that Institute students seem to be a cut above their younger seminary counterparts.
But, I digress, so I don't derail the point of this thread.
As an aside, though, smpf, I think you should do a video on the Trinity. I do hope you continue to churn out videos because in the spirit of fairness, I ALWAYS want representation from opposing sides. People need to be informed to make good decisions.
Ah, Koine....of course, the word, "einai" should have come up sooner or later-by a Christian of course, since I rarely see LDS revert to hermeneutics the way Bible scholars approach the subject. Gotta love ontology. Your conversation with smpf should be interesting to watch.
I considered doing a video on the Trinity, however, Christians would probably feel I was attacking their religion. I would have to do that in a very tactful way.
fube: No where does it imply that Jesus is the son of the HG.
I believe both mormons and non-mormons made that mistake due to the statements in the New Testament along the lines of the child being "of the Holy Ghost"
agreed. Just like JS jr. corrected many notions of the early elders; they were x-Christians, and still retained many old ideas that the restoration cleared away.
Reminds me of a story regarding an elder being rebuked by other priesthood members: it concerned the elder's preaching, which confounded many non-members. It revolved around the book of Revelation, the imagery of John. I always liked J.S. jr's. reaction to the situation, and subsequent teaching on what it all really meant.
fube: Early mormon prophets used seemingly endless euphemisms for sex regarding the whole conception and then added in the marriage doctrine for good measure.
When you string them all together taken from various sources and people over a 150 year time period then they do seem that way, especially when you've got sex on the brain.
fube: 3. current mormons are completely ignorant of what their past leaders have said and believe the biblical story
How does the biblical story contradict what past leaders have said? Past leaders were just more specific by explaining that Jesus was the literal Son of God in the flesh and not the son of the Holy Spirit.
Early leaders did not just say that Jesus was not the son of the HG. The bible already says that anyways. No where does it imply that Jesus is the son of the HG.
Early mormon prophets used seemingly endless euphemisms for sex regarding the whole conception and then added in the marriage doctrine for good measure.
fube: No where does it imply that Jesus is the son of the HG
But people were teaching that Jesus was the son of the Holy Spirit. THAT was the false teaching that Brigham was fighting against that started the whole sex/Mary controversy. Just read the context of his infamous speeches.
"...when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve." (JoD 1:50-51)
that quote is also found in my personal copy of "Discourses of Brigham Young," comp. John A. Widstoe.
There are MANY prophetic utterances that use that language, as the scriptures have a habit of doing--LIKENING and event to something we know about because of daily experience.
castido: I think a consideration in favor of such a teaching is the TRANSFIGURATION Mary's body underwent to be able to endure the presence of God. Such a transformation in her body changed the physiological laws normally associated with the flesh--or so Bruce was insinuating.
You get all THAT crap from the "because"? You have got to be kidding me. Bruce was "insinuating" all of that huh? O.K. dude.
Here is the rest of McConkie's quote that you leave out:
"Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit", was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false."
"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." (Bruce McConkie)
You put words into his mouth. The "because" could be BECAUSE only an immortal Father (GOD) is capable of making the miracle occur. It is YOUR idea that somehow it nullified the normal concept of virginity.
Castido: By advocating possible in-vitro, you have gone against the statements and reasoning of past GA's--it is you fighting against the Church, not I.
Advocating "possible in-vitro", is not the same as teaching it as if it were doctrine. There IS no doctrine on the subject other than what is found in the scriptures (i.e. Mary was called a virgin). That is my point.
I like that comment by President Ezra Taft Benson that the paternity of Jesus Christ is comprehended by only the "spiritually minded", ... as opposed to the "carnal mind".
Isn't the whole point of scriptures and prophets to comprehend god, his plan, and his creation?
How do you know that Benson's quote about being "spiritually minded" wasn't speculation or just an excuse because he couldn't explain the apparent contradiction either?
Well, I live my life well as an atheist exmormon. So would you agree that the important thing in life is to be a good person and to do what makes you happy?
fube: I live my life well as an atheist exmormon. So would you agree that the important thing in life is to be a good person and to do what makes you happy?
Admitting things like this, just like admitting that in 2005 the initiatory procedure was changed, would put smpf38 into the same APOSTATE category as Catholics, or any other Christian Faith that changed teachings and ordinances, or who had people who preached false doctrine.
Castido: {Sex} is one of the great differentiators between an exalted Man and Woman (gods) and angels in eternity.
Wait a minute. Do you actually think that it is assumed that physical sex and hopping into the sack is the means by which spiritual children are created?
That is what I was ALWAYS taught in Deacon's/Priest's/Elder's Quorum by my leaders. They always impressed us that if we couldn't keep it in our pants, there would be none of that in the Celestial Kingdom.
I hear it all the time by members when we talk about our beliefs: they try to tell me something to the tune of, "You're telling me that you'd give up sex for eternity, just because you don't believe in God anymore? That stupid to me. Suit yourself. You can be one of my ministering angels, while I have fun having sex with my wife." blah blah blah
Most mormons nowadays do not believe that God had sex with mary. LDS Inc has done a lot of mainstreaming lately and there's been a lot of dumbing down of doctrine with the introduction of correlation.
Harold B. Lee "Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For us the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.'"
Being married may seem to be about sex to YOU, but to these people was not about sex, it was about having children. They felt that you couldn't have a child without being married, because it would make Jesus "illegitimate". Again, this isn't about sex, but instead about Jesus being the literal Son of God in the flesh. That is what it always has been about for Mormon leaders, it is the critics that turn it into the idea of God actually getting in bed with Mary.
Really, then how about you pick apart your own Prophets and Apostles' teachings. Show us with each quote, how Mormon leaders didn't promote the idea of sex?
Marriage IS about sex, my son. Why do you think the LDS put so much emphasis on marriage needing to be done by the power of God, the Sealing power of the Priesthood? Because sex is THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE upon which the eternities rest. Sex is good, and holy, because it is of God; because it is holy and good, God has sex, period. It helps DEFINE Him. It is one of the great differentiators between an exalted Man and Woman (gods) and angels in eternity.
Now your true point of view is revealed. Physical intercourse is only the MEANS by which man and wife produce children in mortality. The most important aspect of marriage is FAMILY, not SEX. If you didn't get that from the Church, I don't know where you've been.
We're talking about what CREATES families; you are trying to OBFUSCATE--quit being SO evasive. God COULDN'T CREATE JESUS WITHOT SEX. Everyone on earth does it, and that is why your Prophets have claimed God did it.
I would actually agree with you if SEX is not equivalent with "intercourse", but it almost always is. However, this is not the normal circumstance of "always". They claimed natural union that would give Christ the inherited traits of God the Father and his mortal mother, but that doesn't mean sleeping together.
The fact of the matter is that I have never encountered an active and believing Mormon who argued FOR the idea of God literally getting in bed with Mary. That argument is always imposed upon Mormons by those who want to scandalize the church and LDS theology. You fit into that category.
Bruce R. McConkie: (Why does he have to preface a concept like virginity, if it is so simple as NOT having had sex?)
"For our *present purposes*, *suffice it to say* that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being"
This quote highlights an interesting assertion: namely, that Mary was a virgin (for our purposes) ***because God was an Immortal Man.*** (how would her virginity be in question if this was in-vitro?) I think a consideration in favor of such a teaching is the TRANSFIGURATION Mary's body underwent to be able to endure the presence of God. Such a transformation in her body changed the physiological laws normally associated with the flesh--or so Bruce was insinuating.
Bruce McConkie and Orson Pratt were both repudiated for going beyond the doctrines of the church as they were very outspoken in their opinions. Both of these well documented public renouncements of statements they made because of the mistakes they had made.
