LDS BOOK OF MORMON FALSE HISTORY 2

[Jane_Doe]

So, are you able to answer the original post question, please?

We did. Multiple times. Would you like to respond to our answers?

 

[Kiwi Christian]

BTW maybe .00003% of the Mormon people believe that there was physical sex between God the Father and Mary, so in your list of differences, drop that one. She was a virgin, and having sex with God the Father would have ruined that virginity. It's pretty logical.

Many thanks for your reply. I really do appreciate it, my friend.

Here are what your leaders have said:

Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle) states: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).

Brigham Young taught: "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 were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and "when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).

"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 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.. He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. 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." Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).


Brigham Young insisted: "I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was NOT begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).

"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" (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7).

"[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh" (Messages for Exaltation, pp.378-379).

"God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh ...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, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father ...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; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct" (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158).

"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, Brigham Young, 8:115).

Carfred Broderick (Mormon author) writes: "God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone...latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus...The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).

I have not posted ALL the references i have because some mormons complain about my posts, so i am trying to do things the right way.

Now, please do not play that "thats not official doctrine", because we KNOW your prophets do NOT have to say "thus saith the Lord" in order to give Scripture. Young said everything he gave IS to be taken as SCRIPTURE.

God bless.

Dean.
www.calvarystudy.info

 

[Jane_Doe]

(Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).

Not doctrine, has many problems with it which have previously been pointed out. I don't know why Kiwi continues to cite this.

(Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115)

Also not doctrine.

(Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).

Ditto.

"The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Not doctrine and specifically & publicly disvowed for incorrect ideas.

(Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).

Again, not doctrine.

Etc, etc for all these sources. People get the idea.

I have not posted ALL the references i have because some mormons complain about my posts, so i am trying to do things the right way.

Because none of them are are doctrine...

Now, please do not play that "thats not official doctrine", because we KNOW your prophets do NOT have to say "thus saith the Lord" in order to give Scripture. Young said everything he gave IS to be taken as SCRIPTURE.

False statement.

www.calvarystudy.info

So you're a Calvary Chapel leader of some sort?

Your approach is very different than the Calvary Chapels I know in my area. I generally greatly respect them for teaching from the Bible and just from the Bible, and have attended services there many times-- even taken classes for months two times a week! They focus on teaching what they believe the Bible to say, and not on "informing" other people what they think other people believe. But conversations... I hang my head here. I would greatly perfer conversations like those I've had at other Calvary Chapels.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Many thanks for your reply. I really do appreciate it, my friend.

Here are what your leaders have said:

Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle) states: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).

Brigham Young taught: "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 were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and "when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).

"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 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.. He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. 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." Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).


Brigham Young insisted: "I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was NOT begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).

"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" (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7).

"[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh" (Messages for Exaltation, pp.378-379).

"God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh ...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, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father ...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; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct" (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158).

"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, Brigham Young, 8:115).

Carfred Broderick (Mormon author) writes: "God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone...latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus...The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).

I have not posted ALL the references i have because some mormons complain about my posts, so i am trying to do things the right way.

Now, please do not play that "thats not official doctrine", because we KNOW your prophets do NOT have to say "thus saith the Lord" in order to give Scripture. Young said everything he gave IS to be taken as SCRIPTURE.

God bless.

Dean.
www.calvarystudy.info

Kiwi please acknowledge that you actually read this posting, I'm tired of feeling like I'm wasting my time.

The problem with quoting things like this is a lot of it is out of context.

This is from Fairmormon
"Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ:

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. [3]

In the same volume, Elder McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:

"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.

Note that McConkie emphasized the literal nature of Christ's divinity, his direct descent from the Father, and the fact that the Holy Ghost was a tool, but not the source of Jesus' divine Parenthood."

*Here's one quote they won't give you;
In Jesus the Christ by the apostle James Talmage written in 1915 he wrote;
"Mary, conscious of her unmarried status and sure of her virgin condition, asked: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” The answer to her natural and simple inquiry was the announcement of a miracle such as the world had never known—not a miracle in the sense of a happening contrary to nature’s law, nevertheless a miracle through the operation of higher law, such as the human mind ordinarily fails to comprehend or regard as possible."

To Talmage and Brigham Young God is not a magician, instead they believed God was more of a scientist using physical laws. In this case they didn't think of God popping a baby into Mary's womb like a magician does a rabbit in a hat. They knew there had to be some sort of higher law which they didn't understand. Today we know that a virgin birth is not impossible.

*The real argument was about how the Trinity denies the true Father Son relationship and that's why the stress on the literal Son of God.

*"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, Brigham Young, 8:115).

Please note he says the "birth of the Savior was natural", there is a Catholic belief that Mary felt no pain while she was giving birth and we don't except that. There are other beliefs that Jesus started talking on the day he was born. Young was just saying his birth was like any other birth.

*Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).

From Fairmormon
"Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.“

Yet the antis keep quoting from it.

Carfred Broderick, I know his son and daughter in-law. Great and talented people, aught to be more people like them. He wrote My Parents Married on a Dare. They really did, very funny.

deseretbook.com/p/my-parents-married-dare-other-favorite-essays-life-carlfred-broderick-1668?variant_id=110741-ebook

 

[mmksparbud]

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man,

"holy man."------Nope!

 

[Ironhold]

Kiwi, seriously -> why do you keep going for material we've told you doesn't have the weight of canon?

 

[mmksparbud]

So the quote that God the Father is a perfected holy man is OK???

 

[withwonderingawe]

"holy man."------Nope!

McConkie's full quote "God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage."

