Book of Mormon

[rabanes]

Ok, you are Richard Abanes! I believe you. My apologies!

:yes: :tigger: No problem.

RA

 

[Dream Angel]

Ok now we have determined you are Richard Abanes, I am going to ask you some questions about the quotes from the OP which were taken from yourself.

4)Jesus was conceived on Earth via physical relations between Heavenly Father and Mary (who was a virgin when God visited her, but was no longer a virgin when he left her impregnated). This teaching is rarely if ever talked about among Mormons, and truth be told, many Mormons will deny the teaching, which leaves them with no real explanation of how (given their full theology) Mary became pregnant. Early Mormon leaders, however, made it very clear how Mary was impregnated (quotes by early Mormon leaders and more recent leaders indicate that this is still an underlying belief in Mormonism). As of 2008, the Mormon Church had not yet issued any official repudiation of those statements by former church leaders wherein it was clearly suggested that Jesus was conceived by way of sexual relations between God and Mary.

After following the link it says it got its information from MormonWiki. Yet I have searched MormonWiki and cannot find such a claim. What I did find was this:-

Paul declares that Jesus Christ “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15). The Psalms declare “I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalms 89:27). Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all God’s children in the pre-mortal life. Mormons also declare that Jesus is the Only Begotten in the flesh, that He was born of the Virgin Mary in Judea, and lived the only perfect life in the history of the world.

Where does that mention actual sexual relations. I think many people get confused between this and saying that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God which is something completely different. Katzpur gave me an excellent explanation of it somewhere, I will have to find it. If you could provide me with a link to somewhere which actually gives a leader or an LDS website which states that God actually had sex with Mary? but I dont think you could.....

As for the mutliple Gods.....and Mormons not speaking the truth and keeping things secret. I dont think they do...you just need to look in the right places. Look at this from MormonWiki

The Plurality of Gods - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki

Honestly, I can say it makes perfect sense to me!

Found it (hope you dont mind me quoting you Katz)

I

t's absolutely right. When I tell people that God is Jesus' literal Father, they freak out and say, "That means He had sex with Mary! You heretic! You're going to burn in Hell!" Well, my answer is always the same... I ask them if they believe that May is Jesus' literal Mother, and they say, "Of course." "Well, does that mean she had sex with God?" I ask. "No," they say, "she was a virgin. She conceived Jesus without having had sex." Okay, here's where their logic falls apart. If Mary can be Jesus' literal mother without having had sex to conceive Him, why can't God be Jesus' literal Father without having had sex to impregnate Mary? Jesus had two literal parents: a divine Father and a mortal mother. They did not have sexual relations in order for Mary to conceive her Son. If they had, she would not have been a virgin afterwards.

 

[Apex]

So we have an official anti-mormon on the site now?

 

[Dream Angel]

So we have an official anti-mormon on the site now?

We do indeed!

 

[Apex]

We do indeed!

Woah, I thought you could only see those in places like CF or RFM, you know, the deepest and darkest regions of the internets.

 

[Dream Angel]

Woah, I thought you could only see those in places like CF or RFM, you know, the deepest and darkest regions of the internets.

Will be interesting to see what he says....

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

1. Mormons are very hesitant to admit to doctrines/beliefs that are too "deep" for non-Mormons (in other words, doctrines/beliefs that might sound offensive or distasteful to non-Mormons). So they will often be less than upfront about what the church really teaches. In other words, they will say something is untrue, when indeed it is true. They justify such behavior often using word games to side-step the truth. For example, if you ask a Mormon whether they believe in many gods. They will say, "No. We/I only believe in one God." But then when pushed against the wall, using quotes from their own leaders, the truth comes out that they DO believe in many gods (i.e., acknowledge the existence of other gods), but the key is that they worship/serve only one of these gods.

2. If a Mormon doctrine/belief is not explained using EXACTLY the right words, they will deny that doctrine/belief -- even though the concept expressed might be completely accurate. This is another way they are able to deny certain doctrines/beliefs that would seem offensive to non-Mormons. if you do not word it perfectly, according to their writings, they can deny it, although you are correctly explaining it using alternate word choices.

