Mormon blasphemy: God and Mary had “natural” relations to conceive Jesus.
This post is in response to just one of the several misleading and downright erroneous points that Jake made in the comments section of this post regarding the comments left by Four Pointer.
I’ve copied and pasted part of Jake’s comment here:
fourpointer, It is reckless “half-truths” such as these that make your position seem so weak to anyone that has a few moments to study both sides of the arguement. Let me go point-by-point:
“…do you believe in a Jesus that was begotten by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18)? Or was He conceived by physical, literal, sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7)?”
The problem here is a lack of resources. You can claim that Benson taught such things, but who really knows? Who can check your sources? [I can, and so can you Jake, and anyone else who wants to "study both sides of the argument"] Do you personally have a copy of ETB’s writings? I doubt it: yet you pass on the quote like a game of “telephone” from one “evangelical scholar” to another. [I can't speak for Foupointer, but I can tell you that I do. I have a myriad of LDS publications and writings.] I have been a member of the LDS faith for ~30+ years, and I have never once seen verifiable proof that your claim is true… that ANY Mormon prophet has claimed that Christ was “conceived by physical, literal, sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary.” It is NOT LDS doctrine, nor is it preached anywhere in the church. To use this point as your FIRST “proof” of the LDS church’s fallibility? Not a good start…
Well Jake, I am so glad that you have challenged us “Evangelical Scholars” to provide you with proof of your own church teachings to prove to you that LDS has indeed taught the very thing you deny they teach. But do me a favor, don’t just take my word for it, I strongly urge you to research it for yourself.
First look at what the Bible says: “…the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit“ Matthew 1:20 and “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…“ Luke 1:35.
Now let’s see what genuine LDS prophets have said. We’ll start with none other than Brigham Young who said in Journal of Discourses (JOD) 1:50-51 and the Millennial Star (MS) volume 15, pages 769-770, that Jesus “was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” And “Jesus our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.” Young continued “Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.“
Young’s unbiblical statements didn’t end there. He went on to say “If the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon the Elders…” What? Young ignores the clear text of the Bible to forward his view and then attempts to support his view by saying that if Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost then females who are baptized (in the Holy Ghost I presume) would become pregnant. What an incredible TWIST of scripture and reasoning.
But Brigham Young’s blasphemy didn’t stop there. Speaking of God the Father in JOD 4:218, he says, “When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.“
And who could forget this teaching by Brigham Young found in JOD 8:115? “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” Wow. Not only is Young blaspheming the Holy Spirit by attributing this miraculous act to that of just a “natural action” but he’s also saying that Jesus was conceived in the same way we conceive children.
Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson said on pages six and seven of the the book Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.“
In volume 1, page 18 of Doctrines of Salvation, Mormon prophet Joseph Fielding Smith said, “[Jesus] did not teach [the disciples] that he was the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of the Father. . . . He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!“
On page 19 he continues, “Reorganites claim that Brigham Young went astray and apostatized because he declared that Jesus Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. Reorganites claim that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost, and they make the statement that the scriptures so teach. But they do err not understanding the scriptures. They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge the statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible. It is true there is one passage that states so, but we must consider it in the light of other passages with which it is in conflict.“
Smith also made this teaching very clear in the book Religious Truths Defined where on page 44 he said, “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit.“
Smith also said in the Message of the First Presidency, volume 4, page 329, “The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense.“
Mormon theologian and member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Bruce R. McConkie, in his book Mormon Doctrine, said on page 547 (1966 edition), “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” On page 742 of that same book, McConkie writes, “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.”
Then there’s Orson Pratt. Brace yourself for this blasphemy. Pratt, one of the original members of the LDS Quorum of Twelve Apostles, had this to say about the relationship between our Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary in his book The Seer on page 158: “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 Saviour unlawfully.” Did you catch that? LDS wouldn’t dare say that God the Father and the virgin Mary had sex out of wedlock to begat Jesus because that would be “blasphemous in the highest degree.” However, they they teach that God the Father and the virgin Mary were married when they had intercourse to begat Jesus. But he’s not done. He continues on the same page, “He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another . . . . 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 this 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.” Bet the Mormon missionaries on your doorstep won’t tell you that!
