More love directed at the Mormons!

[joeboonda]

Which one is it?

I am trying to say that Jesus is God.

 

[Aqualung]

I am trying to say that Jesus is God.

oh yeah. I forgot you believed in the un-biblical trinity.

 

[SoyLeche]

oh yeah. I forgot you believed in the un-biblical trinity.

Careful there, Aqua. We wouldn't want to get derailed onto this topic.

 

[Aqualung]

Careful there, Aqua. We wouldn't want to get derailed onto this topic.

Good point. Sorry, joeboonda. I don't mean to prod you into yet another trinity vs godhead debate.

 

[joeboonda]

Good point. Sorry, joeboonda. I don't mean to prod you into yet another trinity vs godhead debate.

No problem, I haven't figured out the fuss about the trinity deal anyway. I just believe the Bible, and it mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it mentions them being one. I am just a human, so, I just take it for what it says. I guess my understanding makes sense to me and your understanding makes sense to you.

 

[joeboonda]

Since I am here, I wanted to ask what you believe, as opposed to telling you, lol, about the virgin birth. Do you believe Mary conceived as a direct act of the Holy Spirit, or do you believe, as I have been told that Brigham Young taught, that he was begotten by God, who in his physical body, had sex with Mary? Do you believe Young ever taught that, or was there new revelation on it, or what exactly is it that you believe? I ask you with sincerity, thanks.

Joeboonda

 

[jonny]

The saga continues. You mentioned that the papyrus the Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was a fragment of a pagan text called the Book of Breathings.

The first thing I want to say regarding this is that most of the papyrus that Joseph Smith had was given to a museum and destroyed in the Chicago Fire in 1871. Joseph Smith had possession of 5 rolls of papryi. 10 fragments of 3 separate manuscripts still exist which comprise about 13% of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed in his life. He never translated all of the rolls.

The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art returned the remaining fragments of the papyrus to the LDS church in 1967. It is believed that the Book of Abraham was translated from the portions of the papyrus that are missing.

According to scholars, the facimilies 1 and 3 in the Book of Abraham did not belong to the Book of Breathings, rather they belonged to the Papyrus of Hor, which may have contained the Book of Abraham. You are correct when you say that one of the fragments contained the Book of Breathings, but your conclusion is off.

Anyway, I guess the point is that you need to do a little more research on the history of the documents. There is a website devoted to the subject called the Book of Abraham Project. You can visit it here: http://www.boap.org/. You might be interested in this page in particular: http://www.boap.org/LDS/critic.html

 

[Katzpur]

Finally got around to reading this thread and all I can say is . I hope I am not intruding here but I seriously hope the person that made those horrible comments is no longer with us. Lately Intolerance of others beliefs has been even more painful for me than usual , whether it be pagan or Christian or atheist. I am truly sorry you all had to be exposed to that level of ignorance. Again, I apologize if I am intruding.

Of course you're not intruding! It's actually very nice to hear some positive feedback. AV1611 was banned. The individual whose post I responded to in my post #5 on this thread is alive and well and just as antogonistic as ever. When I was given permission to resurrect his post and reply to it, I promised the administrator who gave me that permission that I would not divulge his name. Otherwise, I'd be happy to. Thanks again for your kind words.

 

[Katzpur]

I am trying to say that Jesus is God.

Yes, He is God. He just isn't God the Father. Are you saying He is?

 

[Katzpur]

Since I am here, I wanted to ask what you believe, as opposed to telling you, lol, about the virgin birth. Do you believe Mary conceived as a direct act of the Holy Spirit, or do you believe, as I have been told that Brigham Young taught, that he was begotten by God, who in his physical body, had sex with Mary? Do you believe Young ever taught that, or was there new revelation on it, or what exactly is it that you believe? I ask you with sincerity, thanks.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God being "the Father," the first member of the Godhead. As the scriptures tell us, the Holy Ghost "overshadowed" Mary. They don't say exactly what it means to be "overshadowed." Obviously, the Holy Ghost played a part in the conception of Jesus Christ, but when the scriptures say that Jesus will be known as the "Son of the Highest," we understand this to mean the Son of God, the Father, and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. We don't claim to know the details of Christ's conception any more than you do. But we do know that when Mary gave birth to her firstborn Son, she was a virgin. And the last I knew, if a woman has had sex with someone, she is no longer a virgin. Brigham Young never said, "God the Father had sex with Mary." His statement is intended to mean nothing more than that God the Father and Jesus Christ have a literal father-son relationship. Their relationship is not figurative in nature. This we believe to be fact. It doesn't mean that the sex act was involved in Jesus' conception.

