Sincere question for Mormons

[Deren]

Can anyone tell me what "christians" think happened in order for Mary to become pregnant? Also, is Christ the Son of God - or not?

Nice evasion. Does that mean you're not going to answer the questions, again, that were asked of you?

 

[Ran77]

In post 44 I ask why limit God in His method of bringing about the birth of the Savior.

In post 47 Deren claims that it is humans like myself that limit God by asserting that He acts like one of His creations then He must not be a God. Deren then claims that I have dismissed the supernatural element of God and continues about God being a sinner.

I have not made any of these statements. I challenge anyone to find where I have.

In post 49 I explain to Deren that the invention of words and beliefs that I have not expressed is the reason I do not dialogue with him on the forum.

In post 58 Deren responds to my comments in 49 by falsely representing my belief to be that God is a created being. My claims of inventing views that I do not hold are followed with more of the same.

Then Deren categorizes the comments that were directed to me to be valid because he can attribute them to teachings of LDS leaders. This switches from what I have supposedly said to comments from our leaders - as if that will make the previously erroneous statements acceptable.

Then in post 60 Deren espouses the theory that the LDS do not respond to him because we do not want to be held accountable for what we believe.

How about being accountable for what a person says. If someone makes the claim that I have said something, or believe something, how about that person taking the responsibility to make sure the statement is true. And when asked to provide that proof - do so - don't move on to the next attack. I want Deren to be accountable for what he has claimed in this thread. Provide me with the post where I have stated any of the things you claim I have said, or believe. Any other kind of response would be an evasion - like I have been accused of doing.

It's time to put up or shut up. Evade the issue and I will continue my decision to avoid discussion with you.

 

[Rescued One]

I'm glad you don't criticize the LDS on this forum.

How nice of you. Thank you.

The LDS follow the prophet. I don't recall that President Hinckley has made any referrence to a sexual relationship between God and Mary. If the LDS on this forum were to be asked I feel confident that none of them believe in what you claim we believe; I'm pretty sure they believe along the lines of what I have stated. To attempt to claim that my comments are not typical of LDS belief is incorrect and perhaps dishonest.

I did not say that your beliefs are not typical of what LDS believe today. I said, "I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders. The problem is LDS follow leaders who believed differently than Ran77 and taught what they believed to others." What LDS believed in 1960 is not what LDS believe and practice in 2006.

You have chosen to emphasize statements made in a document of which the Church has chosen not to support as doctrine. Brigham Young explained something based on the knowledge he had about such matters. I have no doubt that Heavenly Father has not chosen to share with any prophet the precise method by which Mary became pregnant. If you want to take exception with Brigham for speculating - please do. Since the Church has already decided not to accept it as doctrine your argument will have to be with Brigham.

Was I arguing with you? I wasn't arguing with you or Brigham.

Perhaps if the early Church leaders would have known that people would scour through old documents looking for anything they could take exception with in order to attack the Church they would have been more careful in what they presented. Alas, they did not and later Church leadership took the task and declared the JoD as non-doctrinal teachings.

Yeah, old Brigham ought to have kept his mouth shut, don't you think? Too many LDS agreed with him long after he was dead.

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. - Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" - Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p.44

"Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God!" - Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18

"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" - Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p. 466

"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." —Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 742

"ONLY BEGOTTEN SON: These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." —Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 546

 

[Rescued One]

It just would not be right to omit this quote:

"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" - Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, Joseph F. Smith, p.125,126.

 

[RufustheRed]

Originally Posted by: GodsWordisTrue

I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders.

I'm glad you don't criticize the LDS on this forum.

Do you view THIS as criticism?

The LDS follow the prophet. I don't recall that President Hinckley has made any referrence to a sexual relationship between God and Mary. If the LDS on this forum were to be asked I feel confident that none of them believe in what you claim we believe; I'm pretty sure they believe along the lines of what I have stated. To attempt to claim that my comments are not typical of LDS belief is incorrect and perhaps dishonest.

So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?

You have chosen to emphasize statements made in a document of which the Church has chosen not to support as doctrine. Brigham Young explained something based on the knowledge he had about such matters. I have no doubt that Heavenly Father has not chosen to share with any prophet the precise method by which Mary became pregnant. If you want to take exception with Brigham for speculating - please do. Since the Church has already decided not to accept it as doctrine your argument will have to be with Brigham.

Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?

Perhaps if the early Church leaders would have known that people would scour through old documents looking for anything they could take exception with in order to attack the Church they would have been more careful in what they presented. Alas, they did not and later Church leadership took the task and declared the JoD as non-doctrinal teachings.

As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?

I fail to see how this qualifies as a double standard. It is consistent with our belief in continuing prophecy. We believe more doctrine has been written to which we don't have access and still more will be written. Where is the double standard here? I suspect that you are grasping at straws here in order to turn the tables on me. Just stating it doesn't make it so.

So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.

That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.

Sven

 

[Deren]

In post 44 I ask why limit God in His method of bringing about the birth of the Savior.