3. Some Mormons actually do not know what was taught by their former prophets and apostles -- i.e., various doctrines/beliefs that were accepted, but now are no longer talked about very much (but never retracted). Mormonism is a fluid/evolving religion. In other words, a doctrine believed 50 years ago might not be believed today -- and exactly where/how that doctrine stopped being believed by some Mormons is a very blurry issue. There is also the possibility that some Mormons do not know certain beliefs -- for instance, that God has multiple wives per the teachings of their former leaders.

4. Statements made by past Mormon apostles/prophets that are believed by many (if not most) Mormons, but not officially noted by the Church (or formally released as an official Church doctrine) can be denied as a doctrine/belief -- even though some, many, or even most Mormons might truly hold that doctrine/belief. It can be denied as not official, and therefore not a Mormon doctrine/belief -- even by the person who actually believes it!

5. Not every doctrine/belief held by Mormons and taught by church leaders (officially/unofficially) is found in the Book of Mormon, which was written very early in Mormonism. It was created by Joseph Smith before his beliefs strayed completely from Christianity. In fact, the BOM is actually very close in teachings to the Bible, because much of it is plagiarized from the Bible (huge chunks of the King James Version appear in it). Think of the BOM as a fictional novel about Native American Indians that has Christian themes sprinkled throughout it, coupled with large segments of the King James Bible that re worked into the storyline. Most of the truly heretical/unbiblical doctrines of Mormonism comes from the Doctrine & Covenants (revelations Smith allegedly received from God) and/or The Pearl of Great price (another book of holy writ comprised of various texts).
​

I don't see why any of these things should be a problem. It is very important to remember that there is a huge difference between doctrines and beliefs. There is a simple reason why many Mormons hesitate to discuss so called "deep" doctrines. We don't know much about them. Most of them are just speculation or hearsay. Of course you can point out many things that Mormons believe that probably isn't doctrine. I can too. I know there are some people in my ward who believe some pretty weird things. Does that mean my church is false? No. Does it mean we have some quirky beliefs? Yes. Again, there is a big difference between doctrines, and beliefs. So when you bring up some obscure, extreme opinion of an apostle we've never even heard of, yes, you will probably get a response like, "That's not doctrine." Because that's exactly right, it's not doctrine.

So I guess you're more or less right. If you bring up weird, problematic beliefs of leaders or members of the church that make us sound like freaks, most of us will react in one of your listed ways. That doesn't mean the church isn't true. It means we like to be respected.

 

[rabanes]

After following the link it says it got its information from MormonWiki. Yet I have searched MormonWiki and cannot find such a claim. What I did find was this

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).

Where does that mention actual sexual relations.

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).

You tell me, how do you think a mortal father begets a mortal baby? Whatever way earthly daddy's do that, well, it seems that's how Heavenly Father (an immortal daddy) made Jesus. The rest of the quotes support this again and again.

I think many people get confused between this and saying that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God which is something completely different.

I'm not talking about the heavenly realms as a literal spirit baby of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. I am talking about in the flesh. As Joseph F. Smith taught, "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."

That's pretty clear. The quotes are there for you to read in the article.

If you could provide me with a link to somewhere which actually gives a leader or an LDS website which states that God actually had sex with Mary? but I dont think you could.....

This is an ongoing problem when dealing with Mormons. You demand to see what you've already seen -- but if you don't like it, you demand to see it stated in a specific way in which it does not appear. But if you read the many quotes I provided, and simply add 2 + 2, then you get your answer, which is very plain. If you choose not to want to do that addition, then don't. But just because I don't have a quote from Gordon B. Hinckley declaring -- "HEY everyone, welcome to the conference!! Did you all know that Heavenly father had sex with Mary!?? -- doesn't mean this is not the thrust (pardon the expression, no pun intended) of all of the quotes I have given to you. It's there if you want to see it.

As for the multiple Gods.....and Mormons not speaking the truth and keeping things secret. I don't think they do...you just need to look in the right places.

Saying, "you just need to look in the right places" is an understatement. But you're right, the material is indeed accessible if you know where/how to look. But I'm not sure how trustworthy any organization is that forces people to "look in the right places" or else they won't really get the truth. Hmmm.

So we have an official anti-Mormon on the site now?

I reject that label.