Even the 1972 LDS published Family Home Evening Manual said on pages 125-126 “How are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. . . . We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known a mortal man, was his mother.“
This warped doctrine of demons has even been promoted as late as the 1997 publication of the LDS produced book Gospel Principles. On page 380 it says, “ Jesus Christ, the only person who had God the Father as the father of his mortal body.“
I could go on but I think I’ve shown conclusively what LDS teaches in this area. So in conclusion, Fourpointer was absolutely correct in what he said and Jake, you’ve either been ill informed all these years or you purposely lied in this public forum to defend your organization from its own teachings. I like to believe the former.
Oh, and two last things Jake. I plan on addressing in later posts all the things you commented about (so stay tuned). However, I wanted to quickly respond to two other “personal” comments you made. You said “I just wish that everyone could be more open and loving with each other, instead of condemning another’s beliefs simply because we don’t understand them.” That’s the whole point Jake. I completely understand your beliefs (maybe even better than you in some areas) and that is why I confidently stand here and condemn these winds of doctrine that the LDS organization teaches. But please do not confuse (as is commonly done) my condemnation of LDS doctrine with that of its members.
You also said “But the fact that “evangelical scholars” such as yourself try to twist and stretch words and argue semantics really speaks volumes about your motives. Are you really trying to speak the truth about LDS teachings? Or make them look foolish for your own personal, selfish reasons?” Yes, I am really speaking the truth about LDS teachings. And what are those personal, selfish reasons you accuse us of? You are making a big leap to imply that Fourpointer and myself are benefiting from this somehow. Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps there are those out there (in spite of what LDS says) that actually do care about you and your eternal soul. Those who care enough to be slandered and called names but still proclaim the true Gospel? I love the Mormon people. I’ve known and still know many Mormons and it grieves me that they following a path that does not lead to life but to death. And so long as God gives me breath, I will tell you the truth, even in the midst of the bad things Mormons say about people like me.
You can read Fourpointer’s response to Jake by clicking here.
1, October 25, 2007 at 6:34 am
Nicely done. I don’t think there is much room to wiggle around in your response.
I’m interested in seeing what the reader says.
1, October 25, 2007 at 9:28 am
I’m totally dumbfounded that people actually believe these absolutely bizarre, & in some cases, laughable, claims by the Mormon church. Last summer (2006), our youth group did a missions trip to Idaho, which is predominantely Mormon & we had to fly to Salt Lake City & then drive up to the town in ID. One of the guys in our goup was being witnessed to by a Mormon in the flight to SLC from St. Louis, MO (we flew from Chicago to St. Louis & from St. Louis to SLC) & he had to restain himself from laughing at what this guy was telling him. Mormonism is nothing by a CULT, like “Science of Spirituallity” & “The Way.”
1, October 25, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Melvin:
Sadly, (if I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a million times) we may not hear back from Jake or any Mormon for that matter. This is their Method of Operation:
When challenged, they claim the one challenging their doctrine is only doing so for selfish reasons and that if only that person understood their beliefs they wouldn’t be challenging LDS beliefs, but would instead agree with them.
However, when the one challenging them displays a well informed grasp of true Mormon doctrine, the Mormon more often than not, disappears, never to be heard from again.
Tis a shame because if they had the truth, they should feel confident enough to stand their ground and not run and hide. They claim they want people to see both sides of the debate. That is until they find out you’re someone who knows the truth about their doctrines.
I hope Jake makes an exception to this, I’d love to hear from him again.
1, October 25, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Great post - very informative. I have always argued that the Mormon belief in God having physical sex with Mary constituted their god being adulterous and incestuous. Adulterous because they also believe he has a goddess wife, and incestuous because all humans are supposedly their “spirit children”. I don’t recall previously seeing the comments of Orson Pratt regarding their implied marriage and no Mormon has ever referenced that work to me. Obviously Pratt came to the same conclusion I had regarding the adultery.
