Book of Mormon

[Katzpur]

Just out of curiosity -- Are these examples of the kind of comments you're making in obedience to the words of your leaders that I posted in #119? As I said just curious. Because this kind of back-n-forth hate rhetoric and snide remarks that have epitomized evangelical-LDS interaction in the past is not really going to help anyone. So, peace at you, my not-friend.

Actually, I generally extend the same degree of courtesy and respect towards people as they extend towards me. If you were to read my more than 15,000 posts on this forum, you'd notice that I seldom respond to people the way I've responded to you. Most people on this forum know enough not to misrepresent the beliefs I hold sacred. When you stop telling me what Mormons supposedly believe and start listening to what I tell you what Mormons believe, you'll probably notice a huge change in my attitude towards you. Somehow, I suspect that's not going to happen.

 

[rabanes]

Ok so now you are saying the word begat means he had sex....Ok....I will go with this, well in that case, you are stating in other posts that the Bible (I take it you trust that book) says that Jesus was begat by the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that other Christian denominations teach that the Holy Spirit actually had sex with Mary??

Actually, I am using the word "begat" to mean sex, only because in context that seems to be the way your LDS leaders are using it. NOT ME. I am explaining, in context, what is being expressed by LDS leaders (see my post, for example, on the rather bizarre distinction made by LDS leaders on what the word "virgin" means -- i.e., POST #120).

ra

 

[rabanes]

RA - is my post being deliberately ignored or have you just missed it.....I am still waiting on those quotes....cant find them!???

I'm sure whether your playing a game here or not. But I'm not going to waste time playing games like you saying, "Where's a quote that EXACTLY says, 'God had sex with Mary!'" You know, as well as I do, that you can say something in a myriad of ways (even something as vulgar as the above) without literally using those words.

Now, I gave you a link to an article on my own website that included multiple quotes that, when read in context and had their message compared to each other, indicated the thought expressed in "God had sex with Mary." This was a reproduction of an article that appeared at mormonwiki.

After I posted here, however, that mormonwiki article mysteriously disappeared overnight. Fortunately, I took screen shots of it and it is available now at my website as pulled from google cache You can see through the graphic links at my page "Conception of Jesus."

So, again, I say, go read that collection of quotes. The message "God had sex with Mary" that comes through is clear to anyone who reads it without trying to spin the words away from their original, straight-forward, obvious meaning.

Ok, I have searched MormonWiki high and low and can find no such quotes that you mention. Can you please provide me with a link which takes me to the actual mormonwiki page that you say has these quotes....and not to your own site as the link originally did! Thank you [3:16 AM]

If I were a distrustful, cynical, suspicious person, I'd say you (or someone else here) removed the wiki article after I posted the link for you in my POST #68 of this thread. I noted the following: mormonwikidotorg/Conception_of_Jesus (replace "dot" for ".")"

This, of course, would translate to mormonwiki.org/Conception_of_Jesus. But now that link is suddenly dead, having gone from: 1) working, to 2) a 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND, to 3) now some theopedia website.

Here is the course of events -- Ohhhhh, we have a mystery:

DREAM ANGEL
After following the link it says it got its information from MormonWiki. Yet I have searched MormonWiki and cannot find such a claim.
(12-01-2008, 01:37 PM, POST #62)

RABANES
My wiki reference was supposed to be linked to send people to the mormonwiki place to see what it says about the conception of Jesus - see mormonwikidotorg/Conception_of_Jesus (replace "dot" for "."). It's fixed now (see my website -- I'm not allowed to post URLs yet).
(12-01-2008, 03:07 PM, POST #68) - Link worked

DREAM ANGEL
Well initially it sent me to an anti-mormon website [echoed in POST #62] supposedly quoting something from the MormonWiki. I will re-check it and see where it leadsI looked where I could on the MormonWiki (which like the normal wiki is huge!)and only found that ONE quote that I showed you. . . . I didnt see any of these so called mentioned multiple quotes, but now you have sorted out the link...i will go look.
(12-01-2008, 03:08 AM, POST #114)

*** SUDDENLY***
​

DREAM ANGEL
Ok, I have searched MormonWiki high and low and can find no such quotes that you mention. Can you please provide me with a link which takes me to the actual mormonwiki page that you say has these quotes....and not to your own site as the link originally did! [/quote]
(12-01-2008, 03:16 AM, POST #115)

RABANES
I find it HIGHLY coincidental that SUDDENLY the mormonwiki article I linked here and referred to called, The Conception of Jesus -- has suddenly disappeared and it now only gives 404 - NOT FOUND. Now, goodness, what could have happened? It was just there less than 24 hours ago, but then this thread happens and bang!!! Gone. Hmmmm. Anyone want to take credit? Fortunately, that article is saved and it will be going up as is on my website in the near future, with an explanation of how, when, and possibly why it disappeared.
(12-02-2008, 09:01 AM, POST #117)

RABANES
See quotes in article I linked, now available for some mysterious reason, only at my website, because it magically disappeared from mormonwiki.org.
(12-02-2008, 11:57 AM, POST #125).
​

This is all very odd, but despite whatever happened, the original article can be accessed from my website -- you can click on the graphics and see the original mormonwiki page as it existed just 48 hours ago.