By the way, I've no doubt that you PERSONALLY might not believe this issues about the Virgin Mary, but it was consistently taught by your church. The standard, classic teaching is that Mary had sexual relations with Heavenly Father, an IMMORTAL man. This was how Jesus was conceived in the flesh (begotten). Brigham Young refuted the idea that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost: "He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50, 51)

RA

 

[Watchmen]

The thing about people like RA is they dig into the past to find various quotes that they then use to attack Mormons today. Were odd things said in the past? Yes. Are odd things said today? Probably. As has been pointed out, there are differences between "doctrine" and "beliefs." The doctrine is found in our standard works and many of the things RA has posted are not found in those works - thus they are "beliefs" - concepts shared by some, but not the doctrine of the church.

Lets use the Virgin Mary as an example. RA said that Mormons teach or have taught that Mary and sexual intercourse with God. This has been said before by past Mormons, but I've never heard that taught in my many years of church. Why did past Mormons say such a thing? Because we know God is Jesus' literal father. Based on the scientifc knowledge of the time, actual intercourse was the only explanation. Today, we can create life without intercourse and it's more easily understood that God can be Jesus' literal father without intercourse. Did the doctrine change? No - we have alway known God to be Jesus' literal father. Did the belief change? Yes - with our greater understanding of how life is created.

 

[drs]

The thing about people like RA is they dig into the past to find various quotes that they then use to attack Mormons today. Were odd things said in the past? Yes. Are odd things said today? Probably. As has been pointed out, there are differences between "doctrine" and "beliefs." The doctrine is found in our standard works and many of the things RA has posted are not found in those works - thus they are "beliefs" - concepts shared by some, but not the doctrine of the church.

Lets use the Virgin Mary as an example. RA said that Mormons teach or have taught that Mary and sexual intercourse with God. This has been said before by past Mormons, but I've never heard that taught in my many years of church. Why did past Mormons say such a thing? Because we know God is Jesus' literal father. Based on the scientifc knowledge of the time, actual intercourse was the only explanation. Today, we can create life without intercourse and it's more easily understood that God can be Jesus' literal father without intercourse. Did the doctrine change? No - we have alway known God to be Jesus' literal father. Did the belief change? Yes - with our greater understanding of how life is created.

but do you believe that LORD JESUS was born of the HOLY SPIRT?


Christ Born of Mary<H3>Matthew 1 (New King James Version)</H3>


18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit




Matthew 1:20 (New King James Version)

20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.






Luke 1 (New King James Version)




34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

 

[Katzpur]

This is Richard Abanes, the author mentioned in the OP. All of the beliefs listed are held by Mormons. As I read through the thread, however, I saw classic Mormon responses that I thought I'd better address.

We've got a professional anti-Mormon in our midst! I haven't been so excited since Fish-Hunter graced our forum with his delightful presence. I'll be back to address your drivel when time permits, Richard. 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.

 

[Father Heathen]

DRS, a person outside our faith cannot even begin to grasp our doctrine.

But wouldn't you first have to be able to grasp a doctrine before you can have faith in it? The idea that you have to put faith into something before you can understand it just doesn't make sense.

 

[rabanes]

The thing about people like RA is they dig into the past to find various quotes that they then use to attack Mormons today.

First, in truth, I don't attack anyone -- except, okay, perhaps I lose it like anyone else on occasion, but that's another story.

Second, I am very careful to only deal with issues still relevant today. The issue with the whole God + Mary = Baby Jesus formula is that such teachings/explanations of that event (i.e., the conception of Christ) has NEVER been officially repudiated or discussed. These books, statements, beliefs, doctrines, teachings, opinions -- whatever you want to call them -- remain as the most visible explanation of the conception of Jesus.

Now, if you personally want to say you reject such an idea. That's fine by me. But I want to see the conception of Jesus explained using statements that actually contradict these teachings. The Bible says Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost. Brigham Young said no. And other LDS have stated it was the father who begot Jesus in the flesh, JUST AS human fathers beget their children. So, please, feel free to explain.

Were odd things said in the past? Yes. Are odd things said today? Probably. As has been pointed out, there are differences between "doctrine" and "beliefs." The doctrine is found in our standard works and many of the things RA has posted are not found in those works - thus they are "beliefs" - concepts shared by some, but not the doctrine of the church.

