Book of Mormon

[rabanes]

Not to be a broken record, but the official doctrine is that Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father. As for the how - that has never been official.

Friend, you need to do some extensive reading on this issue and seriously think about, if that's something you care to do. The underlying, non-official, back-room, higher-up, classic/standard, originally-held belied is as I say. And it continues to permeate Mormonism -- not officially, but as the only explanation ever given (and now only hinted at) by your Mormon leaders and high-ranking church officials.

Might I suggest you read my full discussion of it with dozens of 19th, 20, and 21st century statements from LDS leaders/sources (See Inside Today's Mormonism, pp. 184-186, 188-189, 191-192.

Thank you,

RA

 

[Katzpur]

Whenever I read a comment like this, I can't help but wonder why Mormons do it.

Do you actually think people won't respond and just let it go?

My son was a practicing member of the Church until he was about sixteen years old. My guess is that he wouldn't have the foggiest notion what Kolob was. Do you know why? It has nothing to do with thinking people won't respond and just letting it go, as you say. The fact is, you could attend LDS worship services for decades without ever hearing Kolob even mentioned. There are a couple of references to it in "The Pearl of Great Price," as well as a hymn (an absolutely beautiful hymn, I might add) about it. Unfortunately, it's not sung all that frequently. It is entirely possible, even likely, for a person to be a member of the Church for years without having ever heard of Kolob. You make it sound like it's some kind of a core doctrine of the Church, when in actuality, it is TRIVIAL!

Must I really go on and produce hundreds more? Why do you guys do this? It makes no sense and just makes you look bad in the eyes of people wanting to at least get from you the truth about what you believe.

I'm sure if you wanted to talk honestly and openly, rather than continue responding in such a dishonest fashion, people would be glad to talk.

Oh, please, spare us. The only person who has been dishonest so far is you.

 

[painted wolf]

Friend, you need to do some extensive reading on this issue and seriously think about, if that's something you care to do. The underlying, non-official, back-room, higher-up, classic/standard, originally-held belied is as I say. And it continues to permeate Mormonism -- not officially, but as the only explanation ever given (and now only hinted at) by your Mormon leaders and high-ranking church officials.

So only you have a the pulse of the "back-room, higher-up" views of the LDS leaders?

You have some wicked spy gear.

wa:do

 

[rabanes]

We've got a professional anti-Mormon in our midst!

I reject that label.

I haven't been so excited since Fish-Hunter graced our forum with his delightful presence.

Don't be.

I'll be back to address your drivel when time permits, Richard.

Take your time. Go read my book Inside Today's Mormonism, and read the extensive discussion of this issue. Then, come back and talk to me. I could never reproduce that kind of research, text, and referencing in a forum like this.

All I'll say for now is anyone who would choose to believe a self-proclaimed non-Mormon authority on what Mormons really believe as opposed to believing a 60-year practicing member of the Church has got a major problem. If you wanted to learn about Judaism, do you seriously think that your best source of accurate information would be a Muslim? Get real.

This is a logical flaw. You do not have to understand or know a religion, political view, or perspective and either be part of that religion, embrace that political view, or hold a certain perspective. And that is indeed being real.

There are experts dedicated to all kinds of fields, all different directions, and all sorts of things -- but still not involved personally. For example, researchers who work at the Southern Poverty Law Center and The Simon Weisenthal Center are incredible experts on racism, anti-Semitism, hate crime, neo-Nazi religious views, and "Christian Identity" racist religious opinions. Are they racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis, or "Christian Identity" racist religious zealots? NO.

Get real, indeed.

RA

 

[rabanes]

You have some wicked spy gear.

Actually, just a really huge library and I happen to be a professional religion journalist. It's a good match.
RA

 

[rabanes]

...please, spare us. The only person who has been dishonest so far is you.

Well, I have to disagree. Perhaps I have a different perspective. Perhaps I've brought up some controversial points. Maybe I've pointed out some things that many Mormons don't want pointed out. But full-blown dishonesty?? I truly don't think I have done that. Kolob is in your standard work of holy writ, not mine. I;v really only quoted LDs sources.