Now, you realize that no matter who was repudiated, you stepped beyond the truth for claiming that **only** nonmembers claimed such things to scandalize the church and doctrine. Now we have your admission that McConkie and Pratt were repudiated for it? Don't be so deceptive when accusing me of being a loner in the God/Mary sex scandal then.
Castido: McConkie and Pratt were repudiated for it? Don't be so deceptive when accusing me of being a loner in the God/Mary sex scandal then.
They were repudiated in general (the books they produced) and sometimes on specific issues. They did not make the same assertions you made earlier . You put words in their mouths as well as interpretations of what they said, even if they weren't entitled to their own opinions.
"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..."
When McConkie and Brigham refer to the "normal and natural course of events" he is referring to the conception, pregnancy, and birth of Jesus. That is EXACTLY what makes Jesus the "literal" Son of God. Would you suppose that now Mormons only believe that Jesus is only a figurative Son of God? No, not at all.
What christians believe in regards to the virgin birth is pretty convoluted when they believe in the trinity. They don't really believe in a "son" or a "father" because it's the same person.
McKonkie basically says the same thing that his predecessors have said, but adds that somehow she remained a virgin.
But based on what BY said, God was physically present during the conception and that they were married.
But that doesn't even make sense given the premise that God is omnipotent.
"Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822.)
So McConkie is saying that people in the church are denying the virgin birth BECAUSE of what BY, Pratt, HC Kimball, and J. Fielding S. have said. You could also imply that McConkie is attempting to correct the false or incomplete doctrine that his predecessors taught.
The scriptures state that she was a virgin in several different places. There is no need to clarify it. Since that was set straight, all that was left to clarify was that 1) God is the literal Father 2) the Holy Spirit is not the Father 3) the conception, pregnancy, and birth were all natural and normal
The part you all refer to is intercourse/coitus, which was never mentioned at all.
the issue is the Hebrew word, "ALMAH" correctly translated as "young woman," and NOT "virgin" as had been done. That makes sense to me in light of old Mormon theologians--she wasn't a virgin, she was a young woman, and one that God would wed, and then overshadow, and perform coitus, to sire a Holy Being.
smpf, go to your LDS apologetic web sites to put this into context: Remember the anti claim that the BoM name, Alma, is a hebrew word for "young woman?" That should help you realize what is going on in academic fights over the hermeneutics of this passage.
Funny these "old Mormon theologians" never made the connection you just did with the issue of the Hebrew word and coitus. No, actually ... it is pretty consistent with this entire conversation. You connect your own dots.
(By the way, it isn't that "almah" does NOT mean virgin. Translation isn't always clear cut.)
No, but the word, "almah" in Isaiah was used properly in context in such a ways a to be consistent with other times in the OT. Why is it that everywhere the word "betulah" was necessary, it was used, as in the case of talking about worthy women?
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known (8804) her: and she went down (8799) to the well, and filled (8762) her pitcher, and came up (8799).
By my count, there are 11 mentionings of the word, "betulah" when talking about a virgin up until the Isaiah Prophecy, yet, conveniently, "almah" is used as a substitute in your supposed Mary prophecy--Why didn't they keep going with their previous pattern?
Absolutely, but to show Bible corruption--which we both agree happened--I showed a viable place where it may have occurred. It changes the ENTIRE virgin birth/conception if the translation is as I have asserted, and nullifies the need to defend the virginity.
You asked me why they didn't catch it, I simply said it wasn't my fault they didn't study enough. Frankly, I like most of the leaders, and I feel very strongly towards McConkie, J.S. jr., and others. I still enjoy reading about their life, regardless of the fact that I disagree with a lot of stuff.
fube: But based on what BY said, God was physically present ...
You are making too many assumptions. Brigham taught that God dwells in "another world, he is in another state of existence". Mormons maintain that God lives outside of time itself. So, God didn't have to be in the same room with Mary, but at least in the same dimension perhaps.
"I believe the Father CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Savior of the World; for He is the Only Begotten of the Father which could not have been if the Father did not actually beget him IN PERSON''. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 1 page 238)
So, yes McConkie is sometimes taken out of context since he clearly says that after the event, she remained a virgin. But the fact remains that what he does say is self-contradictory.
And based on what BY and Pratt did not say that somehow she remained a virgin. And again, if god somehow came down and caused a sperm cell to form that connected with Mary's egg, why would marriage be necessary? If no one knew about the marriage, then what's the point?
smpf, you realize people fight over the translation we have taken as "virgin" all these years? the Isaiah prophesy vs. the NT fulfillment-- ALMAH vs BETULAH--virgin or young woman? That the issue rages in scholarly circles should give you pause.
This issue is one of the proofs Christian/non-Christian scholars have used to show the NT has been tampered with. That people were concerned with writing faithful history, and so, made events up in order to satisfy their interpretation of OT prophecy.
As for the "husband" comment, I understand why Pratt said it. Jesus could be considered an "illegitimate" child if his Father and mother were not married. Again, the statement is not about sex. It is about the scandal of a bastard Jesus. Get it? Yep, I said it.
There you go again. The term "bastard" is all about marriage, not sex. "bastard: a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child; out of wedlock; of unwed parents"
Nobody knows whether the marriage did take place or not. Like I said, the bastard issue was the only reason he said it. There was no revelation on the subject.
Orson Pratt: "we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully."
The obvious scandel would have been FORNICATION, not an in-vitro possibility. How could it be "blasphemous" to suggest some magical miracle for an explanation, rather than SEX?
That is exactly what I get from it. Pratt (and many others) felt that it would be "blasphemous" for God to have an illegitimate child and for Jesus Christ to be a bastard son.
Is that a surprise to you? Wouldn't having an illegitimate/bastard child be unlawful for a morally perfect being? I don't know, Pratt could be right.
Marriage doesn't really require ceremony or pomp necessarily. (Look at the Mormon teaching on Adam's baptism. The Holy Spirit did it himself.) But like I said, the marriage may or may not be true. Nobody knows. It doesn't appear to be a revelation, but instead a gut reaction due to being repulsed by the idea of an illegitimate baby.
That's a WHOLE LOT OF PREACHING of false doctrine they did.
D&C 42:11-17--A Mormon Priesthood Bearer MUST refrain from preaching if he doesn't receive the Spirit.
Wow, those old mormon theologians seem to ignore the Standard Work prescriptions for preaching ONLY when the Spirit prompts, and to shut up if it doesn't.
ALL the preaching you say that B.Y., Orson Pratt, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph F. Smith, et al did--which preaching you claim has been repudiated by other "prophets" in no less cases than the ones involving McConkie, Young, and Pratt.
They can spew their false doctrines, but when lay members of the Church do it, they call it Apostacy, and Ex them, a la Toscanos, Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, & co.
Perhaps I should state the point thusly: As long as McConkie printed his books with the disclaimer on the front pages, he wasn't ex'ed for his books. Lay members have, regardless of such admissions to things being simply an opinion.
Quinn was ex'ed because of his dredging up of historical problems with the church; for instance, his proving that the church continued clandestinely to practice polygamy until at least 1905. Hinckley even told him he'd have to decide for himself, in light of his conscience, if he would publish the paper.
P.55 of the "Gospel Principles" reads, "In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders."
fube quotes: "conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders".
That is correct. If they have the first Presidency approve them, they are as good as scripture. Brigham said the same thing, if he approves or corrects and copies a sermon that he made and sends it out, then it is as good as scripture (most of them weren't in his day though).
Very few speeches were corrected, copied, and approved by BY that are now found in the Journal of Discourses. Those were the requirements he set for something to be considered scripture. Those requirements are pretty much the same today, but actually done more often.
According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Neither written scripture, nor natural theology, supercedes the 'living oracles.' "In his "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" speech given in 1980, Ezra Taft Benson insisted that the "living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works."
BY also taught that Mary was married to God, not just Pratt.
