Byron Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Hi there. I will be asking a series of questions and would like to insert this introduction before them all to ensure that my intent is not misconstrued.Though I believe God tells us there is no sin greater than another, I have a particular distain for gossip. Thus I would like to take any hearsay given to me about Mormonism and put it under a spotlight and find the truth. Hearsay: Mormons believe the virgin Marry was impregnated by a physical manifestation of God. What is the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 What does this have to do with the Catholic doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of Mary? The mechanics of God's actions have not been revealed to us. Mary was with child, and that child was Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If you want to know the specifics, ask God, assuming he cares to tell you. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Hearsay: Mormons believe the virgin Marry was impregnated by a physical manifestation of God. What is the truth? The truth is that this is a profanely offensive question to even ask. Leah, kapikui and Vort 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted October 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Sorry if I offended, I just want to know what you believe. If The gossip I heard is wrong please correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 There may be some archaic wording somewhere in LDS writings (not scripture) that could be construed that way--but even that was likely speculation, not strong doctrine. The problem with the question is that it conjurs up a scene from a really inflammatory anti-LDS movie that was done a couple decades ago. Even some Jews and Christians condemned the "expose." So, you pushed a button with this one. mirkwood, beefche and Just_A_Guy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Hearsay: Mormons believe the virgin Marry was impregnated by a physical manifestation of God. Totally not true. What we know of Christ's conception is recorded in Luke 1: "34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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." That's all we know about how it happened. Now, Mormons do actually believe that God the Father was Jesus literal biological Father (which is why we get this question so often), but that does not mean Mary was not a virgin (that's pretty obvious in Bible). Even us puny mortals can impregnate a woman without the use of sex, let alone God and His power. If God wanted us to know more specifics, He would have told us. Edited October 30, 2015 by Jane_Doe kapikui 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Has anything you've asked been right? :)We're not offended. The question is offensive. It is profane. You are not to blame, presuming your sincerity. The sources where you get this garbage are. Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) You can certainly find mormons that believe that, and you can find many more that don't. I think Brigham Young expressed a belief in that perspective. I believe it's speculative at best. We do believe God the Father has a body of flesh and blood, Mary is described as the handmaiden of the Lord which is probably how that line of logic crops up.Most of us aren't overly interested in the exact mechanics of how Mary came to be the mother of Jesus the Christ, and why should we be? It is enough for me to know she is the mother of the Son, and that He is our Savior. Edited October 30, 2015 by jerome1232 Crypto 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 · Hidden by beefche, October 30, 2015 - No reason given Hidden by beefche, October 30, 2015 - No reason given Sorry if I offended, I just want to know what you believe. If The gossip I heard is wrong please correct me.Your hypocrisy shows itself yet again.You spam the board with the repeated claim that you disdain gossip, while in the very act of engaging in it. Link to comment
Ironhold Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Brigham Young made a statement to the effect that it took place via "natural" means, and that people needed to quit worrying about the details of how it happened. Critics of the church have (often deliberately) misinterpreted this to mean he was talking about sex. Said critics get rather gobsmacked when I remind them of parthenogenesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Byron, Think about it. You're asking God how babies are made. I share TFPs reaction to this one. It has not been revealed to us. And it is none of our business. Butt out of this one because we sure do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkstpaul Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 It is not taught as doctrine in our church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdowis Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Bottom line -->> this is antiMormon doctrine. This is not a doctrine of the LDS church. We are Bible believing Christians and accept the events as described in the Bible. Edited October 30, 2015 by cdowis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 What does this have to do with the Catholic doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of Mary? I'm also curious about the title of this thread in relation to the question. Byron, why did you put the two together? M. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Hearsay: Mormons believe the virgin Marry was impregnated by a physical manifestation of God. What is the truth? The truth: We don't know. Some of us speculate. Some Mormons believe in some sort of physical manifestation. I've seen and heard them. It isn't doctrine. If someone believes it, they're welcome to sit next to me at church. Here's a question back to you Byron - If a Mormon believes that God came down in the flesh and had sex with Mary, do you believe he can't be a Christian? Please cite the scripture that your belief rests on. Just_A_Guy and mirkwood 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hi there. I will be asking a series of questions and would like to insert this introduction before them all to ensure that my intent is not misconstrued.Though I believe God tells us there is no sin greater than another, I have a particular distain for gossip. Thus I would like to take any hearsay given to me about Mormonism and put it under a spotlight and find the truth. Hearsay: Mormons believe the virgin Marry was impregnated by a physical manifestation of God. What is the truth?this is false. this