From an outsiders perspective, this certainly seems like what you're saying is that you and other LDS can believe anything, but it counts for nothing -- even when it comes from latter-day prophets, apostles, and presidents of the church.

SO, you tell me: 1) What is the OFFICIAL position of how Jesus was conceived by Heavenly Father and Mary; and 2) Where is there any official retraction or statements telling Mormons this sexual thing between Heavenly Father and Mary is wrong?

It's your own Family Home Evenings, published by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that says "help you and your children understand that Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son" right after a picture of "MOMMY + DADDY = YOU " and "OUR HEAVENLY FATHER + MARY = JESUS."

That seems pretty clear and it's now -- not in centuries past.

Lets use the Virgin Mary as an example. RA said that Mormons teach or have taught that Mary and sexual intercourse with God. This has been said before by past Mormons, but I've never heard that taught in my many years of church.

See more current quotes. And you'll forgive me, but someone else just told me they had never heard of Kolob either, until I showed where Kolob is everywhere throughout LDS writings and teachings.

Why did past Mormons say such a thing? Because we know God is Jesus' literal father. Based on the scientific knowledge of the time, actual intercourse was the only explanation. Today, we can create life without intercourse and it's more easily understood that God can be Jesus' literal father without intercourse. Did the doctrine change? No - we have alway known God to be Jesus' literal father. Did the belief change? Yes - with our greater understanding of how life is created.

Where is your official doctrinal statement by the general Authorities for that claim. I would seriously be interested in seeing this. I am certainly open to looking at it. Otherwise, it's just your "belief."

peace,
RA

 

[Father Heathen]

Also, If the Book of Mormon is false because it's unbiblical, then the New Testament is false because it's untorahic. Mormons being attacked by other Christians is all pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Watchmen]

but do you believe that LORD JESUS was born of the HOLY SPIRT?


Christ Born of Mary<H3>Matthew 1 (New King James Version)</H3>


18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit




Matthew 1:20 (New King James Version)

20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, &#8220;Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.






Luke 1 (New King James Version)




34 Then Mary said to the angel, &#8220;How can this be, since I do not know a man?&#8221;
35 And the angel answered and said to her, &#8220;The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Of course I believe the Bible.

 

[Watchmen]

First, in truth, I don't attack anyone -- except, okay, perhaps I lose it like anyone else on occasion, but that's another story.

Second, I am very careful to only deal with issues still relevant today. The issue with the whole God + Mary = Baby Jesus formula is that such teachings/explanations of that event (i.e., the conception of Christ) has NEVER been officially repudiated or discussed. These books, statements, beliefs, doctrines, teachings, opinions -- whatever you want to call them -- remain as the most visible explanation of the conception of Jesus.

Now, if you personally want to say you reject such an idea. That's fine by me. But I want to see the conception of Jesus explained using statements that actually contradict these teachings. The Bible says Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost. Brigham Young said no. And other LDS have stated it was the father who begot Jesus in the flesh, JUST AS human fathers beget their children. So, please, feel free to explain.

You're still reaching to the past. Something that was never official does not need to be officially repudiated. Neither are these books...statements...etc. "the most visible explanation of the conception of Jesus." If they were, the average LDS would be aware of the past belief, but you've already said many are not. How do you explain that contradiction?

From an outsiders perspective, this certainly seems like what you're saying is that you and other LDS can believe anything, but it counts for nothing -- even when it comes from latter-day prophets, apostles, and presidents of the church.

SO, you tell me: 1) What is the OFFICIAL position of how Jesus was conceived by Heavenly Father and Mary; and 2) Where is there any official retraction or statements telling Mormons this sexual thing between Heavenly Father and Mary is wrong?

Don't twist words - I never said that LDS can believe anything, but it counts for nothing. I specifically explained that doctrine doesn't change, but beliefs might as our knowledge and understanding grows.

To answer your questions:

1. There is no OFFICIAL position of how. The OFFICIAL position is that Jesus is God's Only Begotten - as taught by the Bible.