People can accept some miraculous conception without sex. Again, nowhere in the bible, BoM, D&C, or PGP does it say that God and Mary were married.
Fornication has always been repugnant with marriage being the legitmate place for sex. This is why Pratt and BY said that God and Mary must have been married.
So, it seems that now you are coming clean in admitting that SOME MORMONS DID TEACH THAT GOD/MARY HAD SEX. Which is it? A claim invented by anti's, or anti's picking up what past church leaders have said and exposing it to common knowledge?
"Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, ***how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father***...Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body"
Heber C. Kimball: "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 Savior Jesus Christ.*** According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was **nothing unnatural** about it."
(unnatural (by definition) would be in-vitro, by the way)
"Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
(Why do people get married? Does it have something to do with having sex, so people can procreate?)
"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, ***because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully."***
Sure sounds to me like you need to read your apostles and prophets teachings more, then you wouldn't think I was the ONLY one trying to "scandalize the church and LDS theology." They do a great job all by themselves, and all I have to do is quote them.
So, in summary, it looks like I'm in good company with the GA's that I've quoted--we all seem to think she had sex with God. And you're the only one with a problem concerning it. Let's watch as you try to explain it away as "only their opinion."
We are very much concerned that ***some of our Church teachers*** seem to ***be obsessesed*** of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyone what the Lord has actually said. You asked about...the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior.
If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35...."
So, smp, here we have your prophet CLEARLY saying that there were "Church teachers" who were "obsessed" with teaching the doctrine which we've been debating.
HBL then said that if such ***teachers*** were wise, they would rest their discussion, and be satisfied only with revealed scripture.
Seems to me that you have either been ignorant that YOUR MEMBERS had in fact taught this doctrine, or you are lying for the Lord because such things actually offend people inside and outside of your faith. Now, your previous accusation against me trying to "scandalize" your church, as a non-mormon, should be effectively put to rest.
castido: "Seems to me that you have either been ignorant that YOUR MEMBERS had in fact taught this doctrine, or you are lying for the Lord because such things actually offend people inside and outside of your faith."
Nice try. I mentioned in my video that people in the past made the "MISTAKE" of making their own speculations.
Supposed prophets are entitled to their opinions like everyone else. The problem is that these prophets are not prefacing these things with something to the order of "it is my opinion..." They are teaching these things pretending to speak in the name of god.
And if they were really inspired, if they made a mistake the mormon holy ghost would inspire them to correct themselves or have a peer quickly correct them.
fubecabr: And if they were really inspired, if they made a mistake the mormon holy ghost would inspire them to correct themselves or have a peer quickly correct them.
The only ones I might disagree with would be Pratt or McConkie on this particular issue, which is nothing new. (Mormons don't believe that prophets speak prophetically at all times by the way.)
(Mormons don't believe that prophets speak prophetically at all times by the way.)
But you didn't answer my question. Why wouldn't the mormon holy ghost have them correct themselves or have a peer correct them?
If the whole point of prophets is to communicate to the masses the mind and will of God, then it would follow that God would not want these mouthpieces to be preaching all manner of false doctrine and preaching the philosophies of man mingled with scripture.
fube: Why wouldn't the mormon holy ghost have them correct themselves or have a peer correct them?
Correct them on what?
fube: Ok, why are they preaching false doctrine?
If you mean that they were teaching that she wasn't a virgin, well, they weren't. If you are talking about ideas beyond doctrine but consistent with it, it may true, but not doctrine.
Oh, gosh. I could write a book on that. Blood atonement, slavery, blacks, BoM geography, history of amerinds, people living on the moon and sun, AdamGod, changing temple ceremonies...
"The fact of the matter is that I have never encountered an active and believing Mormon who argued FOR the idea of God literally getting in bed with Mary. That argument is always imposed upon Mormons by those who want to scandalize the church and LDS theology. You fit into that category."
Nice try. You accused me of fitting into a category of nonmembers who tried to scandelize the church by IMPOSING the idea.
Harold B. Lee stated in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that there were Mormons teaching it, and they should stop.
Notice, however, as I said before, that he NEVER said sex didn't take place, only that HE (HBL) NEVER TAUGHT IT. Why? Because he didn't want us to question the Lord's method in accomplishing His purposes.
By advocating possible in-vitro, you have gone against the statements and reasoning of past GA's--it is you fighting against the Church, not I.
My experience as a Latter-Day Saint was different than yours, since I encountered a few. I will grant that they are rare, since, like I said, most LDS simply find the idea repugnant. I can definitely understand that; when I first encountered the God Makers at 17, the part about God/Mary shook my testimony.
You can think whatever you wish about my not ever having been Mormon--it doesn't erase the truth by your denial of the fact.
I was born under the Covenant. My parents were sealed in the LA Temple. I was baptized in Rapid City, SD. I moved to IL, and received my Endowment in the St. Louis Temple. Went on a Mission to Mexico, came back, went to UVSC. I lived in BYU housing off 820N 900E, in Provo. I was an Ordinance worker in the Provo Temple, 2002-2003. I left the church about 3 years ago.
You all don't seem to be paying attention to the 3 quotes given in the video starting around 30 seconds in.
Even saying that the conception was natural does not imply sex. In Mormon theology, miracles or anything else God does is all considered "natural", even if we don't understand it. Any church leader saying that the conception is "natural" does not necessarily mean sex. Especially when ALL of these men repeatedly confirm that she remained a virgin, precisely as the Book of Mormon says.
smpf38 2 years ago
@smpf38 Brigham Young, Parley Pratt and others have said God came to earth and gave Mary a thumping. He never belied what you say. And when he said the above it wasn't to confirm 2000 years of Christianity, it was to CONTRADICT It. that was the point. You know Mormonism Contradicts Mainstream Christianity along many lines. And this is one of them. Again, this quote is to Prove Mormon doctrine, not to prove or confirm Christian doctrine
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
In one aspect you are correct, but in another you are wrong. I have read the context of these quotes in their entirety. The point wasn't about the virgin birth if you read the context. It was about WHO IS THE FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST?
The overriding message of Brigham (again, if you read the context) was that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ. This was contrary to the erroneous view that the Holy Spirit was the father. The Holy Spirit was present, ... but was not the father.
smpf38 2 years ago
Expose: "Brigham Young, Parley Pratt and others have said God came to earth and gave Mary a thumping"
Two points made in this video:
1) Brigham never actually said this. This is an assumption that some people make (especially, those who want to make Mormons look bad).
2) Even if some Mormon leaders did believe this, it is contrary to official doctrine and therefore your everyday average Mormons don't believe it. Nor are they required to, because prophets aren't viewed by LDS as infallible.
smpf38 2 years ago
Brigham Young and other have couched their "natural" statements in very coy language so as to suggest intercourse. Truthfully, we'll never know what Brigham, Kimball, Pratt and the other early Utah leaders meant because of their coy language so we can only speculate as to what they meant. But don't be so surprised if Young did mean intercourse. It wouldn't be the first false doctrine he taught. See Adam-God.
GohModley 2 years ago
GohModly: Brigham and others have couched their "natural" statements in very coy language so as to suggest intercourse.
I don't think he was being "coy" or "couching" his language. Brigham Young probably never imagined that his words would be scrutinized to the degree they have been 130 years after his death. I don't think he ever imagined this "controversy". Yes, we are speculating, but I speculate on the side of "official doctrine", what the Book of Mormon says about the virgin birth.
smpf38 2 years ago
This is where Anti-Mormons go completely off base.
Why do you think Mormons MUST believe what certain people assume LDS leaders meant in statements like this.
Adam-God is a perfect example. LDS scripture is very clear that Michael was an archangel who then was born as Adam. Brigham also taught this. The Adam-God theory as anti-Mormons would have us believe is not only contradictory to Brigham's own statements, but more importantly...contradicts official scripture. Yet we must believe it?
smpf38 2 years ago
Very good spin of what Brigham Young said. But you are putting words in Brigham's mouth. You are telling us what Brigham MEANT TO SAY.
