Well, here goes. At least until the next crisis occurs, which I’m sure is imminently…
We don’t talk much about it, since we don’t know much at all. But we do believe that some time way, way back when, that our own Heavenly Father was a mortal. For reference, see Joseph Smith’s “King Follett Discourse” of April 7, 1844. That’s about all we have to go on, really.
It’s a reference to it, but not a justification, I’d say. See, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he said that temple sealings were the way to go, then we don’t feel that Biblical justification is really necessary (though it’s nice to be able to point to a Bible verse).
Acceptance of Jesus includes baptism, which is a necessary ordinance. Thus baptism for the dead, which we’ve hashed over many times here. Mark 16:16 says: “He that believeth and is baptized is saved, but he that believeth not is damned” --implying that belief and baptism are part of one package.
We don’t know how Jesus was conceived, but we do believe that he was the literal Son of God, thus both mortal and divine.
Yes, we believe that souls exist before birth, indeed that we have pretty much always existed, and that God took us up and gave us spirit bodies before he put us into mortal ones. I had a thread on that with Polycarp a few months back, and if the hamsters weren’t on strike, I’d look it up.
I’m not going to go into the details of temple ordinances, but my husband needs me as much as I need him. 'Nuff said.
Nope. Jesus is uniquely the literal begotten Son of God, our Savior. He is also our Elder Brother, as we are also spirit children of our Heavenly Father.
See, we don’t see the creeds as scripture. They aren’t inspired, aren’t from prophets, they’re just compromises from a fight between men who were doing their best but still falling short. The ideas in them, I don’t actually have much problem with, except for the doctrine of the Trinity-as-one-and-three-in-substance, which is IMO unBiblical. But we believe in the Bible’s veracity (as far as it is translated correctly!), and in the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Here are the Articles of Faith, which lay out our basic beliefs in our version of a creed.
Well, see, the answer is yes to all of them. Christ is one of God’s spirit children, but has always had a pre-eminent place, and volunteered for the job of Savior. Lucifer is one too, and was once an angel, but rebelled, fell, and took many other spirits with him. We all belong to one race of beings, one with great potential for either good or evil. You and I are just embryonic at the moment, but our Father wants to help us develop as far as we can, and we need Jesus’ help for that. I can see that I’ve got to look up that thread…and Here it is! Hope that helps.
Gobear: You’re setting up a false dichotomy. Mormon’s believe that Jesus Christ is our spiritual elder brother (i.e., one of many) but also that he is the only begotten son of God in the flesh. You said that for somebody to be a Christian (according to your narrow definition), they must believe that he was “the one and only son of God.” And Mormons believe this, insofar as you are talking about the physical incarnation of Christ. The fact that Mormons believe that Christ, along with the rest of humanity, is also the spiritual child of God is irrelevant. After all, don’t most Christian religions teach that we are all the children of God in a spiritual sense?
Again, Mormons believe that Christ was the only begotten [you do know what that word means, right?] son of God, that he was born as a human being, that he died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity, and rose again, that he ascended to heaven, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead. Ergo, they are Christians. Deal with it.
Genie, thanks for the info. I’ll respond in a bit when I have more time.
[quote]
Again, Mormons believe that Christ was the only begotten [you do know what that word means, right?] son of God, that he was born as a human being, that he died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity, and rose again, that he ascended to heaven, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead. Ergo, they are Christians. Deal with it.
A. Yes, I know what “begotten” means.
B. I could really do without your attitude.
C. Read Genie’s post above. Mormons, by her account do not believe that Jesus is the only begotten son, but the Elder Brother of all of God’s children. That’s fine, but it does contradict the official Christian stance of Jesus being uniquely the Son of God. I am not interested in arguing for either side, since I believe in neither–I’m just pointing out some discrepancies in theology.
False. In a temple wedding a woman (or anybody) is not pulled through a veil. As stated before a man and woman are dependent on each other, neither can do it alone.
No, that’s not what I said. Godzillatemple is correct. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and we are all God’s spirit children. Here is what I said, bolding added:
Gaudere: That’s not much to back down from as it wasn’t even minimally close to being against the rules, so I’m backed down. As for Lynn’s warning–she was wrong and I politely told her so in an e-mail and had a discussion about that e-mail with another of the Administrators.
