Christ According To The Mormons

[McBell]

chuckles...there were no Golden plates, that's already been proven in earlier threads.

Melissa G

I have yet to see any such thread.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to list a link or two?

Since it thus far appears that she is not coming back to this thread....

Can anyone link to these alleged threads?

 

[Francine]

Since it thus far appears that she is not coming back to this thread....

Can anyone link to these alleged threads?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...61-does-anyone-know-what-happened-golden.html

 

[McBell]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...61-does-anyone-know-what-happened-golden.html

And which post do you allege proves that the Golden Plates never existed?

 

[Francine]

And which post do you allege proves that the Golden Plates never existed?

All I did was retrieve the thread, I'm not in contention here.

 

[McBell]

All I did was retrieve the thread, I'm not in contention here.

I understand.
And I apologize for my assumptions.

 

[Katzpur]

How about I save y'all some time. There is no thread that proves the golden plates never existed, just as there is no thread that proves they did.

 

[Francine]

How about I save y'all some time. There is no thread that proves the golden plates never existed, just as there is no thread that proves they did.

This is the only instance of an ancient work engraved on a metallic base that I know of for sure:

Copper Scroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Katzpur]

This is the only instance of an ancient work engraved on a metallic base that I know of for sure:

Copper Scroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are actually quite a few. Here's just one link of many:

Hiding Sacred Records Like the Golden Plates: A Well-established Ancient Practice

 

[Scott C.]

McConkie ... did later retract the statement and admit that he was wrong.

Bruce McConkie was present with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve when they received the revelation to extend the priesthood to black men. Here are some comments Elder McConkie made concerning his expereince with this revelation (the quotes are a little long, but I suggest you take the time to read them):

"I was present, with my brethren of the Twelve and the counselors in the First Presidency, when all of us heard the same voice and received the same message from on high. It was on a glorious June day in 1978. All of us were together in an upper room in the Salt Lake Temple. We were engaged in fervent prayer, pleading with the Lord to manifest his mind and will concerning those who are entitled to receive his holy priesthood. President Kimball himself was mouth, offering the desires of his heart and of our hearts to that God whose servants we are...

"It was during that prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fulness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. President Kimball's prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice. All doubt and uncertainty fled. He knew the answer and we knew the answer. And we are all living witnesses of the truthfulness of the word so graciously sent from heaven...

"In the days that followed the receipt of the new revelation, President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson- the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us- both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord. And of it I say: I was there; I heard the voice; and the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day...

"I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to our taking the priesthood to those of all nations and races. "He [meaning Christ, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Ne. 26:33)...

"...people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' ...Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world... We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

I have a few points to make in regards to this quotation from Elder McConkie and my personal feelings on the subject:

Prior to this experience. Elder McConkie expressed his personal views and interpretation of the LDS scriptures (see earlier McConkie quote). After he experienced this revelation in company with the others, his views changed based on revelation that he, himself, actually received on the subject. He went from having a personal opinion based on interpretation of scripture to a having a clear knowledge based on his revelation with the others. Notice that he said the Lord "... so graciously sent from heaven" this message and "the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day". The same McConkie who adamently interpreted the scriptures to mean one thing, was now rejoicing that he was part of the revelation and was able to be part of the new day with a new understanding. He clearly welcomed the revelation.

I was a missionary at the time the revelation was received in 1978. I remember how news of the revelation spread like wild fire throughout our mission. Everyone, it seemed, was very excited and relieved that something wonderful happended. It was a welcome revelation. With few exceptions, I believe most LDS embraced the revelation quickly and positively.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What the heck happened today?

I'm on the outside looking in and this stuff was just too funny......It appears you missed a lot....

WOW.....

Unfortunately I knew it was going to be a train wreck from the start......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Like I told him, it's spam without understanding.

Kat can back me up on this....I told him in another thread that others here would not agree with his views.......I'm of the old guard who studied alongside the same school of thought he was taught at. I have learned enough over the years to not do stuff like that.

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you so much for posting this, Scott. I remember the day the ban was lifted, too. I was at work in downtown Salt Lake City. It was just before lunch time. Someone must have been listening to the radio or something because all of us sudden I heard someone say, "Did you hear that? The Church just gave the Priesthood to Blacks!" My first thought was, "Jeesh! What's the punch line?" Then I realized it wasn't a joke. It was true! I could hardly believe it!