 

[jonny]

Hey joe,

I wanted to respond to the quote by William Bennett, but I'm not sure who he is and where his quote ends and your comments start. Could you give me a reference on the quote?

Thanks!

Jonny

 

[joeboonda]

I am glad you call Jesus God. He is not God, the Father, but he is one with the Father. I just wanted to say, I read the remarks of AV1611 at the very start of this thread, and feel he was way out of line. He was not very nice, and was wrong. I put out a lot of info I have come across, and am always happy when I find that some of the things that really puzzled me that I thought you believed, you do not actually believe. Like the deal about God making spirit babies with his many wives near the star Kolob. I suppose some folks somewhere taught it at one time, but as I understand it is not your mainline belief, for which I am glad. I am going to try to ask now, IF you believe, such and such, and then go from there. Cuz there's alot of things people say are taught in Mormonism that kinda freak me out, so I will ask you from now on. I understand even some of the teachings of Smith and Young are not taught by the church anymore, so it can be confusing to us outsiders. Ok, off to browse a bit!

Joeboonda

 

[Katzpur]

No problem, I haven't figured out the fuss about the trinity deal anyway. I just believe the Bible, and it mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it mentions them being one. I am just a human, so, I just take it for what it says. I guess my understanding makes sense to me and your understanding makes sense to you.

Yes, the Bible does mention that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one." So, incidentally, does the Book of Mormon. Neither book, however, says that they are of one substance, which is referring to physical makeup. There are ways, other than physical, that more than two or more individual can be said to be "one." You're married, if I'm not mistaken. When a man and woman get married, they often receive greeting cards that say something to the effect that, "Now you two are one." Are you and your wife physically "one"?

 

[Katzpur]

I am glad you call Jesus God. He is not God, the Father, but he is one with the Father. I just wanted to say, I read the remarks of AV1611 at the very start of this thread, and feel he was way out of line. He was not very nice, and was wrong. I put out a lot of info I have come across, and am always happy when I find that some of the things that really puzzled me that I thought you believed, you do not actually believe. Like the deal about God making spirit babies with his many wives near the star Kolob. I suppose some folks somewhere taught it at one time, but as I understand it is not your mainline belief, for which I am glad. I am going to try to ask now, IF you believe, such and such, and then go from there. Cuz there's alot of things people say are taught in Mormonism that kinda freak me out, so I will ask you from now on. I understand even some of the teachings of Smith and Young are not taught by the church anymore, so it can be confusing to us outsiders. Ok, off to browse a bit!

The problem is that when you go to websites sponsored by people whose intention it is to mispresent our beliefs, you've pretty much got to know up front that you're going to get statements taken out of context or inaccurate interpretations of our doctrine. I look at anti-Mormon websites much the same way as I look at tabloid newspapers. If I want to get reasonably accurate information as to what's going on in the world today, I will look to a reputable news agency such an CNN. If I want, instead, to read something that freaks me out, regardless of whether or not there's any substance to it, I'll pick up a copy of The National Enquirer as I leave the grocery store.

A good rule of thumb is determining what's official LDS doctrine and what's not is this: If the teaching can be found in one of our "Standard Works," you can be 100% sure that it's doctrinally binding as accepted as truth by the Latter-day Saints. If it's not found in one of these books, it's a good bet that it's somebody's opinion or somebody's interpretation of a doctrine. It may or may not be an accurate opinion or a valid interpretation. The Latter-day Saints understand this and so we don't go looking for off-the-wall statements made by 19th century LDS leaders. To begin with, these individuals aren't around now to clarify what they meant. And if God had intended that their statements be doctrinally binding, you can rest assured that they would have been added to the "Standard Works." Incidentally, the "Standard Works" are:

1. The Bible (KJV), which has, incidentally, been described by our leaders as "foremost among the Church's Standard Works. We are going to be going an intensive study of the Old Testament in Sunday School throughout the year 2006.

2. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The whole purpose of this book is to testify that Jesus is the Christ. It is to stand as another witness to the truths stated in the Bible.

3. The Doctrine and Covenants. This is a volume of latter-day scripture. If God should reveal something today to our prophet and if that teaching were to receive the sustaining vote of the Church membership, it would be added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

4. The Pearl of Great Price, a very short volume of ancient scripture translated by Joseph Smith.

 

[Bishka]

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Bishka]

Next, I'd like to respond to some of your statements regarding the Book of Mormon. Your seemed to argue that the Book of Mormon isn't true because it was "supposedly translated from Egyptian hieroglyphics." On the other hand, the Bible was given to men in their common language. I'm having a hard time following your logic. When did God come down from heaven and hand the Catholic church the New Testament written in Greek? What does your argument say about the translation of the Bible into other languages?