RA

 

[rabanes]

I did read Abraham... but Kolob must have slipped my notice, not surprising as it was never talked about.We spent our time talking about many other aspects of the Bible and BoM.

Well, interesting. Never heard of Kolob being a Mormon for 20 years. That's a new one for me.

Frankly calling the LDS on having a silly book is poor form... especially since the Bible is equally silly IMHO.

Where did I call anything "silly"?

I mean come on... rabbits don't chew cud... they eat poop.

This is a tired, worn-out, skeptic accusation against the Bible. It was answered years ago, and to be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever mentions it anymore. I'll post a link, but since I can't yet post links, please substitute "dot" for a real "." http:// www. tektonics. org/af/cudchewers. html -- TRY WITHOUT SPACES. That was odd.

Did a Mormon wiz in your cereal?

I thought this was a debate forum. NO?

RA

 

[rabanes]

No, but it still tries to claim the Torah (or "old testament") as its own.

Well, first of all, the Torah isn't the "Old Testament." It's only the first five books of the Old Testament. Second, the jews have no problem whatsoever with Christians accepting the Torah, since the first Christians were......Jews.

RA

 

[painted wolf]

Well, interesting. Never heard of Kolob being a Mormon for 20 years. That's a new one for me.

Shouldn't be, you've heard similar a few times in this thread already.

Do you want to try a resource again... that one doesn't look too promising. Or scholarly...

This is a tired, worn-out, skeptic accusation against the Bible. It was answered years ago, and to be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever mentions it anymore.

Funny I heard the Mormons on this thread say the same thing about your points.

wa:do

 

[rabanes]

Do you want to try a resource again... that one doesn't look too promising. Or scholarly...

I was guessing at your level.

htt p : // w ww . tekto nics. org/af/cudchewers. html

--- try WITHOUT spaces.

Funny I heard the Mormons on this thread say the same thing about your points.

It is funny, isn't it. :yes:

peace-out,

RA

Are you actually Native America, or just embrace NA spirituality?

 

[Watchmen]

Friend, you need to do some extensive reading on this issue and seriously think about, if that's something you care to do. The underlying, non-official, back-room, higher-up, classic/standard, originally-held belied is as I say. And it continues to permeate Mormonism -- not officially, but as the only explanation ever given (and now only hinted at) by your Mormon leaders and high-ranking church officials.

Might I suggest you read my full discussion of it with dozens of 19th, 20, and 21st century statements from LDS leaders/sources (See Inside Today's Mormonism, pp. 184-186, 188-189, 191-192.

Thank you,

RA

How can something "permeate Mormonism" and not be heard of in almost 30 years? And even then, it didn't permeate but was written in a book by one man - a book that did not represent any official teachings, but just his opinions??? Further, you acknowledge in your post that it is "non-official."

Case closed.

 

[rabanes]

Case closed.

Fine. Pursue the truth, or don't. You have the reference. Up to you. "The Truth is Out There" (The X-Files).

peace,
RA

PS No reason to fight. Whatever.

 

[Watchmen]

Fine. Pursue the truth, or don't. You have the reference. Up to you. "The Truth is Out There" (The X-Files).

peace,
RA

PS No reason to fight. Whatever.

What's sad is you don't realize your post actually applies directly to you.

Let me say something else about your previous post. You claimed the teaching permeates Mormonism. Here's the definition of the word you used: per·me·ate (pûr

m

-

t

)
v. per·me·at·ed, per·me·at·ing, per·me·ates
v.tr. 1. To spread or flow throughout (emphasis added)

So, try to tell me again how this teaching we've never heard for years and years during all of our various LDS meetings spreads or flows throughout Mormonism?

For a journalist, you have a funny way of using words.