I wonder how Mormon wives feel about the possibility that, after their “exaltation” (acquiring godhood), their husbands could actually have sex with their spirit children when they are born with bodies on their kingdom planet?
Thanks for the info.
1, October 27, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Jake and the other Mormons have been stranegly quiet. (Sound of crickets chirping).
1, October 29, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Wow… The last time I posted was the first time I visited your little website, and out of curiosity I come back, and found I’m a bit of a celebrity… Hmm. I don’t know what to make of that.
I honestly can’t imagine what has prompted you to take such an interest in what I’ve said, unless it strikes a nerve someplace. I’m just one man, without a forum such as yours to make my views heard, nor do I have any sort of regular audience, as I see you do. Well, I fear I may be a bit overmatched. Nonetheless, I will continue to state my piece.
My point, regarding the paternity of Jesus Christ (as well as virtually any other issue regarding the “blasphemous nature” of LDS doctrine) is that a statement, by any one person within the church, IS NOT a declaration of that church’s doctrine, it IS NOT representative of what is believed by the members of that organization, and it IS NOT a valid argument when viciously attacking that church! How fair would it be if I took every comment by a pastor or priest in your church as indicative of your church’s beliefs?
I suspect that at one time or another, over the past 200 years of your church’s existence, there has been a teaching or two that didn’t accurately represent the belief of your church as a whole. Now how fair would it be for your detractors to publish these teachings, out of context, and assert that those teachings represented you? I assume you understand my point.
Who, after all, is better qualified to inform others of my beliefs? You or me? I can tell you, unequivocally, that I have never heard such things taught or preached in my church at ANY level, be it local, national, or at our semi-annual worldwide conferences. Therefore I reiterate, these are NOT LDS beliefs.
You state that I’ve “either been ill informed all these years or [I] purposely lied in this public forum to defend [my] organization from its own teachings”… well I would claim the very same things about you! The majority of the quotes you publish are NOT LDS doctrine, and the fact that you claim that they are makes YOU either uninformed or an outright liar! Now that I have cleared up this matter, I trust you will not continue to perpetuate this myth.
Next, you might wonder, who am I, to tell you what is, or is not official church doctrine? Well let me point you to an official press release, published just this year, which attempts to head off some of these false teachings:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD
A few excerpts:
“Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine… The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. ”
“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”
I suggest anyone looking for more insight read the entire link, and examine the embedded links within the text that I cannot post here. It really makes sense, when you think about it, to look to the LDS church when researching LDS beliefs, and not some smear site, such as this.
One other smaller, but highly valid point. The matter you’ve chosen to address above is of very small import in the grand scheme of things. Jesus Christ, and his atoning sacrifice is what is most important to my personal salvation. All other matters are but a trifle, when compared to this.
If you insist on continuing to assault and belittle my faith, then once again, I have to call into question your motives. If they are true (and I cannot truly know, as I do not know you personally) then I would suggest you speak of Mormon doctrines with more respect– with kindness and gentle persuasion, as Christ Himself would have done. Bring up tenets of doctrine that are scriptually based, and then we can debate their merits on an even playing field. Or I would also be willing to talk about any doctrine, given the proper link to the lds.org website. There are tens of thousands of articles available, all easily searchable. Until then, any silence by me will only be because of a perceived lack of proper respect, and not because I have nothing to say
1, October 30, 2007 at 12:35 am
Jake:
Everyone has an opportunity to be a celebrity here. :o)
The statements I quoted (most of which came from your church prophets who claim to be the mouthpiece of God) were not taken out of context and accurately reflected the teachings and beliefs of the church at that time. Pastors who teach within Christianity are not speaking as a prophet for God. Those who claim to do so and are found to be wrong are exposed (see my category Apostasy Watch). Now many people will have different perspectives on non-essential doctrine like speaking in tongues. What we are talking about here Jake is ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. When LDS says God had sex with his daughter Mary to begat Jesus, we’ve got big problems.