Since it was close to noon, I left the building just a few minutes later. As I was walking across State Street on my way to the ZCMI Mall, I was aware that I had a kind of a silly grin on my face. I kept trying to stop smiling, but I couldn't. I was just so excited! As I glanced around at the people I was passing, I saw all of them smiling too. It was just unbelievable! It was like everyone I saw was experiencing exactly the same thing I was. I will never forget that day for as long as I live!

 

[Scott C.]

Just for the record, putting Lucifer (an angelic created being) and humans (mortal created beings) in the same category as Jesus Christ (immortal deity, the only begotten Son of God) is an extreme heresy, and one of the main reasons why Christians are offended by LDS doctrine.

Fluffy, thanks for pointing this out. I want to understand what it is that offends some Christians about LDS doctrine. It's fascinating how a doctrine that is biblical to me and also very beautiful and profound may strike another as an "extreme heresy".

Let's make sure we're not talking right past each other due to terminology or misunderstanding. I believe in the Sovereignty of God. I believe there is infinite difference between us, God's children, and God. I am completely at God's mercy for salvation and can do nothing without Him. He is God and we are mortals. We are dependent on the atonement for our salvation.

I believe when you die, you will meet your Father and your Savior and it will be immediately clear and obvious that you are your Father's daughter and you will see Him as He is and you will see that you are like Him. Please do not confuse this likeness with being "equal to" and please do not see this likeness as detracting from the omnipotence of God or as detracting from our dependence on God.

The beauty of this "likeness" is knowing that we are indeed God's children and the love He has for us is paternal. The children in our church sing "I am a child of God and he has sent me here, has given me an earthly home with parents kind and dear..." This doctrine is not about trying to rob God, by declaring our parent/child relationship with Heavenly Father. To me this relaionship is intuitive and natural to believe and scripural.

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor 2:9)

Just how wonderful are the things which God has prepared for those that love him? Are they limited? Does God plan to bless those in heaven with the greatest blessings He is capable of granting? How much is He capable of granting? Is anything too hard for the Lord? He is the Sovereign God Almighty and can bestow any gifts on His children. I believe the ultimate heavenly gift which God can bestow is to share all that He has with His children. Through God's grace and mercy He can bless us to grow and progress throughout all eternity as His spirit children. Eternity is a long time to be with God. Anything we learn or become or any progress we make in heaven will be because God wants and allows it and grants such growth as part of what it means to be in heaven. When you look at it that way, the heavenly possibilities are limitless.

I don't know that I can persuade you to see it this way, but can you see where I'm coming from? Can you see how I can believe in a Father/son relationship with Heavenly Father without being disrespectful to God, without detracting from His Omnipotence, without trying to make God a mortal with human weakness? Can you see how, if the doctrine is true, it is truly beautiful and wonderful?

 

[!Fluffy!]

Thank you all for taking the time to address my little concerns here, and I apologize belatedly (and in advance) for my ineffectual tirades of doubt and outrage, as I can't help but feel I am getting a spiritual run-around.

There is way too much here to address point by point, although I did try earlier it was exhausting and even this one point may turn out to be too much to read. But it's all juicy enough, I'll just pick on this one for now if that's okay.

Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, you do not understand our doctrine well enough to make a valid judgment on the matter. I don't expect my attempt to address your concerns will change a thing where you are concerned. Maybe someone else will learn from it, though.

Katzpur, perhaps there is no one in existence who does understand your own doctrine well enough to make a valid judgment on the matter. Unless you would all consider rewriting and streamlining your ever-changing doctrine into a one line disclaimer:
"Our doctrine is: the last thing we have been told. Period."

Of course one can understand how confusing it is when reading points of Mormon doctrine as they appear in official publications as pointed out to us by another Mormon poster,

and then addressing our questions quoting those doctrines as offered by a Mormon,

only to be told we do not understand Mormon doctrine.

No. The only sources of official LDS doctrine are "The Holy Bible" (we use the KJV), "The Book of Mormon," "The Doctrine and Covenants," and "The Pearl of Great Price."

So I can just discount Sola'lor's post and the recommended source he pointed us towards then? (That is what this entire huge response of mine was to - and it was only part one of three).