RA

 

[idea]

Actually, I am using the word "begat" to mean sex, only because in context that seems to be the way your LDS leaders are using it. NOT ME. I am explaining, in context, what is being expressed by LDS leaders (see my post, for example, on the rather bizarre distinction made by LDS leaders on what the word "virgin" means -- i.e., POST #120).

ra

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
(Old Testament | Genesis3:16)
footnotes: 16 a TG Marriage, Motherhood
b HEB increase thy discomfort and thy size (i.e., in the condition and process of pregnancy)
c TG Suffering

We are only familiar with the “fallen” means of procreation… This verse suggests that there is another way to create life than what we are now familiar with. God is not fallen, I don’t think He uses “fallen” means to create life. I don't think God had sex with Mary. JMO.

 

[rabanes]

Actually, I generally extend the same degree of courtesy and respect towards people as they extend towards me.

And where is that philosophy found in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon? I see both the Bible and the BOM saying something different entirely -- not to mention the words of your leaders that seem to suggest a more peacemaker approach, and that is what I am trying to do. If you read back through the thread, you will see that I have been attacked far more than I have attacked.

I have certainly made some less than favorable observations, but have tried to confine my words to doctrinal discussion. You, however, have taken another approach -- i.e, it seems you're seriously itching for a fight, beginning with your very first post!

We've got a professional anti-Mormon in our midst! . . . I'll be back to address your drivel when time permits, Richard.
(Katzpur, 12-01-2008, 04:30 PM, POST #71)

Whether you are sincerely confused or just malicious, I don't know. You could definitely use a refresher course in Remedial Mormonism, though.
(Katzpur, POST #79)

It leaves you in a position of having to explain why you feel justified in bearing false witness. Good luck. You're going to need it.
(Katzpur, POST #79)

The only person who has been dishonest so far is you.
(Katzpur, POST #82)

You're quite a mind reader, aren't you.
(Katzpur, POST #95)

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.
(Katzpur, POST #100)

You? Needed? Don't flatter yourself. You do liven things up, though. As I said before, it's been awhile since we had a new toy.
(Katzpur, POST #137)
​

As I said, go back and read my POST #119, and follow your leaders.

RA

 

[Watchmen]

RA,

The quotes from 119 do not require us, as LDS, to roll-over when a wolf is in our midst. Rather, I expect leaders would want us to vigorously defend our beliefs from the likes of you - an Evangelical who twists our doctrine and tells us what our church teaches when we're the ones who actually attend the church and its thousands of meetings.

We're not Quakers. If you punch us in the face, we'll punch back.

 

[DeepShadow]

I don't mean to be flip, but if you don't see that in the multiple quotes, then you need to have a talk with mommy and daddy about the birds and bees. I mean: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47).

So here you're saying that the only way the people are "begotten" is through sex. Is that true? And yet you don't believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Spirit, even though the scripture uses the word "begotten." Why is that?

 

[DeepShadow]

If you read back through the thread, you will see that I have been attacked far more than I have attacked.

It depends. Telling someone what they believe can be construed as an attack. To wit: you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Spirit. And if you deny it, you'll just make yourself look bad, so why not admit it?

Does this feel like an attack to you? It should; I'm being facetious, and would never really tell someone what they believe. That would be insufferably rude.:slap:

 

[DeepShadow]

"Here then is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God the same as all Gods have done before you"

(Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, JOD 6:4; quoted in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

"As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
(fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow)

"No prophet of record gave more complete and forceful explanations of the doctrine that men may become Gods than did the American Prophet."
(LDS Seventy Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages)

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself"
(Brigham Young, JOD 3:93).

"That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself."
(LDS apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 566-567).
​

These types of statements are too numerous to list in a book-length response. That's Mormonism.

Curious...

If that's Mormonism, why are none of these things in the manuals from which we teach our lessons? You can find these manuals online at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; feel free to peruse them for these doctrines.

If we don't teach them any more, how can they be considered Mormonism?

If we still teach them, why are then not in the books?

 

[DeepShadow]

"I have sought to heed the wise words of your current prophet (c. 2004), Gordon B. Hinckley: 'We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility.'"
-- Richard Abanes, Inside Today's Mormonism, p. 18

Kudos! Problem is, I don't feel mutual respect when you presume to tell me what I believe. Nevertheless, I will strive to disagree with "respect and civility."

"[M]y sincere hope is that all of us will be able to live up to the admirable sentiments expressed in 2001 by Mormon apostle M. Russell Ballard. . . . . 'sometimes we will have to agree to disagree with you, but we can do so without being disagreeable.'"
-- Richard Abanes, Inside Today's Mormonism, p. 18

Agreed. I also willl strive to disagree without being disagreeable.

I look forward to further dialogue!

 

[DeepShadow]

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

Technically, you should be wondering why EX-mormons do it. The poster you were replying to is not a Mormon anymore, and hasn't been for a long time, IIRC.