Now whether or not these are just some opinions, let’s see what Brigham Young says about his own teachings: “What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?“( Journal of Discourses Volume 12 Page 127)
Oh and, he also said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses Volume 13 Page 95).
So see, when BY teaches a heretical doctrine, it’s not just his opinion, it’s LDS doctrine.
And furthermore, why would anyone want to follow someone who spoke such blasphemy. You obviously think that this doctrine is wrong or you wouldn’t be trying to distance yourself form it. Why do you accept anything else BY says?
To answer who is better qualified to tell others about your beliefs, I’d have to say me (surprised?). Because I have studied Mormonism without LDS indoctrination. I have studied the beginnings and early growth of LDS not just what they want me to know today; the new and improved polished LDS. You only receive what LDS dispenses, I look at the whole picture.
Now on to your church “doctrine.” This again is where you can’t see the mirrors for all the smoke! You guys will use every one of these prophet’s teachings on things you like, but as soon as it gets sticky, (like the doctrine we’re discussing) all of a sudden you back-peddle away and claim it’s not doctrine. For example, you guys will quote JOD all day long… that is until it says something that is detrimental to your church. Then you claim “IT’S NOT DOCTRINE!” You cannot have it both ways.
You know, people like Benny Hinn teach some truth. But genuine Christians denounce people like him because he teaches false doctrines and has uttered false prophecies. We don’t use his books in our churches and only throw out the parts we don’t like. A heretic is a heretic is a heretic. You can’t separate the two.
So, what is BY? When he teaches heresy you claim it’s just his opinion. When he teaches something you like, you claim it’s as good as doctrine.
Thanks for the quotes on what LDS calls scripture today. Or as you said “just this year.” But what has LDS historically taught? Ah, you never want us to look into your history, only what you say today is truth. JWs do this very well too, except they call it “New Light.”
“WHAT IS SCRIPTURE? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church. We depend, of course, upon the guidance of the brethren who are entitled to inspiration.” (Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation Volume 1 Page 186)
“The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture.” (Gospel Principles Page 52)
“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.” (Gospel Principles Page 55)
And what about that JOD? George Q. Cannon says in the preface on page 8, “The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth.”
On page 15 in the preface, Albert Carrington says, “We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and we can confidently assure them that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.”
Wilford Woodruff said, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.”
(The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff Pages 212-213).
Ezra Taft Benson said, “There is only one man on the earth today who speaks for the Church. That man is the President of the Church. Because he gives the word of the Lord for us today, his words have an even more immediate importance than those of the dead prophets. When speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost, his words are scripture.” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson Page 134)
And he goes on, “The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4). (The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets).
I could go on, and on and on. My point is LDS is just like Jehovah’s Witnesses, their doctrines, teachings and rules change so frequently that you can never pin them down. Why would anyone in the world want to follow an organization that changes so frequent? One day Adam is God, the next he’s not. One day God had sex with Mary, the next He didn’t. One day all blacks are cursed, the next day they’re not. One day Blood Atonement is doctrine, the next it’s not. One day polygamy is essential to salvation, the next it’s not. And the list goes on!
Jake I take offense to your comment that this is a smear site. It provides the truth of LDS that you and your organization try to keep hidden from outsiders. That comment is a smear.
I don’t want people to take my word for what LDS teaches. I WANT them to research it themselves. These quotes are not taken out of context. If you have never heard them taught before, how would you know? Is it because it’s your programmed knee-jerk reaction to say that? Please look them up yourself Jake. There’s nothing to be afraid of. I’m not directing you to “anti-Mormon” literature, it’s YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION’S DOCUMENTS!
This is not a small matter, (as you suggested), and I’ll tell you why. You have a false Jesus; a Jesus begotten of sexual relations. This is not the Jesus of the Bible. Any other Jesus other than the real One is a counterfeit. If you are putting your trust in this false Jesus, you will be wrong for eternity. That’s why it’s not a small matter and that’s why DOCTRINE MATTERS!
I cannot speak of Mormon doctrine “gently.” And you dare claim Jesus would have dealt that way with false doctrine? Again, you’ve got the wrong Jesus! I suggest you read how Jesus dealt with false teachers! He was very harsh with them.
