Posted on 12/31/2011 8:49:24 AM PST by Colofornian
“Should Christians vote for a Mormon?”
Christians shouldn’t vote for pro-abort liberals. The only one in the primaries that fits that bill happens to be a mormon.
I am a Christian. My refusal to vote Romney (under ANY circumstances) has NOTHING to do with his religion and EVERYTHING to do with his liberal ideology.
There is certainly much I find phony about Mormonism. The idea that God was once a person. Spiritual wives, etc. And didn’t Jesus say he would not be back until the 2nd coming, when there is a new heaven and new earth? So if someone says “there he is”, don’t listen. But a lot of the criticism is also just hair-splitting. The bible itself never mentions a trinity; that just became church dogma. There may be other “faces” of God we weren’t told about. But my overly belabored point is that Romney is running for president, not pastor. I, for example, would not care if a president is Muslim if he had pro-American values. Granted that Muslim values tend to directly conflict with American ones, but the point remains. Would I rather live in a pure Christian nation? Certainly. But God apparently did not give us that option.
Very seriously speaking, that is a simple, profound comment.
Not “raised to be Christian” specifically, but the upbringing helps. “Raised to not be Christian” certainly applies for a lot of other cultures.
Well....I was curious enough to check this link out.
The word “intercourse” is not used in 4:218 but does claim that the Father is the father and not any other man. Well, Gee! I knew that! The other section 1;15 has nothing to say about Mary.
The the commentary in these sections seems rather tame to me.
Ok...It seems this article is merely a hit piece on Mormonism. I will not bother to finish it.
Nevertheless, the LDS believe and teach that God had physical intercourse with Mary to concieve Jesus. Here aare some other quotes (with commentary) by the LDS leadership.
“Two exciting elements of mortality, both God-given, are worthy of our
consideration. The first is that we receive a body that is physical, tangible,
one that has feelings and powers not yet enjoyed by a spirit. This body is to
facilitate our progress toward becoming like our Heavenly Father. Keep in mind
that this ‘gift’ was created in the EXACT LIKENESS OF HIM WHOSE CHILDREN WE
ARE. The second element is that some powers given to us through our bodies are
inherently of God, and ARE UNIQUE TO HIS ORDER OF LIFE. Our natural feelings
concerning the power to ‘reproduce after our own kind’ are holy and desirable.
All we have and are, so far as our natural state is concerned, is good, for it
is of God.......The powers to reproduce, then, are good, and cannot be
considered evil.......”(Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 17).
Luke 1:35 says, speaking of Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
Some Mormon leaders have interpreted this verse to mean that for Mary, a human,
to be able to ‘withstand the presence of God,’ that the Holy Ghost had to come
upon her:
“The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings
could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing
them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of
God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten
Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President
Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).
Here is the statement of BY’s that JFS supports:
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. 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.”
(JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121).
To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ’s conception was actual
physical sex, here is another of his statements:
“The birth of our Savior 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.” (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson
Manual “Gospel Living in the Home,” p. 16-17:
“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh...”
(as quoted from ‘The Articles of Faith’ by James E. Talmage, p. 466).
“We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
make mystery of it?” (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, ‘Box Elder Times,’ Sep.
22, 1914).
“When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored 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, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
YOU AND ME.” (as quoted from ‘Discourses of Brigham Young,” 1925 edition, p.
77).
“The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
Mary.....” (as quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith, ‘Man: His Origin and
Destiny), p. 345.)
To allay any repugnancy from members on the idea of God having actual physical
relations with the human Mary, some leaders pitched the idea that Mary was one
of God’s polygamous “celestial wives”:
“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this
mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as
one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).
Pratt’s statement is supported by one from Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the
husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).
The same idea is repeated in “The Life and Teachings of Jesus”, 1974, p. 29:
“Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
FATHER IN THE FLESH.”
And another statement from this same 1974 lesson manual, distributed to tens of
thousands of LDS Institute students: “She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
ever had such an ancestry—God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
on the other.”
I repeat a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
president of the LDS church: “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.” (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).
Someone wrote here on ARM that the idea of God having sex with Mary was
‘repugnant’, etc. When the entire scope of the theology is laid out, it should
not be repugnant to Mormons at all, as it ties in completely with the doctrines
of pre-existence, eternal marriage, deification, plural marriage, etc. With
the abundance of consistent statements on the subject, from a plethora of LDS
leaders over the years, it’s difficult to dismiss the concept as mere
‘speculation.’ The quote from Harold B. Lee that someone
furnished is the only one I have seen saying that Mormons should not
‘speculate’ about it. Lee did not deny the concept; he merely advised not to
discuss it. And as I quote above, church-dispensed lesson manuals have taught
the same idea since Lee’s 1972 death.
True, none of these quotes say specifically that God and Mary had sex in
clinical terms, but in my opinion, considering the quotes in totality, it’s
naive to deny the implication. It has only been a few decades since pregnancy
was described with code terms such as ‘expecting,’ ‘with child’, or ‘in a
family way.’ LDS leaders were clearly following the etiquette of their day by
not using the actual term ‘sexual intercourse’.