 

[painted wolf]

Wouldn't it have been easier (and more accurate) to say that rabbits eat poop... and yes, I am familiar with the apologetics. There is a perfectly usable word for dung.
Its worthwhile to note that Linnaeus tried to keep his taxonomy faithful to the Bible... he was a very religious man.

Thus saying he was fooled is disingenuous. He was just doing as the Bible told him. He also classed Whales as fish.

wa:do

 

[Katzpur]

As a Latter-day Saint, you do not SIMPLY mean "godlike."

Don't tell me what I mean. I meant exactly what I said. We believe that God has given each and every one of us the potential to be like Him. Furthermore, Jesus gave us a commandment to "be perfect... as your Father in Heaven is perfect." If you believe that Jesus commanded us to do something beyond the realm of possibility or that God is incapable of doing anything He wants with us, that's your problem.

That is an example of exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Moreover, you gloss over what you mean when you say we are literally his offspring, and also don't explain what you mean by spark of divinity.

So I didn't write a treatise in my first post. Now I'm guilting of trying to be deceptive.

For the benefit of readers, I will detail what you failed to share.

Jeesh! Thank you on behalf of the forum's readers. What would they have ever done without your help. (In the future, you might want to at least consider asking me to elaborate before starting in with the accusations.)

As for becoming "godlike," your actual hope is to be a god to the exact same level of godhood to which our heavenly Father has progressed. You will reach full godhood like all other gods before you (Mormon quotes available upon request). To merely say "godlike" is to soften the actual belief and make it seem not that far removed from what other Christians hope -- i.e., to be more like God and in our lives/actions more reflect his godly traits such as love, peace, kindness, etc., etc., etc. But that is not what you are talking about. You are talking about becoming a GOD.

You're quite a mind reader, aren't you. You know my "actual hope" and yet you've never even met me. I hope to become, by the grace of God, like Him. This does not mean that I will ever stop worshipping Him. On the contrary, I will worship Him with a fuller understanding of His majesty than I have now.

2. Regarding that spark of divinity you mentioned in passing, Latter-day Saints believe far more about that so-called "spark." You, as a Mormon, actually believe that we are of the very same species as God, except have not yet advanced/progressed to full godhood as God has done. We are gods in embryo, so to speak (and that is from your own LDS writings).

No kidding! We truly are the same species as God. He created us in His image, after His likeness. Last I knew, kittens grow up to be cats, puppies grow up to be dogs, and children of God grow up to be gods.

3. When you say we are literally offspring of God, you are alluding to (but interestingly, not fully explaining) the Mormon belief that God (Heavenly Father) has a wife (Heavenly Mother) and we are literally their spirit children born to them in the heavenly realms before coming to this earth. Here we are supposed to continue our own eternal progression to godhood and become just like them -- i.e., gods and goddesses married for eternity and eternally procreating our own spirit children, who will in turn become gods and goddesses, and so on, and so on, and so on.

That's more or less correct, with one qualification: You make it sound so automatic. God exalts those who have demonstrated their faithfulness. It's not just a matter of people just "becoming gods and goddesses" as a matter of course. Again, if you want to have any kind of dialogue with the Latter-day Saints on this forum, you might want to knock it off with the accusations. We can't possibly cover everything in a two or three posts, so how about dispensing with the put-downs and sarcasm and asking us questions if you don't believe we've covered everything as completely as we could.

I hope this has helped readers unfamiliar with Mormonism and the way Mormonism is discussed by Mormons when speaking to non-Mormons.

And I hope that those who are unfamiliar with Mormonism will recognize that if they really want to understand Mormonism, they willl get a lot more accurate information by asking a Mormon than by asking an anti-Mormon.

peace

Yeah, you too.

 

[Apex]

I will never understand why people want to argue with us and claim they know what we believe better than ourselves.

 

[Watchmen]

For those following this thread, you might checkout mormon.org to understand our basic beliefs.

 

[Apex]

Let me dig out my old anti-mormon files I have archived and Ill start addressing some of the same old trite arguments again.