2. Why would there be an official retraction of unofficial statements?

It's your own Family Home Evenings, published by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that says "help you and your children understand that Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son" right after a picture of "MOMMY + DADDY = YOU " and "OUR HEAVENLY FATHER + MARY = JESUS."

That seems pretty clear and it's now -- not in centuries past.

Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son. His literal father was GOD. His literal mother was Mary. What Family Home Evenings doesn't explain is the how. You inserted that on your own.

See more current quotes. And you'll forgive me, but someone else just told me they had never heard of Kolob either, until I showed where Kolob is everywhere throughout LDS writings and teachings.

I'm not "someone else" and I stand by my statement. Of all the LDS meetings I've attended I've never heard it put forth that Mary and God had sexual relations. I invite you to attend an LDS church for as many years as it takes before this supposed current teaching is taught. You might be there a long time - maybe you'll even convert when you see what we really teach!

Where is your official doctrinal statement by the general Authorities for that claim. I would seriously be interested in seeing this. I am certainly open to looking at it. Otherwise, it's just your "belief."

peace,
RA

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.

 

[rabanes]

Also, If the Book of Mormon is false because it's unbiblical, then the New Testament is false because it's untorahic. Mormons being attacked by other Christians is all pot calling the kettle black.

Christianity doesn't claim to be Jewish. False analogy.
RA

 

[Father Heathen]

Christianity doesn't claim to be Jewish. False analogy.
RA

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

 

[Katzpur]

All of the beliefs listed are held by Mormons.

How many Mormons do you know who believe these things. As a life-long member of the Church who has lived in Salt Lake City for 60 years, I can safely say I have known several thousand members of the Church. With respect to their religious beliefs, they are probably fairly typical of the general Church membership. You have been entirely consistent in misrepresenting and parodying our doctrines. Whether you are sincerely confused or just malicious, I don't know. You could definitely use a refresher course in Remedial Mormonism, though. Allow me...

As I read through the thread, however, I saw classic Mormon responses that I thought I'd better address.

Classic Mormon responses? In other words, Mormons who hear these lies and half-truths about their beliefs have, time and time again, explained that you don't know what you're talking about but you sit there with earplugs and ignore everything we say.

When dealing with Mormons, there are a few things that everyone needs to know.

1. Mormons are very hesitant to admit to doctrines/beliefs that are too "deep" for non-Mormons (in other words, doctrines/beliefs that might sound offensive or distasteful to non-Mormons). So they will often be less than upfront about what the church really teaches. In other words, they will say something is untrue, when indeed it is true. They justify such behavior often using word games to side-step the truth.

We aren't hesitant to "admit" any such thing. That statement, in and of itself, is offensive and disingenuous. It implies that we consider it appropriate to lie about our beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, nothing could be less reasonable. Why would we want to misrepresent our own beliefs? If someone was to join our Church based on incorrect information, and were later to learn what we "really believe," he'd just leave when he found out anyway. What do we have to gain by lying about what we believe? Nothing. What do you have to gain by lying about what we believe? Whatever it is, I hope it's worth the time you spend spreading your nonsense.

The Apostle Peter once told Clement of Rome, "The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order: there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so on, everything in its order. If these things be delivered in their order they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason."

For example, if you ask a Mormon whether they believe in many gods. They will say, "No. We/I only believe in one God." But then when pushed against the wall, using quotes from their own leaders, the truth comes out that they DO believe in many gods (i.e., acknowledge the existence of other gods), but the key is that they worship/serve only one of these gods.

I wonder why nobody ever bothers quoting the Apostle Paul when they make this accusation. As he said, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

That is exactly what we believe. Exactly. And various passages of scripture back us up.

"Now I know that the LORD is greater than allgods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 8:11)

"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

"O give thanks unto theGod of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever." (Psalms 136:2)

God is a great God. The use of the word "a" indicates the existance of gods to whom our God can be compared. Wait! Don't tell me! These other "gods" are "false gods," right? So God is the "God of false gods"? Of course we "acknowledge the existance of other gods." So does the Bible, for crying out loud. And no, we don't worship them, pray to them, or consider them to have any influence in our lives whatsoever. That leaves us in a strong position scripturally. 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.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

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

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

Did a Mormon wiz in your cereal?

wa:do