Happy Birthday to our Members!!!

wildernesse

Use less and live more.
Jun 17, 2002
1,027
5
44
Georgia
Visit site
✟16,673.00
Slimmjimm,

Do you consider saying that Mormons are also known as devil worshippers a flame? I think that I would.

jodrey:

Are you Mormon? I'm guessing yes (amazing powers of deduction).

Anyway, if yes: Could you explain somewhat about why the church "collects" family history? I think I heard somewhere that it's to baptize ancestors into the church? To me, this sounds incredible and I would like to know why if this is the case.

Thanks.
--tibac
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,176
1,226
71
Sebring, FL
✟663,976.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
wildernesse : I fully agree that Slimm Jimm is flaming, despite having a valid question.
On Mormons baptizing deceased relatives, yes they do. In fact, the Mormon Church claims to have retroactively baptized all US Presidents, except two which they found to be unworthy. That way past US Presidents can get into the Mormon heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
40
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Really? That’s not what I understand of Mormon doctrine:

Brigham Young states, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

And then...

Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51).

And then…

Brigham Young asserts, "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." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.)

Followed by...

Bruce McConkie continues saying, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.)

Which is followed by...

Heber C. Kimball (who was a member of the first presidency) said, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211)

Now maybe it’s just me, but I think Mormon doctrine is pretty clear on what they think of the “virgin” Mary. God supposedly got a little frisky with her. ;)
 
Upvote 0

wildernesse

Use less and live more.
Jun 17, 2002
1,027
5
44
Georgia
Visit site
✟16,673.00
Today at 12:11 AM Dale said this in Post #4

wildernesse : I fully agree that Slimm Jimm is flaming, despite having a valid question.
On Mormons baptizing deceased relatives, yes they do. In fact, the Mormon Church claims to have retroactively baptized all US Presidents, except two which they found to be unworthy. That way past US Presidents can get into the Mormon heaven.

Which two and why?!

--tibac
 
Upvote 0

Annabel Lee

Beware the Thought Police
Feb 8, 2002
14,443
1,165
115
Q'onoS
✟39,227.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Today at 12:42 PM Slimmjimm said this in Post #1

Just curious...heard this earlier in a chat room and wanted to hear more about what you "Mormons" are taught regarding the birth of Jesus.

What the hell do you think you are doing? How dare you come in here and insult the Mormon members of this board.
Go get a life.
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
40
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What the hell do you think you are doing?

Well at least we've kept our cools in here. :)

How dare you come in here and insult the Mormon members of this board.

And yet we have in the very next sentence...

Go get a life.

Let us fight fire with fire, insult with insult, spite with spite, eh? :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jodrey

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2003
430
0
40
Quincy, Massachusetts
✟567.00
I guess Jedi's information requires a response. It is true that Church leaders have made those statements, but I think it's important to consider what was meant when they said them. Were the statements explicit of God the Father having sexual relations with Mary? No. Since I know some people here are too lazy to click links, I will post the content directly:

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).

One of the more common misrepresentations spread by anti-Mormons is that Latter-day Saints do not believe in the virgin birth (i.e., that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born). Let's begin by clearly stating the official doctrine of the Church, as contained in the Book of Mormon:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10, emphasis added)

As we can see, the virgin birth is an official doctrine of the Church. Occasionally, the critics produce statements from LDS literature like the following:

"God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. 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, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says." (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.742)

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (President Brigham Young on April 9, 1852. The Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50)

The critics would offer these types of statements as evidence that Latter-day Saints believe that Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They falsely say that descriptive terms like "normal and natural course of events" must mean normal sexual relations as we understand them. While this might be a possible interpretation if no other information existed on this subject, the critics conveniently ignore all other information that proves their interpretation of these types of statements to be incorrect, such as:

"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), 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. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.822, emphasis added)

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)" ("Joy in Christ," Ensign 16 [March 1986]: 3-4., emphasis added) (See President Benson's Teachings About Christ)

It is worth noting that many of these clarifying statements appear in the exact same literature as the other statements quoted above. Therefore, the critics were aware of them and purposely chose to ignore them. I will leave it to the reader's judgment as to why our enemies might do such a thing.

Since it is clear that Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth, then how do we interpret the statements that might imply otherwise [implied only if nothing else were known]? The key to understanding lies in the differences between Trinitarian theology and LDS doctrine. Unlike Trinitarians, who believe that the Father and Son are of one essence, Latter-day Saints believe that the members of the Godhead are separate personages united in purpose, power, and glory. This is a key theological difference between us and the Trinitarians.