Because from what I can see, your Gospel Principles says exactly what I quoted above, it's from the LDS website. Not to be disrespectful, but why should I take your word over theirs? How much sense would that make?

How about Mormon prophets and how THEY interpret your scripture, are they unreliable too, or just as unreliable as your official Mormon website?

"All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents"

1. Mary was born of heavenly flesh and bone parents.
2. Jesus was her elder brother.
3. Mary therefore gave birth to her elder brother, with the "assistance" of her heavenly flesh and bone father.
4. More than one prophet of the church has claimed authoritatively that Jesus was begotten in the same manner as any other flesh and blood child:

PROPHET Brigham Young:
"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, vol. 8, p. 115)




BY's sermon delivered in the Tabernacle on April 9, 1852:

"...remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea — 'if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties." (Journal of Discourses vol. 1, p. 51)​

President Joseph Fielding Smith:
“Christ was not Begotten of the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!”

President Ezra Taft Benson:
the LDS Church “proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense, was sired by the 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!”

Now when I read something like this:
"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 the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pp. 546-47)

"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,... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (page 742)

.. written by LDS Apostles and Prophets, and attested to by other Mormons who were BIC, what am I to believe?

After all, God's flesh-and-bone nature is doctrine in the LDS church or has that changed too? I don't think so.

Admittedly the doctrine is a cause of embarrassment to many Mormons who would like to see it abolished. But can you deny that in 1988 the doctrine was confirmed in the strongest words possible by the LDS President and Official Mormon Prophet:

"A fundamental doctrine of true Christianity is the divine birth of the child Jesus. This doctrine is not generally comprehended by the world. The paternity of Jesus Christ is one of the 'mysteries of godliness' comprehended only by the spiritually minded.

"Thus the testimonies of appointed witnesses leave no question as to the paternity of Jesus Christ. God was the Father of Jesus' mortal tabernacle, and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserved the title 'the Only Begotten Son of God.'

"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."
(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pages 6-7).


So forgive me please if I seriously doubt your interpretation of what is, and isn't Mormon doctrine. Because what has become abundantly apparent here is that many Mormons take issue with their own church as to just what is and isn't "doctrine".

It just makes much more sense to rely instead, when dealing with a revealed religion like Mormonism to accept as doctrine what has been

Revealed.

By Prophets(tm).

Of course a Mormon might want to tell me LDS Prophets are unreliable? Inaccurate? Misinformed as to scripture? Ignorant? Not to be trusted? Crazy? Delusional?

... but you can't have it both ways without having a cognitive dissonance meltdown of major proportions.

And that's only concerning ONE doctrine mentioned in this thread. There are many more we haven't yet touched on, but before any Mormon here attempts to school us on Mormon doctrine, perhaps they need to back it up with something other than personal opinon.

Respectfully (yet seasoned with skepticism),

!Fluffy!

 

[Scott C.]

Thank you all for taking the time to address my little concerns here, and I apologize belatedly (and in advance) for my ineffectual tirades of doubt and outrage, as I can't help but feel I am getting a spiritual run-around.

I'll put my two cents in on a couple of your points.

When are statements of church leaders doctrine? To be perfectly honest, I don't always know when a statement I read should be considered doctrine. The canon is most certain. Official declarations made jointly by the First Presidency and the Twelve, I consider doctrine. Official publications of the church (such as the book Gospel Principles which I have quoted to defend my positions) are highly reliable, but may not be perfect. If one finds himself routinely disagreeing with what is said in General Conference or with what one reads in official publications of the church, I would suggest that person may be off base.

I don't consider it doctrine as to exactly "how" the Father miraculously caused Mary to conceive. I'm well aware of statements you quoted by church leaders, but I have never personally heard this question addressed in an official way in my life. So, my answer would be "I don't know how it happened." Honestly, it's not a matter of great significance to me, as the answer does not change that I believe that the Father has a physical body, we all lived together as spirit sons and daughters of God before we came to eath, and Jesus had no earthly father. God does not always reveal all of the details on every subject, which leaves some subjects open to speculation.

Before we came to earth we lived together as brothers and sisters - we were one big family. We understood that when we came to earth we would take on new mortal and physical family relationships with one another. I would become the "physical father" of somebody and the the physical "grandson" of somebody else, and the physical cousin of yet somebody else. So, anytime anybody gives birth to anyone, they are giving birth to their physical son or daughter who is their spiritual brother or sister.