GohModley 2 years ago
Of course he didn't talk about DNA or zygotes or haploids. But he did say that Mary was a virgin and he also taught that God the Father was literally the Father. In the 1800s, these two concepts may have been difficult to reconcile. However, with the knowledge of modern science, we can easily see how someone can literally be the father of a child without any physical involvement.
smpf38 2 years ago
do tell...
GohModley 2 years ago
From the New Testament "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," No mortal can withstand the presence of God without protection from the Holy Spirit (like Moses on the Mount. " 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."
As we see here (and elsewhere in the Biblical text) God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ, but no method of conception is specified ... by ANYONE that I know of.
smpf38 2 years ago
Brigham Young clearly taught that Mary Conceived in the way all of us were. He said it more than once So did Parley Pratt and others. She was still a real virgin.
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
Not quite. ElderJoseph actually posted the words "The birth of the Savior 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 are of our fathers." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115)
His BIRTH was natural as ours was and in the way all of ours was. That is what he said.
smpf38 2 years ago
... I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person.... I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ. (Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 238)
ElderJoseph 2 years ago
"Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.... And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."
So again, the official book says that Mary was a virgin. We also believe that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. So, LDS reconcile those two doctrinal points by believing that God had a way to "overshadow" Mary and fertilize the egg without actually having intercourse with her.
It is quite simple.
smpf38 2 years ago
What's the big deal anyway? Who cares if God the Fahter came to Earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary? You believe in modern-day revelation right? Then beieve Brigham and stop putting words in his mouth.
GohModley 2 years ago
Goh: What's the big deal anyway? Who cares if God the Father came to Earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary?
There are many problems with it. First and foremost, it contradicts LDS scripture.
Goh: beieve Brigham and stop putting words in his mouth.
I think it is you who is putting words in his mouth. At no point did Brigham Young specify the actual method of conception (again, Brigham's point was that God the Father was the Father. The point WAS NOT an explanation of exactly HOW).
smpf38 2 years ago
Goh: You believe in modern-day revelation right?
Here is another point that is worth making because anti-Mormons constantly ( and I believe purposefully ) get this wrong.
LDS don't believe that everything every church leader ever said throughout LDS history is doctrinal truth and must be accepted. That simply is not how it works. If the prophet receives a new doctrinal truth to be accepted by the church, it goes through a canonization process. Do you understand what that means?
smpf38 2 years ago
The birth of the Savior 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 are of our fathers. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115)
ElderJoseph 2 years ago
Brigham Young said that the same being who was in the garden of eden was the Father, but when you look at the context you can see that he was referring God the Father who was in the garden and Eden (Gen 3:8)"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden bin the cool of the day". Anybody who wants to pretend that Brigham didn't know the difference between God the Father and Adam(Michael the archangel) are neglecting everything that Brigham ever said on the subject.
smpf38 4 years ago
"maybe in the past some mormons said that...because they didn't know any better"
well, that about sums it up right there. at least you're not denying you're history.
stematwork 4 years ago
Stema: well, that about sums it up right there. at least you're not denying you're history.
Can you think of ANY religion that has infallible leaders? (Peter denied Christ 3 times, for example.) Mormons never pretended that their leaders are 100% correct 100% of the time. Now if you dig through the extensive written history (Mormons wrote EVERYTHING down if they could) and compile every mistake, then it seems like a lot, but it really wasn't that much in comparison.
smpf38 4 years ago
smpf...
of course no religion has infallible leaders. but we're not talking about an issue of morality or mistakes. we're talking wholesale doctorinal changes. and it's especially important because your religion claims that your leadership HEAR DIRECTLY FROM GOD. that is the issue.
stematwork 4 years ago
Stema: we're talking wholesale doctorinal changes.
Let's look at the topic at hand, when has it ever been a doctrine that God had sex with Mary? Never. So where was the so-called "wholesale doctrinal change"? There was a misconception that some Mormons may have had, but that isn't the same as Church doctrine.
smpf38 4 years ago
actually, i was referring to the "black folks" response. the wholesale doctornile changes refers to the more recent revelation about black priests that coincided nicely with the tale end of the civil rights movement...sorry about that, i was WAY off topic and unclear. as far as the sex with Mary thing; it seems more like a sensational topic than anything else. (even though BY seems to allude to it)
stematwork 4 years ago
stema: it seems more like a sensational topic than anything else. (even though BY seems to allude to it)
It is meant to play off a deeply rooted idea that some people have about sex supposedly being bad. But Brigham DID insist that Mary was a virgin. Mormons have maintained that there was another means by which God was the Father. Not just conventional sex.
smpf38 4 years ago
What further shows the bearing false witness done by anti-mormons, is that to the couple of times Brigham Young touched on this subject in a way that makes anti-mormons think "sex", Brigham in fact at least a 100 times directly said Mary was a VIRGIN, the same way we have always believed!!!!
leeuniverse 4 years ago
Yay, go Mormons! I would make a video and tell everyone everything about us, Mormons, but I dont have a camera :(. So, I can't. But thank you for making everything up and clear.
randomchick100 4 years ago
Well done, I'm a return missionary. I have heard this same crazy idea in church that God the father had sex with Mary. Besides people do not want to accept that Brigham Young may have taught things that were just plain wrong. Again well done, Oh by the way don't try to explaine the trinity to the Anti mormons you'll just give them a reson to tear you down. Let them continue to tell each other that God is like a chicken egg. LOL
BURTANDTHEGANG 4 years ago
Hey man, my mission president taught us in a meeting with other elders that God came on earth to create Jesus Christ on the flesh, using sexual contact for this purpose, if you don't know what you are saying is better you don't say anything
mpariachi 4 years ago
Funny how ex-mormons have all these stories about how so and so said this and a mission president said that. It is especially interesting since the Presidents of the Church have explained that they don't know the method by which it was done and that no teacher should pretend that they know. So does the President of the Church have the right to reveal doctrine, or do supposed hearsay from mission presidents against the counsel of the President of the Church have that right?
smpf38 4 years ago
are you a Mormon..? do you believe that god lives on a distant planet?...
grumpyzrp 4 years ago
grumpy: are you a Mormon..? do you believe that god lives on a distant planet?
See my other videos in response to the Godmakers cartoon propaganda. I answer those questions. Otherwise go to FAIR (dot) org or Jeff Lindsay or some other Mormon site for information.
smpf38 4 years ago
how many black folks attend your church?
stematwork 4 years ago
I live in St. Louis. The answer is "LOTS!". My Bishop is a black man and my ward has more "black folks" than "white folks".
smpf38 4 years ago
You aren't teaching doctrine, you are expressing your personal opinion saying it was artificial insemination. Yeah, thats so miraculous.
WaiteDavid137 4 years ago
A miracle is something beyond man's understanding. But even then, some people consider the advances of science and medicine to be modern day miracles?
I am not even sure if it was artificial insemination though. All I know is that Mary did not have what it took to form a zygote, therefore God had to provide what Mary was lacking.
smpf38 4 years ago
Thanks for the videos from a Mormon. I am tired of nearing non-Mormons tell me what the LDS Church believes. Why are your videos so dark?
BillboTex 4 years ago
No problem. The light above is on the frits. You can see it flickering on and off in some of my videos. I have the camera attached to the computer for simplicity's sake so I don't want to film it elsewhere.
smpf38 4 years ago
I am not 100% sure that Jesus was married, but I tend to lean towards the idea that he was.
smpf38 4 years ago
Let's see. LDS go through 4 years of seminary in high school, institute classes after that, a two year mission, 3 hours of Church every Sunday for their entire lives along with many other religiously oriented activities throughout.
