Christians - the LDS christ

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I am not familiar enough with your version of Christ. What does the Athanasian creed say about Christ, and how is that Biblically supported?

Fair enough. This is going to take some time. Thanks again for the link to the LDS site. I have been there before, and I didn't see the dictionary. It's quite useful.

And what is it exactly that I am not reading? ONce again, you make sneaky attacks without actually providing anything.

I don't want to attack you. You even say here that your evidence for my attacking you doesn't match the conclusion that you make. I'm simply working with definitions, that's all.

 

[Buttercup]

AE: I agree with the entire creed up until this part:

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

I don't want to go off topic but, is there somewhere else on the forum that you explain this ? Is the "done good" part about works or faith?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AE: I agree with the entire creed up until this part:

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

I don't want to go off topic but, is there somewhere else on the forum that you explain this ? Is the "done good" part about works or faith?

I have already done it on my Ask Angellous thread, post # 10. I can elaborate if you like.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am content if we can agree that Christians and LDS believe in a different Christ, and I have highlighted the differences. Personally, I don't think that we will accomplish much if we start quoting Scripture to eachother.

 

[Buttercup]

Thanks AE, I will check it out tonight.

 

[SoyLeche]

I am content if we can agree that Christians and LDS believe in a different Christ, and I have highlighted the differences. Personally, I don't think that we will accomplish much if we start quoting Scripture to eachother.

I'm not entirely comfortable saying that. We all believe in one Christ - a man who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and was crucified and suffered and died for our sins. There were not 2 different men that fit this description. Where we differ is in theology. All that I am trying to say is that trying to define what it means to be a Christian using the creeds is worthless. A Chirstian is one who believes that Christ is their Savior, plain and simple. I will accept that Mormons are not Catholic. I will accept that Mormons are not Eastern Orthodox. I will accept that Mormons are not Protestants. I will not accept that Mormons are not Christians. I will also not accept that JWs and Seventh Day Adventists are not Christians. The creeds may define different sects within Chirstendom believe, but they do not define what a Christian is or believes.

 

[Endless]

Woah, hold the horses SoyLeche:

We all believe in one Christ - a man who was born of a virgin

In what way was Mary still a virgin when she was pregenant with Jesus? What does Mormanism teach on this issue? To be honest from what i am reading it seems to be that Mormans are trying to sound Christian by using the term 'virgin birth' but the accounts of how Mary became pregenant that you are taught leaves it impossible for Mary to have been with Child and still be a virgin.
The fundemental teaching about the Biblical Jesus, is not what you believe.

I know the Morman church official states that Jesus was born of a Virgin:

Bruce McConkie stated "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822.)

But who does the Morman church say the Father of Jesus was? It is God the Father - and what does the Morman church state God is? He is in the form of a Man. So is the Holy Spirit.
So how was Jesus conceived if both God the Father and the Holy spirit are flesh in the form of a man? I'll let the second prophet of the Morman church, Brigham Young tell you:

"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, v. 8, p. 115).

Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51).

Brigham Young said, "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 218, 1857.)

Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44) as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner)

Joseph Fielding Smith said, "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19)

The Father - flesh, in the form of a man, had sex with Mary ('as a result of natural action') because he wouldn't let any other man do it. Not as the Bible says as a result of the Holy Spirit - which incidently is the only way she could have remained a virgin, as she didn't have sex. So since Mormans are actually told that the Father who is flesh had sex with Mary in the natural way to give Jesus, how is Mary still a Virgin? How was Jesus born of a Virgin?

 

[SoyLeche]

Woah, hold the horses SoyLeche:


In what way was Mary still a virgin when she was pregenant with Jesus? What does Mormanism teach on this issue? To be honest from what i am reading it seems to be that Mormans are trying to sound Christian by using the term 'virgin birth' but the accounts of how Mary became pregenant that you are taught leaves it impossible for Mary to have been with Child and still be a virgin.
The fundemental teaching about the Biblical Jesus, is not what you believe.

I know the Morman church official states that Jesus was born of a Virgin:


But who does the Morman church say the Father of Jesus was? It is God the Father - and what does the Morman church state God is? He is in the form of a Man. So is the Holy Spirit.
So how was Jesus conceived if both God the Father and the Holy spirit are flesh in the form of a man? I'll let the second prophet of the Morman church, Brigham Young tell you:


Joseph Fielding Smith stated:



The Father - flesh, in the form of a man, had sex with Mary ('as a result of natural action') because he wouldn't let any other man do it. Not as the Bible says as a result of the Holy Spirit - which incidently is the only way she could have remained a virgin, as she didn't have sex. So since Mormans are actually told that the Father who is flesh had sex with Mary in the natural way to give Jesus, how is Mary still a Virgin? How was Jesus born of a Virgin?