In post 47 Deren claims that it is humans like myself that limit God by asserting that He acts like one of His creations then He must not be a God. Deren then claims that I have dismissed the supernatural element of God and continues about God being a sinner.

I have not made any of these statements. I challenge anyone to find where I have.

In post 49 I explain to Deren that the invention of words and beliefs that I have not expressed is the reason I do not dialogue with him on the forum.

In post 58 Deren responds to my comments in 49 by falsely representing my belief to be that God is a created being. My claims of inventing views that I do not hold are followed with more of the same.

Then Deren categorizes the comments that were directed to me to be valid because he can attribute them to teachings of LDS leaders. This switches from what I have supposedly said to comments from our leaders - as if that will make the previously erroneous statements acceptable.

Then in post 60 Deren espouses the theory that the LDS do not respond to him because we do not want to be held accountable for what we believe.

How about being accountable for what a person says. If someone makes the claim that I have said something, or believe something, how about that person taking the responsibility to make sure the statement is true. And when asked to provide that proof - do so - don't move on to the next attack. I want Deren to be accountable for what he has claimed in this thread. Provide me with the post where I have stated any of the things you claim I have said, or believe. Any other kind of response would be an evasion - like I have been accused of doing.

It's time to put up or shut up. Evade the issue and I will continue my decision to avoid discussion with you.

Ummm, Ran, I know you really enjoy shadow boxing, but I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[fatboys]

Are you saying that you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost?

Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?

If we are to consider what they say as binding on us as scriptures, then we have to go through the process as with all scriptures that are binding on us. Even though what they may say is speculation or the truth, it is not binding on us, and only serves as information. Does not make any difference since it is not essential to our salvation.

As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?

It would be speculation if it is not found in our scriptures.

So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.

Just the opposite. All the extra information is just that, extra. We do not have to follow the teaching unless it is found in the standard works.

That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.

Sven

This is just speculation, but think you are no longer LDS because of the circumstances you are in, and feeling left out by the church.

 

[Rescued One]

Are you saying that you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost?

Do you actually think the Holy Spirit has sex with anyone? God does not procreate. He is the Creator.

What is sex? It is the method by which humans were/are able to multiply and populate the earth.

 

[RufustheRed]

So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?

Are you saying that you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost?

No. I was asking a question. Read it again.

If we are to consider what they say as binding on us as scriptures, then we have to go through the process as with all scriptures that are binding on us. Even though what they may say is speculation or the truth, it is not binding on us, and only serves as information. Does not make any difference since it is not essential to our salvation.

I see. So you don't really follow a prophet when he speaks in conference.

It would be speculation if it is not found in our scriptures.

How did the Bible come to be in your scriptures? Was it voted on during conference?

Just the opposite. All the extra information is just that, extra. We do not have to follow the teaching unless it is found in the standard works.

So when your prophet has a revelation, it is not binding until the entire LDS church says it is.

This is just speculation, but think you are no longer LDS because of the circumstances you are in, and feeling left out by the church.

Your speculation is a riot I left your organization because I realized that it didn't present the everlasting gospel of Christ. It negated the work of the cross. When and if you ever realize that, you will leave too.

Happy New Year

Sven

BTW, the circumstances I am in could not be better - just for the record.

 

[Ran77]

I did not say that your beliefs are not typical of what LDS believe today. I said, "I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders. The problem is LDS follow leaders who believed differently than Ran77 and taught what they believed to others." What LDS believed in 1960 is not what LDS believe and practice in 2006.

Actually, I would argue that you did. "The problem is LDS follow leaders..." Both "follow" (instead of followed) and "is" (instead of was) indicates the present tense. The sentence, as you wrote it, indicates that LDS in the present tense believe differently than I do.

I can only read what you write. It is the responsibility of the author to make good use of the language to convey his/her thoughts. Something that I fail in as often as anyone else.

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. - Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" - Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p.44

"Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God!" - Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18

"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" - Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p. 466

"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." —Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 742

"ONLY BEGOTTEN SON: These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." —Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 546

I feel that I have already responded to this category of comments and don't see that tagging on a comment about each one is necessary. Although, I could do so if you feel differently.

Coming from non-doctrinal sources all that can be established is that some members of the LDS Church have speculated that Mary was impregnated by the only method which their level of science allowed them to understand. My guess is that, this is no more than an effort to put two and two together. Heavenly Father is the literal Father of Christ who is the Only Begotten in the Flesh. Mary became pregnant and gave birth to the Savior. For the limited understanding of man to draw that correlation is reasonable. And what many would like to do is turn that effort to understand the facts into a decision to think dirty and dwell upon the unclean. Creating a false mind-set for these people and then promoting it abroad is wrong and it is deceptive.

 

[Ran77]

So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?

Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?

As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?

So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.

That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.

Sven, if I'm not mistaken you posted that you didn't want to communicate with me any more and that my continued efforts to post to you were a method of "stalking." I stopped posting to you after you made that comment, how about you keeping to what you said you were going to do.

 

[Ran77]

Ummm, Ran, I know you really enjoy shadow boxing, but I'm still waiting for an answer.

And that was the evasive answer that I expected from you. Now, I will go back to ignoring you.