 

[rabanes]

Curious...If that's Mormonism, why are none of these things in the manuals from which we teach our lessons? You can find these manuals online at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; feel free to peruse them for these doctrines. If we don't teach them any more, how can they be considered Mormonism? If we still teach them, why are then not in the books?

You are actually telling me that you, as a Mormon in good standing, do not:

a) believe in multiple gods in the universe?
b) believe that you yourself must strive after godhood?
c) believe in the concept of eternal progression?
d) believe in eventual godhood for faithful church members who valiantly strive for, and succeed in, achieving exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom?

Is that what you are saying? If so, then, please forgive me, but you sir, are not being upfront or honest. You've just denied your entire history and core doctrines. Sorry, that's just the truth. Either that, or you are not a Mormon, and you are under the strange delusion that you are a Mormon. Either way, it's not good. :no:

But seriously. I'm not going to play that game. If you are a Mormon, you now as well as I do, the concept of eternal progression. Look it up.

RA

 

[rabanes]

We're not Quakers. If you punch us in the face, we'll punch back.

"We're not Quakers. If you punch us in the face, we'll punch back."
LDS President, Gordon B. Hinckley, Salt Lake City, 2002 Conference

Nice sentiment. I don't see that in POST #119.

So here you're saying that the only way the people are "begotten" is through sex. Is that true? And yet you don't believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Spirit, even though the scripture uses the word "begotten." Why is that?

Please scroll up read my POST #142 - take the time. I answered this very question there.

RA

 

[DeepShadow]

After I posted here, however, that mormonwiki article mysteriously disappeared overnight. Fortunately, I took screen shots of it and it is available now at my website as pulled from google cache You can see through the graphic links at my page "Conception of Jesus."

Actually, that's not that wierd. A 'wiki' is editable by anyone, so the information there is highly suspect. I could take screen shots of "flat earth" on wikipedia from time to time that would make your head spin. The fact that the information was removed points to it being spurious as much as it points to a complex conspiracy.

Come to think of it, I could post anything I wanted on a wiki--that one or even wikipedia--and then take screen shots until it was removed. Then I could point to the removal as evidence that I was on to something!

Hey, that sounds like fun! I'll see you all in a few hours.:angel2:

 

[DeepShadow]

You are actually telling me that you, as a Mormon in good standing, do not:

a) believe in multiple gods in the universe?
b) believe that you yourself must strive after godhood?
c) believe in the concept of eternal progression?
d) believe in eventual godhood for faithful church members who valiantly strive for, and succeed in, achieving exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom?

Is that what you are saying? If so, then, please forgive me, but you sir, are not being upfront or honest. You've just denied your entire history and core doctrines. Sorry, that's just the truth. Either that, or you are not a Mormon, and you are under the strange delusion that you are a Mormon. Either way, it's not good. :no:

But seriously. I'm not going to play that game. If you are a Mormon, you now as well as I do, the concept of eternal progression. Look it up.

RA

I believe in eternal progression, but not your misrepresentation of it. Find me the doctrine of multiple gods in any of our teacher manuals. If you can, we'll take it from there. If you can't, in what sense do we teach it?

See, this is what I was talking about with mutual respect. I don't feel mutual respect when you call me a liar. Could you please work on that?

 

[Watchmen]

"We're not Quakers. If you punch us in the face, we'll punch back."
LDS President, Gordon B. Hinckley, Salt Lake City, 2002 Conference

Nice sentiment. I don't see that in POST #119.

Well, what'd you expect? We won't allow you to use POST #119 to anal rape us. We'll defend ourselves.

 

[DeepShadow]

Okay.

Actually, I am using the word "begat" to mean sex, only because in context that seems to be the way your LDS leaders are using it. NOT ME. I am explaining, in context, what is being expressed by LDS leaders (see my post, for example, on the rather bizarre distinction made by LDS leaders on what the word "virgin" means -- i.e., POST #120).

ra

You actually didn't answer my question in post 142. Your error has been bolded and italicized. Here you are actually foisting your own assumption off on the LDS leaders. Please provide the context that supports your "seems."

 

[DeepShadow]

You are actually telling me that you, as a Mormon in good standing, do not:

a) believe in multiple gods in the universe?
b) believe that you yourself must strive after godhood?
c) believe in the concept of eternal progression?
d) believe in eventual godhood for faithful church members who valiantly strive for, and succeed in, achieving exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom?

Can you find it in our teacher manuals?

EDIT: See, there's a link to our teacher manuals online. You say these things are core to what Mormonism is, fine. Find them there, and we'll talk.

 

[DallasApple]

In the Bible..Virgins are offered up to rapist in order to protect Gods angels.

I have never been instructed in church..to do the same thing if the "need "ever arose.I have never been told that would be acceptable ..but it is in the Bible and its never been retracted officially.

Love

Dallas

 

[rabanes]

Can you find it in our teacher manuals?

Yeah, when you find the term "Heavenly Mother" exactly stated as "Heavenly Mother" in any of your Standard Works. Ready. Set. Go.

RA