Sure, LDS are called "lay ministry", but they aren't that "lay".
smpf38 4 years ago
It is very commendable, don't get me wrong. Let's face it though, most Mormons are not close to as faithful as you in their studies. Most slept their way through seminary; most people glaze over during Sunday Services; the Priesthood, as a whole is notorious for not being nearly as zealous in preparing and participating in lessons as the young women and Relief Society are. You, smpf, are a refreshing rarety.
1castido 4 years ago
I do think, however, that Institute students seem to be a cut above their younger seminary counterparts.
But, I digress, so I don't derail the point of this thread.
As an aside, though, smpf, I think you should do a video on the Trinity. I do hope you continue to churn out videos because in the spirit of fairness, I ALWAYS want representation from opposing sides. People need to be informed to make good decisions.
1castido 4 years ago
byron: Homoousious, the same in essence.
Ah, Koine....of course, the word, "einai" should have come up sooner or later-by a Christian of course, since I rarely see LDS revert to hermeneutics the way Bible scholars approach the subject. Gotta love ontology. Your conversation with smpf should be interesting to watch.
1castido 4 years ago
I considered doing a video on the Trinity, however, Christians would probably feel I was attacking their religion. I would have to do that in a very tactful way.
smpf38 4 years ago
Right, but the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God the Father is the Father.
So, what is the difference between God the Father and the Holy Spirit? The LDS church obviously teaches a difference.
smpf38 4 years ago
byron: Unlike the New Testament canon, there is no set doctrine in the LDS for what "scripture" means.
Not true. If the first presidency of the Church approves something explaining what a scripture means, then it is set doctrine.
smpf38 4 years ago
byron: One apologetic response I've heard is that mary was still technically a virgin since she had sex with an immortal god.
I guess that can make sense, ... IF having sex with an immortal god means that no intercourse is involved ; )
smpf38 4 years ago
fube: No where does it imply that Jesus is the son of the HG.
I believe both mormons and non-mormons made that mistake due to the statements in the New Testament along the lines of the child being "of the Holy Ghost"
smpf38 4 years ago
agreed. Just like JS jr. corrected many notions of the early elders; they were x-Christians, and still retained many old ideas that the restoration cleared away.
1castido 4 years ago
Reminds me of a story regarding an elder being rebuked by other priesthood members: it concerned the elder's preaching, which confounded many non-members. It revolved around the book of Revelation, the imagery of John. I always liked J.S. jr's. reaction to the situation, and subsequent teaching on what it all really meant.
1castido 4 years ago
fube: Early mormon prophets used seemingly endless euphemisms for sex regarding the whole conception and then added in the marriage doctrine for good measure.
When you string them all together taken from various sources and people over a 150 year time period then they do seem that way, especially when you've got sex on the brain.
smpf38 4 years ago
Nothing wrong with having sex on the brain, after all, God gave us the urge, right?
1castido 4 years ago
fube: 3. current mormons are completely ignorant of what their past leaders have said and believe the biblical story
How does the biblical story contradict what past leaders have said? Past leaders were just more specific by explaining that Jesus was the literal Son of God in the flesh and not the son of the Holy Spirit.
smpf38 4 years ago
Early leaders did not just say that Jesus was not the son of the HG. The bible already says that anyways. No where does it imply that Jesus is the son of the HG.
Early mormon prophets used seemingly endless euphemisms for sex regarding the whole conception and then added in the marriage doctrine for good measure.
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: No where does it imply that Jesus is the son of the HG
But people were teaching that Jesus was the son of the Holy Spirit. THAT was the false teaching that Brigham was fighting against that started the whole sex/Mary controversy. Just read the context of his infamous speeches.
smpf38 4 years ago
Also,
"...when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve." (JoD 1:50-51)
fubecabr 4 years ago
that quote is also found in my personal copy of "Discourses of Brigham Young," comp. John A. Widstoe.
There are MANY prophetic utterances that use that language, as the scriptures have a habit of doing--LIKENING and event to something we know about because of daily experience.
1castido 4 years ago
What is "prophetic" about it? It actually says the same thing as some of the other quotes.
smpf38 4 years ago
pro·phet·ic (pr-ftk) KEY also pro·phet·i·cal (--kl) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of a prophet or prophecy: prophetic books.
I was using the term prophetic in a way consistent with this definition, i.e. being characteristic of the way prophets teach.
1castido 4 years ago
castido: I think a consideration in favor of such a teaching is the TRANSFIGURATION Mary's body underwent to be able to endure the presence of God. Such a transformation in her body changed the physiological laws normally associated with the flesh--or so Bruce was insinuating.
You get all THAT crap from the "because"? You have got to be kidding me. Bruce was "insinuating" all of that huh? O.K. dude.
smpf38 4 years ago
Here is the rest of McConkie's quote that you leave out:
"Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit", was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false."
smpf38 4 years ago
you are reading from the wrong book smpf. My quote was taken from "The Promised Messiah," pg. 466. wrong yet again.
1castido 4 years ago
"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." (Bruce McConkie)
You put words into his mouth. The "because" could be BECAUSE only an immortal Father (GOD) is capable of making the miracle occur. It is YOUR idea that somehow it nullified the normal concept of virginity.
smpf38 4 years ago
One apologetic response I've heard is that mary was still technically a virgin since she had sex with an immortal god.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Castido: By advocating possible in-vitro, you have gone against the statements and reasoning of past GA's--it is you fighting against the Church, not I.
Advocating "possible in-vitro", is not the same as teaching it as if it were doctrine. There IS no doctrine on the subject other than what is found in the scriptures (i.e. Mary was called a virgin). That is my point.
smpf38 4 years ago
"There IS no doctrine on the subject other than what is found in the scriptures (i.e. Mary was called a virgin). That is my point."
Ok, why are they preaching false doctrine?
Why is it that your prophets are held to a lower standard than the members?
If a member publishes and preaches false doctrine, they are censured and usually ex'd.
With your prophets, nothing happens to them.
fubecabr 4 years ago
I like that comment by President Ezra Taft Benson that the paternity of Jesus Christ is comprehended by only the "spiritually minded", ... as opposed to the "carnal mind".
smpf38 4 years ago
Isn't the whole point of scriptures and prophets to comprehend god, his plan, and his creation?
How do you know that Benson's quote about being "spiritually minded" wasn't speculation or just an excuse because he couldn't explain the apparent contradiction either?
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: Isn't the whole point of scriptures and prophets to comprehend god, his plan, and his creation?
The point is to know how to live our lives well. Knowing how everything works is secondary (especially details).
smpf38 4 years ago
Well, I live my life well as an atheist exmormon. So would you agree that the important thing in life is to be a good person and to do what makes you happy?
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: I live my life well as an atheist exmormon. So would you agree that the important thing in life is to be a good person and to do what makes you happy?
Absolutely.
smpf38 4 years ago
I think we can all agree that Bring Em Young and Orson Pratt both made it clear that there was sexual contact. Other prophets have implied this.
YES, what they said was in direct conflict with other prophets and scripture.
What you should be asking is why are your prophets preaching false doctrine? Why did BY in particular teach so much false doctrine?
Also what happens when you have conflicting canonized scripture?
fubecabr 4 years ago
Admitting things like this, just like admitting that in 2005 the initiatory procedure was changed, would put smpf38 into the same APOSTATE category as Catholics, or any other Christian Faith that changed teachings and ordinances, or who had people who preached false doctrine.
1castido 4 years ago
Castido: {Sex} is one of the great differentiators between an exalted Man and Woman (gods) and angels in eternity.
Wait a minute. Do you actually think that it is assumed that physical sex and hopping into the sack is the means by which spiritual children are created?