And Jake, dont’ try to play the victim here. I’m not belittling your faith. (And I’m no belittling you). I am exposing the false doctrines that LDS promotes. And if you want, I can expose all those nice little remarks that Brigham, Joseph and others said about Christianity. It makes this blog seem mild in comparison. But I’m sure you’d rather I not.
False doctrine damns people to eternal torment in hell. I will not play lightly with it but expose it for what it is. If you choose to play the victim card and claim you’re disrespected, that is just an excuse. If you’d rather not debate any further, I respect that, but don’t pull the victim card to gain sympathy from other readers. Your leaders have called Christians apostate heathens and our God the Mormon devil. (Sounds a little disrespectful to me). So in reality, I am merely defending the Christian faith that has been attacked by your organization since the 1800’s.
I have not taken LDS quotes out of context. You claim I have. Show me and all readers where I have taken it out of context. I am careful to quote LDS accurately so as to not make that mistake and lose credibility. I have no benefit to lie about your organization. LDS teaches enough heresy that I do not have to lie. My only hope is to show those lost in this mess the truth.
I’ve debated with LDS and JWs and they all use the same techniques. I am more than willing to debate the issues with you, but I would hope for your brutal honesty in all matters.
1, October 30, 2007 at 5:07 am
Acts 26:17-18–”I [Jesus] will deliver you…to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God., that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.”
Jake, this is why we attack Mormonism (We don’t attack Mormons personally, but the teachings of the LDS leaders). And you have to admit that Pilgrim was right when he said, “You guys will use every one of these prophet’s teachings on things you like, but as soon as it gets sticky, (like the doctrine we’re discussing) all of a sudden you back-peddle away and claim it’s not doctrine. For example, you guys will quote JOD all day long… that is until it says something that is detrimental to your church. Then you claim “IT’S NOT DOCTRINE!” You cannot have it both ways.”
It wasn’t as though ONE person somewhere in the LDS church said these things. And they weren’t just said “off the cuff.” Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, and other early Mormon leaders all taught this FROM THEIR PULPITS. But Mormons will say it was never “official doctrine.” These men were the PRESIDENTS/PROPHETS of the early LDS church. Do you think the people didn’t believe this to be “official doctrine”? Do you think that when people heard the words of the prophet/president they were taken to be anything less than the “word of God”?
And while you can make the argument that there are some preachers today who do say things that aren’t true, you have to keep one distinction in mind. We do not look to these men as having the final authority over the Scriptures. We do not hold them to the same position Mormons hold Young/Pratt/Hinckley. In other words, Young/Pratt/Hinckley all claimed to be speaking for God. My pastor doesn’t. That’s the difference here.
And Jake, the reason we are responding as we are is for this reason: if you knew a friend who was about to marry someone, or go into a business with someone, and it was going to be a life-shattering mistake, wouldn’t you do everything you could to try and warn them? That’s what we are doing here. However, we are trying to keep you from making a mistake that will jeopardize your eternal soul. We want you to know the true God, and Christ whom He sent. And you will not find them in the LDS church.
1, December 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Two words: Hideous blasphemy.
As one of Reformation Nation’s instant celebrities… this horrific false doctrine has left me… without words.
…was any of this ever recanted? Did any of these men correct themselves? Has Mormonism officially spoken out in detail against these statements? If a member of your church (even a handful of founders) speaks heresy, I would think that you are obligated as a church to loudly reject it. Silence is tolerance.
1, December 7, 2007 at 9:38 pm
You think that is shocking? That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Check out my category on Mormonism: http://reformationnation.wordpress.com/category/mormonism/
I add to it regularly.
They have not recanted their doctrine on the above topic. They just kind of ignore it and hope no one will notice.
1, December 8, 2007 at 5:07 am
I have just posted a rather large blog entry about mormonism. I will be doing a bit on Mitt Romney tomorrow, Sunday Dec 9. I pray that Mormons will open their eyes to what their church believes. And yes, I WAS a mormon and got out when the Truth was presented to me!