Jesus Christ is the only spirit child of God whose physical body was begotten by the Father, making him the Only Begotten of God. His position is unique both in the premortal world, His mortal life, and now in heaven. He stands above all as the Son of God, as God, and as the Father of those who are born again.

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur, perhaps there is no one in existence who does understand your own doctrine well enough to make a valid judgment on the matter. Unless you would all consider rewriting and streamlining your ever-changing doctrine into a one line disclaimer:
"Our doctrine is: the last thing we have been told. Period."

!Fluffy!, I have done my best to respond to your questions, but I'm not going to continue to argue with you about what is or is not LDS doctrine. I suspect you have never set foot in an LDS worhip service. In 59 years, I have never once heard the things you say we believe taught. I understand LDS doctrine. You don't. Furthermore, it does not appear that you want to.

I would, however, like to clarify one thing. You quoted someone as having said, "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents"

A statement made by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve actually reads:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."

This is what we teach. It's what we believe.

 

[Katzpur]

Admittedly the doctrine is a cause of embarrassment to many Mormons who would like to see it abolished.

"Admittedly"? By whom? I'm not embarrassed by any of our doctrine. But this isn't doctrine. What part of that do you fail to understand?

But can you deny that in 1988 the doctrine was confirmed in the strongest words possible by the LDS President and Official Mormon Prophet.

Of course I can't deny what Brigham Young said. I've never attempted to. Brigham Young was saying what he believed; he had every right to his opinion on the matter. His opinion, however, cannot be corroborated by the scriptures.

The following statement by James E. Talmage, clarifies what we really teach. It does not in any way contradict that which is found in the Bible. Therefore, it can be understood to be an accurate representation of what the Church teaches to be true.

We believe 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; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the Highest.' ...Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto... ...True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern, p.77.)

Do you believe that Mary was the literal mother of Jesus Christ, !Fluffy!? Do you believe that she was a virgin when she gave birth? If she was a virgin -- as every Latter-day Saint I know believes her to have been -- she did not have intercourse with anyone in order to conceive the Lord Jesus Christ. If she was Jesus' literal mother and did not have intercourse in order to conceive Him, why is it so hard for you to understand why God was Jesus' literal Father, and that He didn't have intercourse in order that His Son be conceived?

 

[Bishka]

!Fluffy!, let me ask you something. If someone (let's say an atheist, Jew or *gasp* even a Muslim) decided to tell you what you believed and that you couldn't possibly explain it to them and that you were wrong, and that you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to your Christian faith, wouldn't you be the least bit offended?

Stop trying to speak for us.

We are members of our Church, we know our doctrine, you don't.

 

[Sola'lor]

!Fluffy! I just wanted to clarify a few things that I believe you may have misunderstood in my post.

In one breath you say it is our goal, then you say it is destiny, to progress from a state of "spirit children" to gods. What is destiny? Do you mean God's will? If it is our "destiny" to become like God, how can there be a God? Or free will for that matter?

This is the first one. Yes I did use the word destiny, but I think my definition of destiny may be different than what is commonly used. For me when I say destiny I mean a set out goal. So when I said it is our destiny, I meant that it is the purpose of our life. It is the final ultimate goal that we can attain to. For me when I hear or say the word destiny it in no way means something that is required or that we have no free will in doing. So sorry for the misunderstanding. I ave been using the word destiny wrongly.

If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are."

What I meant by this that if we choose to follow Christ and live the commandments. Not that we can do it on our own. The choice I was implying was that of following Christ. Sorry for the misunderstanding by leaving that out.


I'd also like to add that, after reading some of your previous posts, the book Mormon Doctrine, is not Mormon Doctrine.

 

[DeepShadow]

Katzpur, perhaps there is no one in existence who does understand your own doctrine well enough to make a valid judgment on the matter. Unless you would all consider rewriting and streamlining your ever-changing doctrine into a one line disclaimer:
"Our doctrine is: the last thing we have been told. Period."

It's to avoid ever-changing doctrine that we have a rigorous system in place to define it. Fortunately there was a press release from the First Presidency on this topic recently, which I cited for the sake of the forums a while back. Here is an excerpt.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

So many of the opinions of early prophets have remained just that--opinions. The ones that aren't just opinions have been made part of official declarations and proclamations.