That simply does not follow.
smpf38 4 years ago
That is what I was ALWAYS taught in Deacon's/Priest's/Elder's Quorum by my leaders. They always impressed us that if we couldn't keep it in our pants, there would be none of that in the Celestial Kingdom.
1castido 4 years ago
I hear it all the time by members when we talk about our beliefs: they try to tell me something to the tune of, "You're telling me that you'd give up sex for eternity, just because you don't believe in God anymore? That stupid to me. Suit yourself. You can be one of my ministering angels, while I have fun having sex with my wife." blah blah blah
1castido 4 years ago
Most mormons nowadays do not believe that God had sex with mary. LDS Inc has done a lot of mainstreaming lately and there's been a lot of dumbing down of doctrine with the introduction of correlation.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Harold B. Lee "Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For us the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.'"
smpf38 4 years ago
Being married may seem to be about sex to YOU, but to these people was not about sex, it was about having children. They felt that you couldn't have a child without being married, because it would make Jesus "illegitimate". Again, this isn't about sex, but instead about Jesus being the literal Son of God in the flesh. That is what it always has been about for Mormon leaders, it is the critics that turn it into the idea of God actually getting in bed with Mary.
smpf38 4 years ago
Really, then how about you pick apart your own Prophets and Apostles' teachings. Show us with each quote, how Mormon leaders didn't promote the idea of sex?
1castido 4 years ago
Marriage IS about sex, my son. Why do you think the LDS put so much emphasis on marriage needing to be done by the power of God, the Sealing power of the Priesthood? Because sex is THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE upon which the eternities rest. Sex is good, and holy, because it is of God; because it is holy and good, God has sex, period. It helps DEFINE Him. It is one of the great differentiators between an exalted Man and Woman (gods) and angels in eternity.
1castido 4 years ago
Castido: Marriage IS about sex, my son.
Now your true point of view is revealed. Physical intercourse is only the MEANS by which man and wife produce children in mortality. The most important aspect of marriage is FAMILY, not SEX. If you didn't get that from the Church, I don't know where you've been.
smpf38 4 years ago
We're talking about what CREATES families; you are trying to OBFUSCATE--quit being SO evasive. God COULDN'T CREATE JESUS WITHOT SEX. Everyone on earth does it, and that is why your Prophets have claimed God did it.
1castido 4 years ago
I would actually agree with you if SEX is not equivalent with "intercourse", but it almost always is. However, this is not the normal circumstance of "always". They claimed natural union that would give Christ the inherited traits of God the Father and his mortal mother, but that doesn't mean sleeping together.
smpf38 4 years ago
what, in your opinion, would it entail, then?
1castido 4 years ago
Now you're pulling a Bill Clinton on us and splitting hairs, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.?"
fubecabr 4 years ago
The fact of the matter is that I have never encountered an active and believing Mormon who argued FOR the idea of God literally getting in bed with Mary. That argument is always imposed upon Mormons by those who want to scandalize the church and LDS theology. You fit into that category.
smpf38 4 years ago
Bruce R. McConkie: (Why does he have to preface a concept like virginity, if it is so simple as NOT having had sex?)
"For our *present purposes*, *suffice it to say* that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being"
1castido 4 years ago
This quote highlights an interesting assertion: namely, that Mary was a virgin (for our purposes) ***because God was an Immortal Man.*** (how would her virginity be in question if this was in-vitro?) I think a consideration in favor of such a teaching is the TRANSFIGURATION Mary's body underwent to be able to endure the presence of God. Such a transformation in her body changed the physiological laws normally associated with the flesh--or so Bruce was insinuating.
1castido 4 years ago
Bruce McConkie and Orson Pratt were both repudiated for going beyond the doctrines of the church as they were very outspoken in their opinions. Both of these well documented public renouncements of statements they made because of the mistakes they had made.
smpf38 4 years ago
sure, start documenting them and then we'll talk about those. What about Joseph F. Smith? was he repudiated? Heber C. Kimball?
1castido 4 years ago
Now, you realize that no matter who was repudiated, you stepped beyond the truth for claiming that **only** nonmembers claimed such things to scandalize the church and doctrine. Now we have your admission that McConkie and Pratt were repudiated for it? Don't be so deceptive when accusing me of being a loner in the God/Mary sex scandal then.
1castido 4 years ago
Castido: McConkie and Pratt were repudiated for it? Don't be so deceptive when accusing me of being a loner in the God/Mary sex scandal then.
They were repudiated in general (the books they produced) and sometimes on specific issues. They did not make the same assertions you made earlier . You put words in their mouths as well as interpretations of what they said, even if they weren't entitled to their own opinions.
smpf38 4 years ago
I wouldn't characterize it as a "sex scandel." Just another instance of a mormon prophet contradicting scripture or another prophet.
If McConkie and Pratt were repudiated, would that not mean that they taught there was sex?
fubecabr 4 years ago
I don't know how you get around these facts:
-Pratt said that Mary had another husband other than Joseph.
BY said:
"[Christ] was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers"
"the Father CAME HIMSELF and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of LETTING ANY OTHER MAN DO IT."
fubecabr 4 years ago
And then add McConkie:
"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..."
fubecabr 4 years ago
When McConkie and Brigham refer to the "normal and natural course of events" he is referring to the conception, pregnancy, and birth of Jesus. That is EXACTLY what makes Jesus the "literal" Son of God. Would you suppose that now Mormons only believe that Jesus is only a figurative Son of God? No, not at all.
smpf38 4 years ago
What christians believe in regards to the virgin birth is pretty convoluted when they believe in the trinity. They don't really believe in a "son" or a "father" because it's the same person.
McKonkie basically says the same thing that his predecessors have said, but adds that somehow she remained a virgin.
But based on what BY said, God was physically present during the conception and that they were married.
But that doesn't even make sense given the premise that God is omnipotent.
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: McKonkie basically says the same thing that his predecessors have said, but adds that somehow she remained a virgin.
His predecessors never said that she did not remain a virgin, so it wasn't anything that McConkie "added" at all.
smpf38 4 years ago
"His predecessors never said that she did not remain a virgin."
Right, and that's the problem. They very strongly implied sex and didn't clarify that she somehow remained a virgin.
fubecabr 4 years ago
"Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822.)
So McConkie is saying that people in the church are denying the virgin birth BECAUSE of what BY, Pratt, HC Kimball, and J. Fielding S. have said. You could also imply that McConkie is attempting to correct the false or incomplete doctrine that his predecessors taught.
fubecabr 4 years ago
The scriptures state that she was a virgin in several different places. There is no need to clarify it. Since that was set straight, all that was left to clarify was that 1) God is the literal Father 2) the Holy Spirit is not the Father 3) the conception, pregnancy, and birth were all natural and normal
The part you all refer to is intercourse/coitus, which was never mentioned at all.
smpf38 4 years ago
Mormon prophets have contradicted the bible and their own scripture. So, the fact that virginity is mentioned in the bible is meaningless.
And In-vitro is neither natural nor normal.
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: And In-vitro is neither natural nor normal.
Only IF you are talking about intercourse/coitus. But we are talking about conception, development, pregnancy, and birth.
Nobody doubts that the other circumstances of Mary's situation were abnormal.
smpf38 4 years ago
the issue is the Hebrew word, "ALMAH" correctly translated as "young woman," and NOT "virgin" as had been done. That makes sense to me in light of old Mormon theologians--she wasn't a virgin, she was a young woman, and one that God would wed, and then overshadow, and perform coitus, to sire a Holy Being.
1castido 4 years ago
smpf, go to your LDS apologetic web sites to put this into context: Remember the anti claim that the BoM name, Alma, is a hebrew word for "young woman?" That should help you realize what is going on in academic fights over the hermeneutics of this passage.