1, December 8, 2007 at 9:16 am
Genesis 3:15 says, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.” Jesus is the only human ever born by the seed of a woman. Women don’t have seed.
When JWs and Mormons change one doctrine (such as the virgin birth) that doesn’t make sense to them, there is a ripple effect throughout the Bible. The unintended consequence is that they no longer have the true Jesus or the true Gospel, and they no longer have eternal life.
Hatred for Mormons says we can all get along and it’s not that important. True concern for their eternity and love demands that we speak boldly against their false doctrines.
Good post.
Bill
1, December 21, 2007 at 5:07 am
Anyone notice the fresh press release sited by Jake is no longer found at that link?
Maybe a prophet had a new revelation already this year that changed that.
1, December 21, 2007 at 5:33 am
Bill,
Amen, brother! I look at it this way: if your child is about to run out into the street, and a truck is bearing down on him, are you just going to say, “Well, you know, he’s having so much fun, and he’s enjoying what he’s doing. I think I’ll just let him get run over.” Or do you run out, yelling and screaming, yanking him out of the way, and putting such a fear of cars in him that he would never want to run out into the street ever again?
Which is true love?
1, December 21, 2007 at 10:00 am
Has anyone stopped to think about the horrific conclusion that is drawn with what these Mormon prophets were saying?
1. God the Father is flesh and blood like us.
I quote the CURRENT source of President Gordon B. Hinckley: “I said, ‘Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I.’ Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity.”
2. God, a biological being of flesh and spirit, had children: Jesus, Satan, and all of us.
I quote the CURRENT source of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles [Jan 2000] as posted on lds.org: “We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.”
…and from the CURRENT source of lds.org itself: “The Creation is an integral part of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation. It gives each of us the opportunity to come to the earth, where we receive a physical body and exercise our agency. In the premortal Council of the Gods, the following declaration was made: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them”
3. Like us, Mary is a child of the flesh and spirit God who was given the privilage of a mortal body.
I quote the CURRENT source of lds.org: “God’s children have power to choose; they had this ability even before they were born. In the premortal life, Heavenly Father presented His plan, which included the principle of agency. Lucifer rebelled and “sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3). As a result, Lucifer and all those who followed him were denied the privilege of receiving a mortal body. All who have been or will be born on earth chose to follow Heavenly Father’s plan.”
4. Mary is not a daughter of God as in Creator and Created. She is LITERALLY the daughter of God just like your daughter is.
I quote the CURRENT source of the First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002: “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.”
5. So think about what that means…. …how did Mary, the “literal daughter” of God, conceive a son?
1, January 13, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The religious zealotry and fanaticism of those who refuse critical self-analysis here is overwhelming. It’s amazing that you cannot take the logical step when it comes to your beliefs about Biblical scripture. Why do you all think sexual relations are evil? And multiple spouses? The Bible is replete with prophets who had multiples wives: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, to name a few. God created man “in his own image and likeness” both MALE AND FEMALE. In his likeness … hmm … male AND female. Then he commanded them to “multiply and replenish the earth.” So he commanded them to have sex. Sex is a commandment. And who did Adam and Eve’s children marry? And their kids? God commanded incestuous relationships (what about Noah’s account?). You have all succumbed to the puritanical view of sex and marriage. In Jacob’s time, okay to have many wives. In Paul’s time, not okay. So God changed his mind. The logic on these posts are mind-numbingly idiotic. It’s no wonder that atheism is increasing - zealotry stifles the mind God requires that we use.
1, January 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The only ones on here who seem to be unable to see the forest for the trees are Mormons and those who say, “I’m not a Mormon and I don’t believe what they teach,” but then proceed to defend everything they teach. Eh, hm (clearing my throat).
I have a feeling if some of you had your way, you’d do to me what Joseph Smith had done to the Nauvoo Expositor.
It is a shame that you cannot see the truth for all the lies that cloud your view. It is precisely because of that, that I will continue to blog and expose the errors of Mormonism (and other cults too). After all, early Mormon leaders encouraged us to challenge them (or has that changed too?).