 

[rabanes]

So, try to tell me again how this teaching we've never heard for years and years during all of our various LDS meetings spreads or flows throughout Mormonism?

We've? Now you're own isolated experience translates into 11 million Mormons? Hmmm. Hey, okay. Of that's how you see it. Again, I discuss this issue quote thoroughly in my book. Moreover, my website link, which is a republishing of the wiki online article reads:

++++++++++

The Doctrine Today Whether the conception of Jesus physically took place can be categorized as a disputed doctrine. Modern Mormons either take the position of, "it's possible, I don't know", deny that it was taught, and/or deny the possibility of anything other than a genuine virgin birth. The majority of Mormons vaguely believe that Heavenly Father somehow used his physical strength to develop the unborn child, and never underwent sexual intercourse of any kind with Mary.

"Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said. You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior." - Elder Harold B. Lee (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 13).

Robert Millet, contemporary Mormon theologian, furthers this idea, "While Latter-day Saints clearly believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, there is no authoritative doctrinal statement within Mormonism that explains how the conception of Jesus was accomplished," (Millet, Another Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, p. 74)

Mormon blogger Bob Vukich expresses his apathy over the issue, a sentiment which many Mormons share:
"I don't really care, one way or the other. Honestly, God can do no wrong, and since I believe Jesus was His only begotten son in the Flesh, the mechanics are irrelevant to me. OK, that being said, the Church does not have an official position on the mechanics" (Oct. 1, 2005).

Did you miss that. I suppose we could fight about what the word "permeates" means, but who wants to do that? This is an issue within/throughout Mormonism. Some care, some don't, some look, some don't.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In conclusion, I refer to Robert A. Rees served as bishop of the Los Angeles First Ward. He gave a sacrament meeting talk on April 29th, 1990, and provided an article to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought that is found in the Winter, 1991 issue. It is entitled, "Bearing Our Crosses Gracefully: Sex and the Single Mormon." In it we find the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We believe that our spiritual conception was sexual just as we believe that Christ's mortal conception was. Elucidating the latter, James E. Talmage says, "That child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (1986, 81).[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Go complain to Dialogue and argue with Dialogue. Maybe write them a letter.
[/FONT]
RA

 

[Katzpur]

I reject that label.

Sorry, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that's what I'm going to call it.

Don't be.

Oh, but I am! I was getting so sick and tired of all the discussion on the Church's support of Proposition 8, I was wondering if we were ever going to have a good old-fashioned Bash-the-Mormons mud fest again. I can't tell you how thrilled I am that you've breathed new life into the forum.

Take your time. Go read my book Inside Today's Mormonism, and read the extensive discussion of this issue. Then, come back and talk to me. I could never reproduce that kind of research, text, and referencing in a forum like this.

Thanks, but if your posts are any indication of the accuracy of the information in your book, I'll pass. Why would I have to read your book to find out what I believe when I could just go to church instead?

This is a logical flaw. You do not have to understand or know a religion, political view, or perspective and either be part of that religion, embrace that political view, or hold a certain perspective. And that is indeed being real.

That's right. You don't have to understand anything to have an opinion on it. As I once heard it put, "People are always down on those things they're not up on."

There are experts dedicated to all kinds of fields, all different directions, and all sorts of things -- but still not involved personally. For example, researchers who work at the Southern Poverty Law Center and The Simon Weisenthal Center are incredible experts on racism, anti-Semitism, hate crime, neo-Nazi religious views, and "Christian Identity" racist religious opinions. Are they racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis, or "Christian Identity" racist religious zealots? NO.

Your list of examples says it all. Racism, Anti-Semitism, hate crimes, neo-Nazis and Mormons. What great company we're in. I wonder if that was intentional. The fact is, while a person may have a superficial knowledge of the teachings of a religion other than your own, it is impossible to have the same, in-depth understanding that those who embrace it as true do. And when you consistently try to present other people's beliefs in an unfavorable light, ignoring what the adherents of the faith actually tell you, that speaks volumes about you.