Hmm…
Guadere: I should say that IMHO Lynn was wrong in that thread’s warning and that’s what I addressed in both the email and the ensuing discussion.
Unlike many others, even when I disagree with the Moderators & Admins here, I support them. I don’t see a problem with me–or anyone else, for that matter–supporting y’all. That’s why I rarely mention your actions on the board.
You posted several criticisms of LDS theology in bullet-point format. You get the bullet-point answer. Some of the points are incorrect, and others are spun for most polemical impact. I consider that flinging dung.
(Side note: my username is emarkp–all lowercase)
Ah, now we’re making a distinction between the Father and the Son. You didn’t make that distinction previously. Yes, in classic Christian theology the unchanging God as Incarnation had a body (and still does), but the Father does not. In LDS theology the Father does have a body of flesh and bone. There is no canonical source that explicitly says that the Father was once mortal as we are, however many (most?) members believe it (as I do). genie has pointed you to pretty much the only source that discusses it.
The verbage is binding on Earth being binding in Heaven. So if Peter were to marry a couple together, that would strongly suggest the marriage would be valid in heaven. It’s a longer discussion than that of course, but if you want to start a thread…
genie already pointed to the necessity of baptism, but we share that belief with many Christian sects.
There is no scripture or modern revelation that teaches this. It’s one of the more prominent claims in the various anti-Mormon circles, but it’s not true. The closest you can find to it is a statement by Brigham Young saying that Jesus was conceived the same way all mortals are conceived. At the time, many people may have assumed that meant what you suggest, but that flies in the face of all of the moral teachings we believe. However, in this day of in vitro fertilization, etc. even we humans are capable of impregnating a woman without intercourse.
The point of Brigham Young’s sermon (IIRC) was a comment about the paternity of Christ. That he was not conceived by a mortal and then somehow designated the Son of God, but half of his genes (so to speak) did not come from Mary or any other mortal, that he was literally begotten of God.
That is true. However, there is one significant exception: Christ himself. While it is commonly tradition among Chrstians that the spirit does not predate the body, it is not supported by the Bible. Indeed there are passages which indicate otherwise.
Oh please, can’t you even make any effort on your own? This was one of the earliest objections to the Book of Mormon, and it’s clear to anyone who has made even the tiniest effort the problems with the claim.
First to clarify my statement: I was trying to point out that the Book of Mormon is not equal to the Bible because they’re two different books. They are companion volumes. Neither has primacy.
Now, about Rev 22:18…You would do well to actually read Revelation with the intent of understanding rather than cutting and pasting from whichever anti-Mormon screed you’ve got. Note the beginning of Revelation, specifically Rev 1:11:
(emphasis mine). It is clear that the warning about adding to “the words of the prophecy of this book” refers to the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. Especially when this broad interpretation of the verse would mean that we have to end the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy.
What does it mean to be “joint-heirs with Christ”? What does it mean to be glorified with Christ? Deification is a very old doctrine, and not unique to Mormons. It is true that it is clearest from the revelations received by Joseph Smith, but the idea (to one degree or another) is quite common in Christianity (though more so in Orthodoxy IIRC).
The temple ceremonies (including sealing) are sacred, and as such we simply don’t discuss them in detail outside of the temple. What I will say is that no, that’s not part of the marriage ceremony. Irrespective of the ceremony itself, you can look directly at our doctrine which clearly states that the highest glory is only to be given to those who have accepted the covenant of marriage in the temple. Goes the same for men and women. The wording you used is deliberately chosen to make us appear sexist with respect to salvation. It is disgusting, misleading, and indeed not very good Christian behavior for those who promote the idea as truth. It is examples like this one that should make anyone able to think for himself doubt the reliability of the source in question.
The “Jesus and Satan as brothers” is a similar claim. As genie has explained, the doctrine of spirits etc. is much more complicated than the sound bite. But it is the sound bite people use to criticize. It is very much in the spirit of spreading–not fighting–ignorance. It is designed to elicit anger and hate rather than rational thought. It is pure polemic and is detestable.
genie has read up more on this than I have, and has answered it already. However, I’d need to nail you to the wall for doing the same thing anti-Mormons have done for 150+ years now:
Step 1: The Book of Mormon must be false because ABC isn’t historically/archealogically/linguistically correct!
Step 2: Mormons show (through scholarly study) that ABC is in fact historically/archealogically/linguistically correct .