If we can create life in a test tube, why is it so hard to believe that God can be the literal father of Christ and Mary still be a virgin. All those quotes are saying is that God is the literal father of Christ. Half of his Genetic makeup came from Mary, and the other half came from God. They say nothing about having sex.

 

[Endless]

All those quotes are saying is that God is the literal father of Christ. Half of his Genetic makeup came from Mary, and the other half came from God. They say nothing about having sex.

I'm sorry? Did you actually read those quotes?

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit."

"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, v. 8, p. 115).

Just what do you take 'Natural occurrence', 'natural action' and 'without any degree of mysticism' to mean? What exactly is being taught here then? It's blindingly obvious to me what this is teaching - and it aint a virgin birth.

I'm interested SoyLeche - tell how exactly does the book of Morman say Jesus was born so that Mary could still remain a virgin?

Bruce McConkie (member of the first council of the seventy) obviously knew what was being taught:

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.)

"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." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)

So how was Mary still a virgin? How can Bruce say all of that and then go on to say the following?

Bruce McConkie stated "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822.)

Did he actually put a new meaning to the term 'virgin' or did he not realise that virgin means someone who has never had sex?
I personally cannot understand it, can you?

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm sorry? Did you actually read those quotes?

Just what do you take 'Natural occurrence', 'natural action' and 'without any degree of mysticism' to mean? What exactly is being taught here then? It's blindingly obvious to me what this is teaching - and it aint a virgin birth.

I'm interested SoyLeche - tell how exactly does the book of Morman say Jesus was born so that Mary could still remain a virgin?

Bruce McConkie (member of the first council of the seventy) obviously knew what was being taught:

So how was Mary still a virgin? How can Bruce say all of that and then go on to say the following?

Did he actually put a new meaning to the term 'virgin' or did he not realise that virgin means someone who has never had sex?
I personally cannot understand it, can you?

A virgin today could walk into a fertility clinic and come out pregnant and still be a Virgin - and all of it would be natural. God knows a lot more about fertility than any doctor that could do that. It's possible

 

[Endless]

A virgin today could walk into a fertility clinic and come out pregnant and still be a Virgin - and all of it would be natural. God knows a lot more about fertility than any doctor that could do that. It's possible

Of course it's possible - but you don't walk into a fertility clinic to have sex with someone..Fertility treatment is 'unnatural' it's not the norm by which people get pregnant.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.)

Mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers by sex.

"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." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)

In the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father - that is sex SoyLeche. Why do you think all these quotes keep stressing the 'natural' part? Mary had sex with the Father - the Holy Man, who is God. Therefore she could not possibly be a virgin with child. She had sex.
What these quotes are teaching are obvious to all reading them, certainly you may not want to believe it, but the words are there plain to see.
The only way that Mary could possibly be with child and be a virgin would be if she was made pregnant without sex - the Biblical account said that it was the Holy Spirit that caused this. Therefore it was unnatural and was 'with a degree of mysticism'. This is how she remained a virgin.

 

[SoyLeche]

Of course it's possible - but you don't walk into a fertility clinic to have sex with someone..Fertility treatment is 'unnatural' it's not the norm by which people get pregnant.


Mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers by sex.


In the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father - that is sex SoyLeche. Why do you think all these quotes keep stressing the 'natural' part? Mary had sex with the Father - the Holy Man, who is God. Therefore she could not possibly be a virgin with child. She had sex.
What these quotes are teaching are obvious to all reading them, certainly you may not want to believe it, but the words are there plain to see.
The only way that Mary could possibly be with child and be a virgin would be if she was made pregnant without sex - the Biblical account said that it was the Holy Spirit that caused this. Therefore it was unnatural and was 'with a degree of mysticism'. This is how she remained a virgin.

They are stressing the "natural" part to highlight that Christ is the literal child of God. Like I said before - half of his genetic makeup comes from Mary and the other half comes from God. Also like I said - God knows a lot more about how to make babies than we do - and we know quite a bit. If scientits today can use natural laws to cause a virgin to become pregnant and still remain a virgin - then so can God. It did not have to be through sexual intercourse.

 

[Endless]

Now that is really twisting the meaning of the quotes

"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." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)

Tell me SoyLeche, the above quote states that Jesus was conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events - in the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. Could you then explain how the normal course of events in the same way that a son is born to a Father, does not include sex?

Of course the quotes show that half of God's DNA and half of Mary's DNA made up Jesus, but only because they show God having sex with Mary in the same way any other man has sex to have children - the natural course of events.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not entirely comfortable saying that. We all believe in one Christ - a man who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and was crucified and suffered and died for our sins. There were not 2 different men that fit this description.