Considering the volume of this consistent teaching, in my opinion, Mormons who
do NOT agree with this teaching are the ones who are ‘speculating.’
The only reason I can fathom as to why Mormons are now denying or backpedaling
from this teaching is that it doesn’t comport with the LDS church’s continual
efforts to rid itself of its quaint, unique doctrines, in order to gain
increased acceptance from the rest of the Christian world, and in turn, gain
more converts.
Youre a Marxist? Shouldnt you be on DU?
Haha, I read the header as “Should christians vote for a MORON”. Made me do a double take!
Sorry....But I see this article as more Mormon bashing. The author the article stated that Mormons believe that the Father literally had intercourse with Mary, then posted a citation, and the reference said **nothing** of the kind.
You take things too literally. God does not have DNA.
That kind of statement at this point in the history of FR sounds like the last refuge of a Mittbot.
Since you haven't voted FOR anyone in 30 years, only against, then since Dec. 1981:
If this is a real sign and not a work-shopped one, this church could lose their tax-free standing.
Candidates cannot be endorsed by a church. If they do — they risk that loss.
Churches can endorse general ideas such as pro-life, but not individual candidates.
Here. Read these quotes from Mormon leaders themselves and then draw your own conclusions:
Example: Some LDS leaders have tried to play it both ways re: describing Mary as a virgin (for example, LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie). Some clearly implied that she wasnt (Brigham Young)
Example of LDS saying Mary was a virgin: "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822. [A CARM writers comment to this was: Let them proclaim it. But quite honestly, I fail to see how the Mormon people can assert that Mary remained a virgin in light of this evidence from their prophets and apostles. I see them saying two different things and backpedaling trying to sound Christian.]
Lets deal with each of those descriptions separately, shall we?
Literal:
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." (Lds "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p. 44)
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, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. (McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p. 742, 1966)
Did ya'll catch the conception part here being discussed as part of a normal and natural course of events process? Was McConkie just making that up out of thin air? No. He was simply repeating what earlier LDS prophets have said about this natural process:
...same physical sense that any other man begets a child...:
Brigham Young:
God created man [as spirit children], as we create our children: for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. Journal of Discourses (JoD), vol. 11, p. 122
(OK, Young's quote here = absolute statement that God only has one means of creation, and that the spirit, Jesus, was first created in heaven through the same process as we create our children).
The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and bloodwas begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers. (JoD vol. 8, p. 115)
(Of course, if any poster wants to tell us that they were begotten of their fathers in some other manner that their fathers who partook of flesh and blood--anything other than what Young called a natural action--weve got listening ears)
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. (JoD, vol. 4, p. 218, 1857)
What was Brigham meaning? When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven. (JoD vol. 1, p. 50, April 9, 1852)
What did Brigham mean by "who is the Father?...first of the human family?
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. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. (Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 770, 1853)
What other LDS prophets embraced Brighams natural process of begottening?
As the horse, the ox, the sheep, and every living creature, including man, propogates its own species & perpetuates its own kind, so does God perpetuate His. (Lds "prophet" John Taylor, Mediation & Atonement, 1882, p. 165 )
What about other LDS apostles? What did they say about this natural process?
"In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (LDS apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211)
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547.)
Now Ive cited McConkie twice, and a lot of folks have seen one or both of those quotes, but not nearly as many have seen this following McConkie excerpt where McConkie makes sure we otherstand the literalness of whats he talking about:
We have spoke PLAINLY of our Lords conception in the womb of Mary. I am the son of my father and the father of my sons. They are my sons because they were begotten by me, were conceived by their mother, and came forth from her womb to breathe the breath of mortal life, to dwell for a time and a season among other mortal men. And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father
And the Son is a Son is a Son
a literal, living offspring from an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the womb from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacled in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lords coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of Godthe Only Begotten of the Father. (McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pp. 467-468, 1978 )
(Yeah, well you can't find the word "Bible" in the Bible, either...I'm sure that doesn't stop you from reading it, does it?)
"Christian" is barely mentioned in the Bible (book of Acts by non-Christians)...And I can't find "Christianity" in the Bible, either.
And when it comes to a description of God and those who follow Him, ya wanna tell me where the word "monotheist" pops up in the Bible?
Lame. Lame. More lame.
LOL
A parishioner asked our priest about this at a recent lecture, and the priest said wryly, (and I’m paraphrasing here, despite the quotes for clarity), “I don’t want to blow our tax-exempt status by specifically endorsing a candidate, but for me the first question has to be, How does the candidate stand on the question of abortion? Because if he supports abortion, this takes away all our rights. You don’t have any political or economic freedom if you are the victim of a state-sanctioned killing before you’re old enough to own your first pair of sneakers. If a candidate won’t protect the smallest and weakest of its citizens, guaranteeing us life and liberty, he won’t protect any of our rights.”
If the choice is Mormon or Muslim, every Christian will vote against the Muslim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.