Step 3a: I’ll just dismiss that out of hand! Ha! I laugh at your scholarly work! (oases in the desert anyone?)
(or, alternately)
Step 3b: The Book of Mormon must be false because DEF isn’t historically/archealogically/linguistically correct!
Step 4: Repeat ad nauseum.
For years, people have made accusations about why the Book of Mormon must be false. First it was writing on goldes plates in a modified egyption. Now we’ve found contemporaneous holy writings on gold plates. We’ve also seen modified egyptian writing in the same time period outside of Egypt. Then people claimed that the rivers Lehi spoke of couldn’t exist (flowing unceasingly into the sea), because the only rivers on the Saudi peninsula are temporary and created in the rainy season only. Then we found oases like genie mentions. The Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are pervasive, even more so than the King James Bible–oh but Joseph Smith must have just noticed that stuff in the Bible.
And so it goes. As point after point is knocked down, you’d expect people at some point to wonder how Joseph Smith managed to get so much stuff right when the scholars of his day and later disagreed with him–correctly as their understanding in the day went, but now incorrect as more information has come to light.
Ah, I see. They’re just not “Christians” if they believe that baptism is necessary, eh?
You can always define a term so narrowly as to exclude whoever you disagree with. Fortunately, nobody appointed you the one to define the term “Christian.”
As much as I appreciate your thoughtful post, this bit pisses me off. I don’t need to c&p Scripture from the fundies–I know my Bible well, thank you. Moreover, I’ve been trying to avoid the fundie Web pages because they’re sloppily written and bent on distorting LDS teachings.
Second, your point about Rev. 22:18 referring only to the book itself is well taken, but many sects take that verse to refer to the entire Biblical canon.
How else should I have worded it? Hell, I avoided using the word “sexist,” did I not? Is there another way to ask if women depend on men for their salvation without using the words “women,” “men,” and “salvation”? The role of women within the Mormon church is controversial, (if not for the LDS, at least for Gentiles)
And for the nth time, I am a skeptic, not a Christian.
If you bother to look back at my post, I wrote, “(I got that from one those tawdry, badly written, fundie-style “Ah used to be one o’ them MORmons” confessionals, so I’m really asking if the description of Temple ceremonies is made up”). I think you should have been able to figure out for yourself I was not relying on fundie testamonials.
In any event, I will bow out of this thread. I appreciate Genie’s kindness and honesty in her answers. I have further questions, but I will save those for later or ask in e-mail.
I have meant no discourtesy to you; you, on the other hand, deliberately went out of your way to take as much offense and be as rude as you possibly could within the rules of the forum.
If you know your Bible so well, then you shouldn’t have used that verse from Revelation. I wasn’t so much saying you’re cutting and pasting scripture, rather that you’re cutting and pasting from anti-Mormon websites/publications–either that or you’ve learned the anti-Mormon linebook by heart.
You’ll pardon me for saying so, but only by sects that are intelectually deficient. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky, and the current New Testament underwent many changes before it settled down into the NT we have today. Indeed, given that one of the other common criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the purported 4000+ changes to the BoM. Those changes were minor compared to whole books being added/removed from the canon of the NT.
Well, you could have spent five minutes verifying it before you repeated the assertion. That’s typically a good idea. It is the claim that is intended to be sexist. You’re just repeating the claim (I don’t know if that’s better or worse–repeating error out of ignorance isn’t too bad, but failing to verify your information is).
I’m fully aware of that. My criticism is aimed at the so-called Christians who come up with the sound bites that you and others enumerate.
Ah, my mistake. You entered the thread repeating incorrect and borderline slanderous comments about my religion, yet you meant no discourtesy. You’re the non-Christian skeptic who is so fixated on a definition of Christianity which excludes whole groups of Christians. Furthermore, you’ve participated in some of these Mormon threads before and really should know better.
However, if my tone was inappropriately harsh, I apologize. I really don’t mind answering honest questions. It does however get tiresome answering the same questions over and over again.
Now now, no need to get testy. We haven’t even hit 5 pages yet (and we all know the Mormon Question --> Are Mormons Christians --> I heard that Mormons… threads go for at least 5 pages). Surely you don’t want to look like a hit and run poster? At the very least, I have a few more posts to respond to some of the other questions asked here.