1castido 4 years ago
Funny these "old Mormon theologians" never made the connection you just did with the issue of the Hebrew word and coitus. No, actually ... it is pretty consistent with this entire conversation. You connect your own dots.
(By the way, it isn't that "almah" does NOT mean virgin. Translation isn't always clear cut.)
smpf38 4 years ago
No, but the word, "almah" in Isaiah was used properly in context in such a ways a to be consistent with other times in the OT. Why is it that everywhere the word "betulah" was necessary, it was used, as in the case of talking about worthy women?
to be cont.
1castido 4 years ago
Cont. For example:
Ge 24:16
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known (8804) her: and she went down (8799) to the well, and filled (8762) her pitcher, and came up (8799).
(8804) )l (8799) $y)w hlWtB d)m h)rm tb+ r(Nhw (8799)
. l(Tw HDk )eLmTw (8762) hny(h dreTw H(dy
Yet, your Isaiah scripture doesn't follow this pattern, why is that do you think?
1castido 4 years ago
By my count, there are 11 mentionings of the word, "betulah" when talking about a virgin up until the Isaiah Prophecy, yet, conveniently, "almah" is used as a substitute in your supposed Mary prophecy--Why didn't they keep going with their previous pattern?
1castido 4 years ago
Why are you referring to Hebrew and the Old Testament? Aren't we talking about the New Testament?
smpf38 4 years ago
Absolutely, but to show Bible corruption--which we both agree happened--I showed a viable place where it may have occurred. It changes the ENTIRE virgin birth/conception if the translation is as I have asserted, and nullifies the need to defend the virginity.
1castido 4 years ago
As for it being "Funny (that) these "old Mormon theologians" never made the connection..."
Is it my fault they didn't study their Bible? What does that say for your Leaders?
1castido 4 years ago
Castido: Is it my fault they didn't study their Bible? What does that say for your Leaders?
Since when do church leaders have to be language scholars? You know better than that.
smpf38 4 years ago
You asked me why they didn't catch it, I simply said it wasn't my fault they didn't study enough. Frankly, I like most of the leaders, and I feel very strongly towards McConkie, J.S. jr., and others. I still enjoy reading about their life, regardless of the fact that I disagree with a lot of stuff.
1castido 4 years ago
Given the totality of everything that has been said, the best conclusions you can draw, IMAO, is the following:
1. Early prophets believed in sex.
2. McConkie believed in some sort of semi-natural in-vitro conception
3. current mormons are completely ignorant of what their past leaders have said and believe the biblical story
If you're going to argue #2 all along, that begs the question of why LDS prophets were so unclear on the issue?
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: 2. McConkie believed in some sort of semi-natural in-vitro conception
No. The conception was natural and normal. That seems reasonable.
fube: If you're going to argue #2 all along, that begs the question of why LDS prophets were so unclear on the issue?
Because the scriptures don't say anything about it. God the Father was the Father in the flesh. There isn't much more to say.
smpf38 4 years ago
fube: But based on what BY said, God was physically present ...
You are making too many assumptions. Brigham taught that God dwells in "another world, he is in another state of existence". Mormons maintain that God lives outside of time itself. So, God didn't have to be in the same room with Mary, but at least in the same dimension perhaps.
smpf38 4 years ago
"I believe the Father CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Savior of the World; for He is the Only Begotten of the Father which could not have been if the Father did not actually beget him IN PERSON''. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 1 page 238)
fubecabr 4 years ago
They don't maintain he lives OUTSIDE of time. They maintain that time varies from planet to planet, depending on which planet one is standing on.
1castido 4 years ago
Furthermore, Mormons maintain that time is contingent upon which orbs actually GOVERN other ones.
1castido 4 years ago
So, yes McConkie is sometimes taken out of context since he clearly says that after the event, she remained a virgin. But the fact remains that what he does say is self-contradictory.
And based on what BY and Pratt did not say that somehow she remained a virgin. And again, if god somehow came down and caused a sperm cell to form that connected with Mary's egg, why would marriage be necessary? If no one knew about the marriage, then what's the point?
fubecabr 4 years ago
smpf, you realize people fight over the translation we have taken as "virgin" all these years? the Isaiah prophesy vs. the NT fulfillment-- ALMAH vs BETULAH--virgin or young woman? That the issue rages in scholarly circles should give you pause.
1castido 4 years ago
This issue is one of the proofs Christian/non-Christian scholars have used to show the NT has been tampered with. That people were concerned with writing faithful history, and so, made events up in order to satisfy their interpretation of OT prophecy.
1castido 4 years ago
As for the "husband" comment, I understand why Pratt said it. Jesus could be considered an "illegitimate" child if his Father and mother were not married. Again, the statement is not about sex. It is about the scandal of a bastard Jesus. Get it? Yep, I said it.
smpf38 4 years ago
The whole virgin story is an explanation of how Jesus is NOT a bastard since there was no sex.
And where and when did this supposed marriage between mary and god take place? How come none of the NT authors did not know about it?
fubecabr 4 years ago
There you go again. The term "bastard" is all about marriage, not sex. "bastard: a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child; out of wedlock; of unwed parents"
Nobody knows whether the marriage did take place or not. Like I said, the bastard issue was the only reason he said it. There was no revelation on the subject.
smpf38 4 years ago
Really, is that what you got from this:
Orson Pratt: "we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully."
The obvious scandel would have been FORNICATION, not an in-vitro possibility. How could it be "blasphemous" to suggest some magical miracle for an explanation, rather than SEX?
1castido 4 years ago
That is exactly what I get from it. Pratt (and many others) felt that it would be "blasphemous" for God to have an illegitimate child and for Jesus Christ to be a bastard son.
Is that a surprise to you? Wouldn't having an illegitimate/bastard child be unlawful for a morally perfect being? I don't know, Pratt could be right.
smpf38 4 years ago
No. Not if he provided a surrogate father in the man, Joseph. Why go through a marriage ceremony just for pomp?
1castido 4 years ago
Marriage doesn't really require ceremony or pomp necessarily. (Look at the Mormon teaching on Adam's baptism. The Holy Spirit did it himself.) But like I said, the marriage may or may not be true. Nobody knows. It doesn't appear to be a revelation, but instead a gut reaction due to being repulsed by the idea of an illegitimate baby.
smpf38 4 years ago
That's a WHOLE LOT OF PREACHING of false doctrine they did.
D&C 42:11-17--A Mormon Priesthood Bearer MUST refrain from preaching if he doesn't receive the Spirit.
Wow, those old mormon theologians seem to ignore the Standard Work prescriptions for preaching ONLY when the Spirit prompts, and to shut up if it doesn't.
1castido 4 years ago
Even if priesthood bearers did perfectly live by that commandment (D&C 42:11-17), and they don't ...
what is the false doctrine?
smpf38 4 years ago
ALL the preaching you say that B.Y., Orson Pratt, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph F. Smith, et al did--which preaching you claim has been repudiated by other "prophets" in no less cases than the ones involving McConkie, Young, and Pratt.
1castido 4 years ago
They can spew their false doctrines, but when lay members of the Church do it, they call it Apostacy, and Ex them, a la Toscanos, Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, & co.
1castido 4 years ago
The Church doesn't "ex" people until they ask them to stop first when it comes to doctrine.
smpf38 4 years ago
Perhaps I should state the point thusly: As long as McConkie printed his books with the disclaimer on the front pages, he wasn't ex'ed for his books. Lay members have, regardless of such admissions to things being simply an opinion.
1castido 4 years ago
"The Church doesn't "ex" people until they ask them to stop first when it comes to doctrine."
But the point remains that laity has no freedom of speech or thought.
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: But the point remains that laity has no freedom of speech or thought.
That isn't true. See my video on "what is official mormon doctrine" (I haven't finished part 2 yet). I admit the video is boring though.
smpf38 4 years ago
smpf, we have our differences, but I actually enjoy watching your videos.