is an extreme mis-interpretation of an old quote from some LDS leader. The only thing that LDS have on the subject is that the power of the Holy Ghost was used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scovy Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 First of Byron, this is not offensive to ask as others might have suggested. The nature of Mary becoming pregnant manifests the power of God. How it was done on a physical level one might never know during our period on Earth. I applaud you for asking of these questions as many misconceptions can lead to incorrect teachings and beliefs. We should seek out truth and understanding. Many times we may not know or understand the answer, but remember faith helps us in knowing that God is all powerful and knowledgeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted November 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 @Maureen. I am sorry I do not follow the question. @NeuroTypcial. If you are asking my belief about Mormon's not being Christian. No I think the two are separate. It doesn't mean I do not respect your belief but until I find otherwise, my beliefs are that Christianity is defined by John 3:16. However if a Christian rejects the word of God, even in part, this is akin to the rejection of the holy spirit and thus the only unforgivable sin.I base this aspect of my belief primarily on the responses I have gotten here and from Mormons outside of the cyber world concerning my queries about how TBOM can be held as God's word in spite of Galatians1 6-9. Again this is my belief, I only offer it because you asked. Remember though I am only a man and thus fallible. My understanding of God's word is limited to the fact that I have a man's understanding. Thus I have come here to ask questions. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 @Maureen. I am sorry I do not follow the question. The title of your post is "Immaculate Conception". I assume you know what the "Immaculate Conception" is*. What has the "Immaculate Conception" to do with LDS beliefs about Mary's pregnancy with Jesus? *In case you do not know, let me explain. The "Immaculate Conception" is a Catholic religious doctrine related to the Catholic doctrine of "Original Sin", which posits that every human born into the world (except one) inherits the guilt of Adam's sin. This Original Sin can be cleansed only by baptism. The sole exception to the inheritance of Original Sin was the conception of Mary, which was (according to Catholic doctrine) miraculous in that Mary was prevented from inheriting Original Sin. Thus, the conception of Mary in her own mother's womb was immaculate. This is the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception. (I welcome correction or further explanation by Maureen or other Catholics or ex-Catholics.) MrShorty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted November 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Thank you Vort. It seems I misused the phrase. what I should have said was "The Conception of Jesus". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) NT: "Here's a question back to you Byron - If a Mormon believes that God came down in the flesh and had sex with Mary, do you believe he can't be a Christian? Please cite the scripture that your belief rests on." Byron: "If you are asking my belief about Mormon's not being Christian. No I think the two are separate. It doesn't mean I do not respect your belief but until I find otherwise, my beliefs are that Christianity is defined by John 3:16. However if a Christian rejects the word of God, even in part, this is akin to the rejection of the holy spirit and thus the only unforgivable sin." I'm hearing you say Christianity is defined by John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I agree - it's a great definitive scripture that lays out pretty clearly what someone must do to have everlasting life. It seems like you're also saying that someone can be a Christian and also believe God came down in the flesh and had sex with Mary. Am I hearing you correctly? After all, the scripture doesn't say "...that whosoever believeth in him [and must believe certain details about his conception and disbelieve others] should not perish, but have everlasting life." Right? Because that would be adding to scripture. Byron: "I base this aspect of my belief primarily on the responses I have gotten here and from Mormons outside of the cyber world concerning my queries about how TBOM can be held as God's word in spite of Galatians1 6-9." Galatians 1 6-9: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." The BoM isn't another gospel. It's another testament of the same gospel. Recording another instance of Jesus visiting people on Earth and delivering His message. It doesn't say "the Bible is wrong, I'm right", it says "The Bible is a true and correct account, and I am another one from the other side of the planet." So the BoM is in total harmony with Galatians 1, and our church and prophets teach and believe the same thing. Honestly, Byron, this source of anti-LDS criticisms you're using to fuel your questions? It's all stuff that has been thoroughly and completely answered for decades, if not a century or more. You really would be well advised to just dump it and start fresh. I wonder - would you be willing to share where you're getting all this stuff? Is there a particular pamphlet, website, book, or person you're using as your source for these questions? I might be able to direct you to a blanket point-by-point response, so you can go read it, instead of asking these old tired out questions, answered for decades, fresh again. Edited November 2, 2015 by NeuroTypical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Honestly, Byron, this source of anti-LDS criticisms you're using to fuel your questions? It's all stuff that has been thoroughly and completely answered for decades, if not a century or more. You really would be well advised to just dump it and start fresh. I wonder - would you be willing to share where you're getting all this stuff? Is there a particular pamphlet, website, book, or person you're using as your source for these questions? I might be able to direct you to a blanket point-by-point response, so you can go read it, instead of asking these old tired out questions, answered for decades, fresh again. Depending upon the source, I might even have a canned response hosted on my Deviant Art account; if he's got good ad-blockers installed, I could give him a direct link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.