 

[RufustheRed]

Sven, if I'm not mistaken you posted that you didn't want to communicate with me any more and that my continued efforts to post to you were a method of "stalking." I stopped posting to you after you made that comment, how about you keeping to what you said you were going to do.

What did I say I was going to do, Ran? I really do not remember saying the above to you. I am not saying that I didn't say it, because I am on medication that causes some memory problems. However, it seems so out of character for me to converse in that manner, I think that you may have me confused with someone else. I did a search of my messages but they only archive to September. If you have a copy of the message, I truely would like to see it.

Thanks and sorry for any miscommunication. I do not recall telling anyone that I didn't want to communicate with them.

Sven

 

[Ran77]

What did I say I was going to do, Ran? I really do not remember saying the above to you. I am not saying that I didn't say it, because I am on medication that causes some memory problems. However, it seems so out of character for me to converse in that manner, I think that you may have me confused with someone else. I did a search of my messages but they only archive to September. If you have a copy of the message, I truely would like to see it.

Thanks and sorry for any miscommunication. I do not recall telling anyone that I didn't want to communicate with them.

I am pretty sure it would have been during the summer months. The gist was that you don't like my sarcasm because it is rude and I countered that you are rude in some of your posts too. When I pointed several of them out to you - you accused me of stalking you. Since then I have left you alone as you wished.

No need to be sorry about it. We don't get along. Agreeing to keep to ourselves seems to be a pretty civilized way of dealing with it.

 

[Apex]

What did I say I was going to do, Ran? I really do not remember saying the above to you. I am not saying that I didn't say it, because I am on medication that causes some memory problems. However, it seems so out of character for me to converse in that manner, I think that you may have me confused with someone else. I did a search of my messages but they only archive to September. If you have a copy of the message, I truely would like to see it.

Thanks and sorry for any miscommunication. I do not recall telling anyone that I didn't want to communicate with them.

Sven

I remember this.

 

[Ran77]

I decided to answer your post afterall. I still think it is best that we keep to ourselves though.

Do you view THIS as criticism?

I view it as pointing out a contradiction to a statement GWiT made - with a small amount of cheek. I hoped that it might be taken as humor rather than an opportunity to nit-pick her actions.

So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?

I don't believe Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, becasue that would make Jesus the Son of the Holy Ghost and not the Only Begotten Son of God.

As to the method; I don't know how it was done. As I have stated in this thread, I am sure that this has not been revealed to any prophet and hence it remains a mystery to mortal man.

Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?

All talks should match what is taught in the Bible. If they go wide of that - then yes I would consider it speculation. I am a thinking entity with my own freewill. God will judge me on my actions. Claiming that I only did what someone else taught me isn't going to cut me any slack. All of us are ultimately responsible for our actions. The way I see it, that gives me some incentive to make sure I am doing the right thing.

In short, I think for myself. I am not mind-controlled, or a robot, I can make my own decisions.

As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?

You may do as you wish. I have the capablity to read, study, and pray in order to be able to determine what is relevant. I have no need to throw everything away. Some of those speculations could turn out to be correct.

So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.

Nope, I haven't said that at all. That would be a gross twisting of the words I used or a very inventive interpretation of them.

That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.

Cool.

 

[4godslove]

We don't believe God has "eternal sex" in order to "spiritually procreate".

WE DON'T? Forget it then...I quit.

 

[OZBentley]

So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?

Well, would you conclude that since you hace a Christian symbol that you believe that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one?

Then you subscribe to the idea that Jesus Christ was conceived from Himself, as the Holy Ghost, Who was also the Father, acting as the Holy Ghost at the time, because they are all connected as being God.

So we may be also correct in concluding that Heavenly Father parented Christ in the Flesh, because He is God, but he was acting as the Holy Ghost at the time who is also God.? sort of like the head doesn't know what the right foot is doing... since your God theory has them all as one, Heavenly Father is the Head, Christ is the hands and the Holy Ghost is the feet, but yet they are one body.

oh wait, since the Bible says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, maybe Heavenly Father used his position in the "God circle of three(aka trinity)" to send the Holy Ghost to do it(which is Himself as God)...?

 

[Rescued One]

Then you subscribe to the idea that Jesus Christ was conceived from Himself, as the Holy Ghost, Who was also the Father, acting as the Holy Ghost at the time, because they are all connected as being God.

How did you come up with this hogwash? And how do you dare tell Sven what he subscribes to?

So we may be also correct in concluding that Heavenly Father parented Christ in the Flesh, because He is God, but he was acting as the Holy Ghost at the time who is also God.? sort of like the head doesn't know what the right foot is doing... since your God theory has them all as one, Heavenly Father is the Head, Christ is the hands and the Holy Ghost is the feet, but yet they are one body.

Would you mind saying that in English?

 

[Rescued One]

I don't believe Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, becasue that would make Jesus the Son of the Holy Ghost and not the Only Begotten Son of God.

[Bible]Matthew 1:20[/Bible]

[Bible]Luke 1:35[/Bible]

[Bible]John 1:14[/Bible]