1castido 4 years ago
All of these guys stated their opinions from time to time. Their opinions could be true or they could be false on a number of different topics.
Luckily there are clear cut ways to make teachings "official" in the church.
smpf38 4 years ago
Quinn was ex'ed because of his dredging up of historical problems with the church; for instance, his proving that the church continued clandestinely to practice polygamy until at least 1905. Hinckley even told him he'd have to decide for himself, in light of his conscience, if he would publish the paper.
1castido 4 years ago
P.55 of the "Gospel Principles" reads, "In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders."
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube quotes: "conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders".
That is correct. If they have the first Presidency approve them, they are as good as scripture. Brigham said the same thing, if he approves or corrects and copies a sermon that he made and sends it out, then it is as good as scripture (most of them weren't in his day though).
smpf38 4 years ago
BY commissioned the Journal of Discourses.
Anyways, time to hit the sack. Good night.
fubecabr 4 years ago
Very few speeches were corrected, copied, and approved by BY that are now found in the Journal of Discourses. Those were the requirements he set for something to be considered scripture. Those requirements are pretty much the same today, but actually done more often.
smpf38 4 years ago
According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Neither written scripture, nor natural theology, supercedes the 'living oracles.' "In his "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" speech given in 1980, Ezra Taft Benson insisted that the "living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works."
fubecabr 4 years ago
The living prophet is more vital to us because he can lead us through modern times and issues, not because he will contradict past scriptures.
And if nothing supercedes the living oracles, why don't you just ask Hinckley if he thinks God slept with Mary?
smpf38 4 years ago
"Marriage doesn't really require ceremony or pomp necessarily."
The whole point of marriage historically is to legitimize a union and to provide a loving environment in which to raise children.
I argue from an atheist point of view, that illegitimacy is a "sin" because I think that every child deserves a loving father and mother.
fubecabr 4 years ago
BY also taught that Mary was married to God, not just Pratt.
People can accept some miraculous conception without sex. Again, nowhere in the bible, BoM, D&C, or PGP does it say that God and Mary were married.
Fornication has always been repugnant with marriage being the legitmate place for sex. This is why Pratt and BY said that God and Mary must have been married.
fubecabr 4 years ago
So, it seems that now you are coming clean in admitting that SOME MORMONS DID TEACH THAT GOD/MARY HAD SEX. Which is it? A claim invented by anti's, or anti's picking up what past church leaders have said and exposing it to common knowledge?
1castido 4 years ago
Joseph F. Smith:
"Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, ***how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father***...Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body"
1castido 4 years ago
Heber C. Kimball: "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 Savior Jesus Christ.*** According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was **nothing unnatural** about it."
(unnatural (by definition) would be in-vitro, by the way)
1castido 4 years ago
Orson Pratt:
"Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
(Why do people get married? Does it have something to do with having sex, so people can procreate?)
1castido 4 years ago
Orson Pratt:
"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, ***because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully."***
1castido 4 years ago
Brigham Young:
"The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband."
1castido 4 years ago
Sure sounds to me like you need to read your apostles and prophets teachings more, then you wouldn't think I was the ONLY one trying to "scandalize the church and LDS theology." They do a great job all by themselves, and all I have to do is quote them.
1castido 4 years ago
So, in summary, it looks like I'm in good company with the GA's that I've quoted--we all seem to think she had sex with God. And you're the only one with a problem concerning it. Let's watch as you try to explain it away as "only their opinion."
1castido 4 years ago
Now, back to Harold B. Lee:
We are very much concerned that ***some of our Church teachers*** seem to ***be obsessesed*** of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyone what the Lord has actually said. You asked about...the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior.
To be Cont.
1castido 4 years ago
Cont.
If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35...."
So, smp, here we have your prophet CLEARLY saying that there were "Church teachers" who were "obsessed" with teaching the doctrine which we've been debating.
1castido 4 years ago
HBL then said that if such ***teachers*** were wise, they would rest their discussion, and be satisfied only with revealed scripture.
Seems to me that you have either been ignorant that YOUR MEMBERS had in fact taught this doctrine, or you are lying for the Lord because such things actually offend people inside and outside of your faith. Now, your previous accusation against me trying to "scandalize" your church, as a non-mormon, should be effectively put to rest.
To be Cont.
1castido 4 years ago
castido: "Seems to me that you have either been ignorant that YOUR MEMBERS had in fact taught this doctrine, or you are lying for the Lord because such things actually offend people inside and outside of your faith."
Nice try. I mentioned in my video that people in the past made the "MISTAKE" of making their own speculations.
smpf38 4 years ago
Supposed prophets are entitled to their opinions like everyone else. The problem is that these prophets are not prefacing these things with something to the order of "it is my opinion..." They are teaching these things pretending to speak in the name of god.
And if they were really inspired, if they made a mistake the mormon holy ghost would inspire them to correct themselves or have a peer quickly correct them.
fubecabr 4 years ago
fubecabr: And if they were really inspired, if they made a mistake the mormon holy ghost would inspire them to correct themselves or have a peer quickly correct them.
The only ones I might disagree with would be Pratt or McConkie on this particular issue, which is nothing new. (Mormons don't believe that prophets speak prophetically at all times by the way.)
smpf38 4 years ago
(Mormons don't believe that prophets speak prophetically at all times by the way.)
But you didn't answer my question. Why wouldn't the mormon holy ghost have them correct themselves or have a peer correct them?
If the whole point of prophets is to communicate to the masses the mind and will of God, then it would follow that God would not want these mouthpieces to be preaching all manner of false doctrine and preaching the philosophies of man mingled with scripture.
fubecabr 4 years ago
fube: Why wouldn't the mormon holy ghost have them correct themselves or have a peer correct them?
Correct them on what?
fube: Ok, why are they preaching false doctrine?
If you mean that they were teaching that she wasn't a virgin, well, they weren't. If you are talking about ideas beyond doctrine but consistent with it, it may true, but not doctrine.
smpf38 4 years ago
"Correct them on what?"
Oh, gosh. I could write a book on that. Blood atonement, slavery, blacks, BoM geography, history of amerinds, people living on the moon and sun, AdamGod, changing temple ceremonies...
fubecabr 4 years ago
"The fact of the matter is that I have never encountered an active and believing Mormon who argued FOR the idea of God literally getting in bed with Mary. That argument is always imposed upon Mormons by those who want to scandalize the church and LDS theology. You fit into that category."
Nice try. You accused me of fitting into a category of nonmembers who tried to scandelize the church by IMPOSING the idea.
1castido 4 years ago
Cont.
Harold B. Lee stated in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that there were Mormons teaching it, and they should stop.
Notice, however, as I said before, that he NEVER said sex didn't take place, only that HE (HBL) NEVER TAUGHT IT. Why? Because he didn't want us to question the Lord's method in accomplishing His purposes.
By advocating possible in-vitro, you have gone against the statements and reasoning of past GA's--it is you fighting against the Church, not I.
1castido 4 years ago
My experience as a Latter-Day Saint was different than yours, since I encountered a few. I will grant that they are rare, since, like I said, most LDS simply find the idea repugnant. I can definitely understand that; when I first encountered the God Makers at 17, the part about God/Mary shook my testimony.
You can think whatever you wish about my not ever having been Mormon--it doesn't erase the truth by your denial of the fact.
1castido 4 years ago
Let me give you my history, short and sweet.
I was born under the Covenant. My parents were sealed in the LA Temple. I was baptized in Rapid City, SD. I moved to IL, and received my Endowment in the St. Louis Temple. Went on a Mission to Mexico, came back, went to UVSC. I lived in BYU housing off 820N 900E, in Provo. I was an Ordinance worker in the Provo Temple, 2002-2003. I left the church about 3 years ago.
1castido 4 years ago