And as always, I welcome your comments (the relentless, incessant, and constant condescending insults and all). I think the undecided reasonable reader can make a much better informed decision now.
1, January 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Will you address the points or just continue to complain about vitriol and jab at Joe Smith and his Mormon ilk, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, and other Christians you happen to disagree with?
My point is that you rail against one segment of Christianity that you don’t like and yet fail to respond to the obvious failings of Christianity in general. Like the aforementioned issue of sex, the creation, Adam and Eve, who their kids procreated with, Moses ordering slaughter over and over (after “Thou Shalt Not Kill”), prophets and the mysterious disappearance of prophets and authority, the creation of the Bible and inclusion/exclusion of texts, the formation of dozens of Christian “churches” that all claim to show the “right” way, yet disagree as to the interpretation (see 2 Peter), etc, etc, etc.
You continuously set up red herrings, straw men, and use other logical fallacies in your arguments, while ignoring what may weaken your own view. I don’t care Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Baptist, Jew, Sunni, Shiite, Hindu, or etc. unless there is logic and reason to the argument. “Because I said so” isn’t sufficient. And an appeal to the Bible will never completely settle this. Why? Look at the myriad of religions who profess allegiance to the Bible and its precepts, and all are vastly different. Until you admit that the Bible has flaws, you’ve got the intellectual equivalent of your fingers stuck in your ears.
I love the Christian Bible, warts and all, but I’m not foolish enough to think it’s a pristine work, unaltered over the millenia, or that it includes all the writings that prophets have ever written. I freely admit I don’t have all the answers, and that’s part of my personal credo: I seek to embrace truth wherever I find it, be it a Biology text, in a work of art, and preacher’s sermon, and yes, the Bible. God is truth, and if he decided to come to my front door and tell me everything I ever thought was wrong, I certainly hope my mind is open enough to accept that. After all, once upon a time some very intelligent Pharisees weren’t able to accept that. And until these message boards can find the intellectual honesty to admit all is not known, and that there are flaws in current religious thought, I’m through posting here. There are many other sites where religious adherents can discuss and debate honestly.
1, January 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I have dealt with the issues, Marjar, but I can’t open your eyes for you.
I have dealt with the plethora of Mormon errors in previous posts and I will continue to deal in future posts with the plethora of Mormon errors.
You are the one skirting the issues, for example; claiming I have a hang-up with sex. Where did that come from? Oh, strawman, that’s right.
I don’t have a hang-up with sex, I have a hang-up with you and other false teachers claiming that God had physical sex with his own daughter Mary to begot Jesus Christ. You gloss over that and claim that I have a problem with sex itself. What a ridiculous and absolutely childish way to deal with that Mormon falsehood. I imagine that your thought process went something like this: “Well . . . well . . . uh . . . you just don’t like sex.” Nice, Marjar, very nice.
You have more than abundantly shown your true colors and harmed, more than helped, the case for Mormons. If I were a Mormon I’d be embarrassed and ashamed to have you defending me.
I am glad that you are through with this blog. That news couldn’t have come soon enough. (Are you planning on taking your gang of blog crashers with you?)
You throw out the Bible as an authentic, trusted, and inspired source of truth given to man by God. While here, you did nothing but misrepresent me and others with your deceptive, half-truth, accusation-slinging comments and spewed your bitter venom at anyone who disagreed with you. Very becoming.
Because of the above reasons, there is no reason to further any correspondence with you. Some hearts are too hard for words to penetrate.
I wish you the best on the “many other sites” you will grace. I may be going out on a limb, but I don’t think you’ll be missed by many here. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that some Mormons that read this blog are secretly celebrating your departure as well.
1, January 13, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I keep getting stuck on the epistimological arguments… and I always end up asking Wikipedia for help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology).
Just so we’re clear -
1. There apparently is a fatal difference between “physical” sex (a sperm fertilizing an egg) and “spiritual” sex (the Holy Ghost fertilizing an egg)?