So true, so true. The Bible was originally in Greek, then translated to Latin, then to English, French, German, etc. This is a totally valid and interesting point, I've never thought about it this way.

 

[joeboonda]

Thanks, Katzpur, for your info. I have not been to many websites about mormonism, or against it, I had a few old booklets from the Christian bookstore, and just my memory of what I learned in church growing up, about Mormonism. I am of fundamental mainline christanity, and of course we hold only the Bible as authority, and to us, we see some Mormon doctrines as not in line with mainline christian doctrine, as we do Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and to an extent Seventh Day Adventists. I understand your sincerety and love for God and others and I applaud you for it. We all are going to question each others beliefs and that is a good thing. It makes us all really dig deep into our church's beliefs, our history, and the teachings of our leaders or prophets. I want you to know, I don't hate Mormons, I love Mormons, just as I know you love others outside your faith. We both love others so much that we feel we want to shed as much truth and light to each other, and we both feel we are right, so its just what it is. I may ask questions, or ask if you believe such and such, or if such and such is true, not to jab at your beliefs, but to find the truth, and perhaps to encourage you to really look into the matters I bring up, which can only help both of us to learn more. I am not a good debator, I don't even like the word, I just like to discuss and learn and hopefully teach a few things along the way. Okay? Bye bye for now.

Sincerely,

Joeboonda

 

[joeboonda]

Yes, the Bible does mention that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one." So, incidentally, does the Book of Mormon. Neither book, however, says that they are of one substance, which is referring to physical makeup. There are ways, other than physical, that more than two or more individual can be said to be "one." You're married, if I'm not mistaken. When a man and woman get married, they often receive greeting cards that say something to the effect that, "Now you two are one." Are you and your wife physically "one"?

Yeah, I think we are on the same page on that, they are 3 individuals, yet make up the one true God.

 

[joeboonda]

Hey joe,

I wanted to respond to the quote by William Bennett, but I'm not sure who he is and where his quote ends and your comments start. Could you give me a reference on the quote?

Thanks!

Jonny

You'll have to refresh my memory on that, sorry I been sick all week.

 

[joeboonda]

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God being "the Father," the first member of the Godhead. As the scriptures tell us, the Holy Ghost "overshadowed" Mary. They don't say exactly what it means to be "overshadowed." Obviously, the Holy Ghost played a part in the conception of Jesus Christ, but when the scriptures say that Jesus will be known as the "Son of the Highest," we understand this to mean the Son of God, the Father, and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. We don't claim to know the details of Christ's conception any more than you do. But we do know that when Mary gave birth to her firstborn Son, she was a virgin. And the last I knew, if a woman has had sex with someone, she is no longer a virgin. Brigham Young never said, "God the Father had sex with Mary." His statement is intended to mean nothing more than that God the Father and Jesus Christ have a literal father-son relationship. Their relationship is not figurative in nature. This we believe to be fact. It doesn't mean that the sex act was involved in Jesus' conception.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I am glad you do not believe that God the Father had sex with Mary. The Bible says the conception was an act of the Holy Ghost, which I understand is God too. The three individuals making the one true God. So when the Bible says the Holy Spirit was involved, for me it means God was involved, He is the son of God. Seems we are pretty close on that I suppose. The reason I even asked is because of this quote from Brigham Young: "He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost...Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." I KNOW you do not believe that today, I know that, okay? I am just saying that is why I asked in the first place. Brigham Young was a president and therefore prophet, and I just thought a prophet God always told the truth or they were not a prophet of God. I know he was human, too. But the Bible teaches that if a prophet says something and is wrong, that prophet is not of God, and in the old testament, they were to kill them, just the old testament, I don't think we should kill folks, lol. So do you see why I wondered about that? Its the same as I wonder about an angel appearing to Joseph Smith, because Paul said even if an angel came and taught another gospel, not to believe them. I think Mormonism may teach another gospel because it claims to be the one true church with salvation by, yes, believing in Jesus, but plus baptism, then laying on of hands, then your church's ceremony, then you are saved, making it, to me a works based faith, and a church based faith, where I believe in Christ alone for my salvation. We are to prove all things, and hold to that which is good, that is all I am doing. Okay? I do not mean to come across to you as antagonistic in any way.

Sincerely,

Joeboonda