Since the Holy Ghost is a separate personage from God the Father, it is important to point out that Jesus in the only begotten son of God the Father and not the son of the Holy Ghost. We should make it clear that when Church leaders state that Jesus is not the son of the Holy Ghost, they are not saying that the power of the Holy Ghost was not used in the conception process. They are simply saying that the Holy Ghost personage is not the father of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father is abundantly testified to by scripture: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16). When Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven and said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17) If one cannot believe God, then whom can one believe? President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

"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." (Come unto Christ, p. 4.)

If Jesus is truly the Son of God the Father, then what part did the Holy Ghost play in his miraculous conception? The Father used the power of the Holy Ghost as an agent, or enabler, so that a virgin could give birth to his Son. The specifics are beyond our knowledge and possibly our comprehension.

Therefore, the statements from Church leaders indicating that Jesus was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events should be understood that God works through natural means in everything that he does. At times, his works like the Virgin Birth may seem to defy natural laws as man knows them. In those cases, we should understand that "[our Heavenly Father beget Jesus of a virgin] not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (Elder James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 81).

For example, President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

"A miracle is not, as many believe, the setting aside or overruling natural laws. Every miracle performed in Biblical days or now, is done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law. The healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, giving eyesight to the blind, whatever it may be that is done by the power of God, is in accordance with natural law. Because we do not understand how it is done, does not argue for the impossibility of it. Our Father in heaven knows many laws that are hidden from us." (Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 484- TLDP:649, emphasis added)

Elder James E. Talmage taught:

Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify it -- as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space. At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy. The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. (Jesus the Christ, Ch.11, p.148, emphasis added)

In other words, while we may not understand how a virgin can conceive a child, the virgin birth did occur and it was a natural event, not an unnatural one.

W. John Walsh, Was Mary a Virgin? http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm

Now, regarding the two US Presidents that were not baptized for, I believe there is a section in the Doctrine & Covenants stating the event in which the Founding Fathers appeared to Joseph Smith and requested that their baptismal work be done. I can't find the section. Maybe it's not in there, but I have heard of this. The reason two of the presidents were not baptized for at that time was that one had allowed persecution on the Saints, deliberately overlooking the extermination order (as in, genocidal death sentence) issued by Gov. Boggs against all Mormons. So I think we could all agree that that was not right. Because of this he was not found to be worthy of baptism at that time. Whether he will be later I don't know. The second president that was not baptized for was still alive at the time, so it would be illogical to do his baptismal work. I can't remember the name of either, unfortunately. Maybe I can find more out later.

We believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance for salvation, and if it is not fulfilled during a person's lifetime there will be opportunity in the spirit world by being baptized through proxy by someone on earth. We believe that all who have ever died without hearing the gospel will be baptized for. The only explicit mention of baptism for the dead is 1 Corinthians 15: 29, although we believe other such scriptures as Malachi 4: 5-6 refer to the work of baptism for the dead. Indeed, we believe that Elijah has already returned and has done so in order to restore the sealing keys to the earth; those that Jesus conferred to Simon Peter in the New Testament (see Matthew 16: 18-19). Don't argue with this last bit. I'm not trying to prove anything, only to tell what we believe.
 
Upvote 0

Annabel Lee

Beware the Thought Police
Feb 8, 2002
14,443
1,165
115
Q'onoS
✟39,227.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Today at 07:36 PM Jedi said this in Post #10






Let us fight fire with fire, insult with insult, spite with spite, eh? :)

Slimmjimm has one post and he calls an entire church, devil worshippers.
He's a flamer and an obvious troll.
He's not worth my time.

Why did you ignore the trolls post? You had an opportunity to 'correct' him in a 'True Christian' manner.
Show us how it is done.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
40
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I thought you’d bring up material like that, Jodrey. I always try to anticipate what people might say in response to my posts. :)

What’s interesting is that, given your excerpts, Mormon doctrine would appear to be contradictory then. When Brigham Young states, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115, underlines mine), he actually states how it is “natural.” Just as we are begotten of our fathers, so it was in the case of Christ. It seems to be very clear in what “natural” processes took place (the same that take place when we’re conceived/begotten). Bruce McConkie continues saying, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” One must ask himself, “How are mortal men begotten by mortal fathers?” There’s only one answer here: Sexual intercourse. And Mr. McConkie says Christ came about in the same way. The gist of the passages I provided seem to be surprisingly clear in the point they’re getting across.

He's not worth my time.

Is that so? Then why did you take the time to respond in passionate rebuke? Curious... :)

Why did you ignore the trolls post? You had an opportunity to 'correct' him in a 'True Christian' manner. Show us how it is done.

I brushed it aside as I didn’t think much of it. I thought it was out of place and unnecessary, but certainly nothing that would justify my slinging mud his way. People don’t always like those who passionately condemn them, and so I try not to jump on people’s backs right off the bat. Only if it becomes a constant stream of behavior will I interject, and since the originator of this topic hasn’t replied yet, the opportunity has not presented itself.
 
Upvote 0