2. Adam and Eve’s children really married each other? (Did you see those twins separated at birth in England whose marriage was just declared void? I would be furious! Not to mention grossed-out.)
3. That guy’s name is manjar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjar), not marjar. I know, it’s not substantive, but continued typos just distract the reader.
4. Trite cliches such as “smoke and mirrors” should really only be used once per blog.
5. Is the word “half-truth” really even apply here? Or ever? It seems either oxymoronic, ironic, or patently false. Either something is true, or it is false. [Well, I don't really believe that. But I would think you would, living in a black-and-white fantasy land. I don't mean to come across with a tone of mockery, but I am so amused by the passion exhibited on both sides of the aisle. I am tempted to think that maybe I am a solipsist coming up with a delightful performance. No, I didn't go to Berkeley (though I am quite fond of the man behind the name). I just have a hard time thinking that anyone can be so passionate about that which is everso remote to the senses. Surely, man has evolved beyond the ape, and therefore can treasure that which transcends food, sleep, and shelter (see, e.g., Maslow's hierarchy). I personally love a good chateau petrus - not exactly a necessity. But to argue at the peril of damning the soul. Such bravado! Such self-sacrifice! Clearly, when Jesus threw the money changers from the temple, he knew how to cage his passions and did not give into the baser self. Without a doubt, the Son of God committed no error when condemning the Pharisees. But you, a man without the mantle, calling out those who have found religion for their perceived and actual falsehoods and inadequacies. It's been a while, but the last time I read the New Testament, Christ spent more time lifting up than tearing down. Even that loose cannon Paul spent more time speaking to his people than to the Pagans. Of course, we have only a couple of his letters. And if the Gospels weren't written so long after the fact, maybe we would have more examples of Jesus condemning the many other women caught in the act of adultery.]
On to other news - How does this blog rate in the blogosphere? Is traffic picking up?
1, January 14, 2008 at 5:52 am
For Pilgrim:
I would avoid getting into a long, drawn out debate with Manjar. I’ve tried to persuade these Emergent/Postmodern types a time or two, and they are just as happy as they can be to be rooted and grounded in their uncertainty about anything Biblical. They wear it like a badge. “The only thing I’m certain about is my uncertainty.” Hard to believe the same city (Minneapolis) that gave us John Piper has also spawned a guy like Doug Paggitt.
For Sphinx,
We are not “condemning” anyone. We are biblically literate enough to know that is forbidden (Matthew 7:1-5). However, we are to examine and scrutinize another’s actions and words according to the word of God (1st Corinthians 6:5). In fact, we are commanded to not allow anyone to join a church if they do not hold the doctrine of the true Christ (2nd John 1:9-11). We who are spiritual are to consider things in a spiritual manner, not according to the desires of man. For God is above man, and has higher standards than we do. this is why we strive so hard for the truth.
1, April 20, 2008 at 11:41 pm
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.
-JESUS
1, April 21, 2008 at 11:44 am
BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS.
- JESUS
IF ANYONE PREACHES ANOTHER GOSPEL, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.
- APOSTLE PAUL
1, May 10, 2008 at 10:28 am
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” James 1:5.
This is a basic tenet of the Mormon doctrine. It invites both an open heart and mind and assumes that men and women aspire to become more godlike by asking questions of God and exploring the answers they receive. It does not imply that they are gods or that they know all and have all the “right” answers. It does not imply that Mormons must blindly incorporate the dictates of their leaders into their beliefs nor does it imply that the leaders have perfect answers. It does imply that wisdom is fluid and evolving and therefore it is accepting that beliefs evolve and change. All humans are humans, not gods, and are therefore here to learn and grow regardless of their position. It seems you expect perfection of the Mormon church leaders according to YOUR logic. Perhaps your rigid stance and the passion of your hatred and intolerance blinds you to a part of the truth.
“…they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David. And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you? They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened. So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.” Matthew 20:31-34.
I wish you the best on your quest for knowledge and wisdom.
1, May 10, 2008 at 11:22 am
Since Reformation Nation has moved, I copied and pasted your comment at its new location here.
- The Pilgrim