Well that is the difference between you and us. You worship an incomprehensible invisible immaterial substance without gender.

We worship our Heavenly Father in whose image we are made, He loves us as his children. We are all part of the family of heaven and earth.

 

[mmksparbud]

McConkie's full quote "God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage."

Well that is the difference between you and us. You worship an incomprehensible invisible immaterial substance without gender.

We worship our Heavenly Father in whose image we are made, He loves us as his children. We are all part of the family of heaven and earth.

An immortal personage, born human, that made Himself God---and we can do the same----that is the difference between us.

 

[withwonderingawe]

An immortal personage, born human, that made Himself God---and we can do the same----that is the difference between us.

An eternal spirit who took on flesh becoming a mortal man "as Jesus did"

Heb 6
"...What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:....we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
..... and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying,

"I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me."

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;....For verily he/Jesus took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.."

Jesus told Mary "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Jesus is our brother, who because of his righteousness has always been God, he created heaven and earth and is Yahweh of the Old Testament. He left the glory he dwelt in and came to earth as a man taking on flesh so that he could perfect not only himself but us his brother and sisters.

 

[mmksparbud]

An eternal spirit who took on flesh becoming a mortal man "as Jesus did"

God always was---as He is. From everlasting to everlasting. Only Jesus took on flesh. Again-----this is one of the major differences between us.

 

[withwonderingawe]

God always was---as He is. From everlasting to everlasting. Only Jesus took on flesh. Again-----this is one of the major differences between us.

I thought Jesus and God were suppose to be one and the same.

 

[mmksparbud]

Jesus became fully human. He retains His humanity forever---God was never human. One God--Father Son and Holy Spirit, but One---and no one can explain.

 

[jacks]

I just wanted to say I appreciate the way those of this forum respond to attacks about your religion(s). The end result, (regardless of particulars), is the impression of an unprovoked attack, being responded to in a Christian manner. This is the most effective rebuke to those who work so hard to find fault in others, instead of working on their own weaknesses.

God bless you!

 

[withwonderingawe]

I just wanted to say I appreciate the way those of this forum respond to attacks about your religion(s). The end result, (regardless of particulars), is the impression of an unprovoked attack, being responded to in a Christian manner. This is the most effective rebuke to those who work so hard to find fault in others, instead of working on their own weaknesses.

God bless you!

but I am guilty of sometimes having a knee jerk reaction

 

[Jane_Doe]

I just wanted to say I appreciate the way those of this forum respond to attacks about your religion(s). The end result, (regardless of particulars), is the impression of an unprovoked attack, being responded to in a Christian manner. This is the most effective rebuke to those who work so hard to find fault in others, instead of working on their own weaknesses.

God bless you!

Thank you very much!

 

[jacks]

but I am guilty of sometimes having a knee jerk reaction

Did I say you guys were perfect?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Did I say you guys were perfect?

my hubby decided to change the oil to his lawn mower on my front porch, he spilled it ....... ....no I'm not perfect

 

[Super14LDS]

Not doctrine, has many problems with it which have previously been pointed out. I don't know why Kiwi continues to cite this.

Also not doctrine.

Ditto.

Not doctrine and specifically & publicly disvowed for incorrect ideas.

Again, not doctrine.

Etc, etc for all these sources. People get the idea.


Because none of them are are doctrine...

False statement.

So you're a Calvary Chapel leader of some sort?

Your approach is very different than the Calvary Chapels I know in my area. I generally greatly respect them for teaching from the Bible and just from the Bible, and have attended services there many times-- even taken classes for months two times a week! They focus on teaching what they believe the Bible to say, and not on "informing" other people what they think other people believe. But conversations... I hang my head here. I would greatly perfer conversations like those I've had at other Calvary Chapels.

Christians often exhibit a deep understanding such as this great summary written by an exceptional pastor.

... There is good Biblical reason to believe that the Tribulation will be preceded by a seven year period of plenty. The seven years of plenty that preceded the seven years of famine in the story of Joseph, as well as other instances of instructions to prepare for impending tribulation type events in the Hebrew Scriptures all establish a biblical principal of a period of preparation according to Divine Instruction. The Lord Jesus pointedly stated “Behold, I have forewarned you,” so the Church, as well as every believer, should consider themselves under His clear instruction to be alert, informed, prepared and prayerful about exactly that which will transpire during the Tribulation so, “...that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Luke 21:36. - 2016: 7 Years of Plenty to Prepare for the Tribulation

His timeline begins only off by one year as explained in the Missouri thread.

 

[Dale]

Not doctrine, has many problems with it which have previously been pointed out. I don't know why Kiwi continues to cite this.

Also not doctrine.

Ditto.

Not doctrine and specifically & publicly disvowed for incorrect ideas.

Again, not doctrine.

Etc, etc for all these sources. People get the idea.


Because none of them are are doctrine...

False statement.

So you're a Calvary Chapel leader of some sort?

Your approach is very different than the Calvary Chapels I know in my area. I generally greatly respect them for teaching from the Bible and just from the Bible, and have attended services there many times-- even taken classes for months two times a week! They focus on teaching what they believe the Bible to say, and not on "informing" other people what they think other people believe. But conversations... I hang my head here. I would greatly perfer conversations like those I've had at other Calvary Chapels.

Jane Doe,

If you are disavowing Brigham Young and other early Apostles, it makes your church look pretty disorganized, doesn't it? Brigham Young is the most eminent Mormon besides Joseph Smith. Who can we trust for a legitimate interpretation of Mormon doctrine?