Niether the Christian description nor the Mormon description ends here.

Where we differ is in theology.

Precisely, and our differences are drastic.

All that I am trying to say is that trying to define what it means to be a Christian using the creeds is worthless. A Chirstian is one who believes that Christ is their Savior, plain and simple. I will accept that Mormons are not Catholic. I will accept that Mormons are not Eastern Orthodox. I will accept that Mormons are not Protestants. I will not accept that Mormons are not Christians. I will also not accept that JWs and Seventh Day Adventists are not Christians. The creeds may define different sects within Chirstendom believe, but they do not define what a Christian is or believes.

I understand this. However, Adventists, Catholics, and Protestants don't hold any distinctively LDS theological definitions of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, or the afterlife. The only commonality that we share is the terms themselves. When we say "Jesus Christ" the meanings are mutually exclusive, so the term "Christian," which designates the follower of the "Jesus Christ" have different meanings. We don't follow the same Christ.

 

[SoyLeche]

Now that is really twisting the meaning of the quotes


Tell me SoyLeche, the above quote states that Jesus was conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events - in the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. Could you then explain how the normal course of events in the same way that a son is born to a Father, does not include sex?

Of course the quotes show that half of God's DNA and half of Mary's DNA made up Jesus, but only because they show God having sex with Mary in the same way any other man has sex to have children - the natural course of events.

God's Y chromasome joined with Mary's X chromasome, and the egg started dividing. That is the natural way things work. I don't believe that any of these quotes were given with the purpose of showing what actions God took in order for that to happen - they are just saying that it did - that God literally is the father of Christ. Is it possible that it involved intercourse? I guess so. I think God is in a position to say that someone could have sex with him and still be a virgin - all things possible with God, remember? I just don't think that's how it went down, and I don't think that the men who gave these quotes did either. Also, we are talking about the words of falible men - so they could be wrong.

 

[Aqualung]

I understand this. However, Adventists, Catholics, and Protestants don't hold any distinctively LDS theological definitions of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, or the afterlife.

Yes, I know. But which is biblical? You wrote down some creed which defined christ, yet you have yet to show the biblical basis for the creed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, I know. But which is biblical? You wrote down some creed which defined christ, yet you have yet to show the biblical basis for the creed.

That would be a waste of time. You have definitions of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that come from LDS tradition. Why should I quote bible verses that will be interpreted from this perspective, and I from mine? I don't want to waste our time with such an exercise.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not entirely comfortable saying that. We all believe in one Christ - a man who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and was crucified and suffered and died for our sins. There were not 2 different men that fit this description. Where we differ is in theology. All that I am trying to say is that trying to define what it means to be a Christian using the creeds is worthless. A Chirstian is one who believes that Christ is their Savior, plain and simple. I will accept that Mormons are not Catholic. I will accept that Mormons are not Eastern Orthodox. I will accept that Mormons are not Protestants. I will not accept that Mormons are not Christians. I will also not accept that JWs and Seventh Day Adventists are not Christians. The creeds may define different sects within Chirstendom believe, but they do not define what a Christian is or believes.

Would you agree that your theology forms your view of Christ? Who He is? How He is? What does He want from us? etc. So in essense one can have a very immature/unwatered view of Christ. Do I personally think God will accept such a view seeing the circumstances of the individual? I think so. God has enough (if you one wishes to quantify it) Grace and Love to go beyond the walls of Christianity.

Peace be with you

 

[SoyLeche]

Niether the Christian description nor the Mormon description ends here.



Precisely, and our differences are drastic.


I understand this. However, Adventists, Catholics, and Protestants don't hold any distinctively LDS theological definitions of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, or the afterlife. The only commonality that we share is the terms themselves. When we say "Jesus Christ" the meanings are mutually exclusive, so the term "Christian," which designates the follower of the "Jesus Christ" have different meanings. We don't follow the same Christ.

All that means, then, is that there are different kinds of Christians - but we already knew that. The Catholics and the Baptists can have different views of who Christ is, and that's fine - it's just their oppinion - they are still all Christians. But if the Mormon's have a different view of who Christ is - they are worshipping another Christ so they can't be Christians. Like I said before - some people will alter the definition of Christian as much as they need to to make sure that Mormons don't fit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Would you agree that your theology forms your view of Christ? Who He is? How He is? What does He want from us? etc. So in essense one can have a very immature/unwatered view of Christ. Do I personally think God will accept such a view seeing the circumstances of the individual? I think so. God has enough (if you one wishes to quantify it) Grace and Love to go beyond the walls of Christianity.

Peace be with you

Indeed. Without the grace of God, none of us would have any hope.