Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-09-2011, 03:24 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I will repeat.

You pushed it so lets look at quotes from your leaders.

"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).

Can you tell me what this statement means?
11-09-2011, 03:26 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

However you might think God impregnated Mary--Mary was the mother, and God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ.

There was a baby in her womb.

Mary's gestation period was the same as any other normal pregnancy--the baby was a normal baby delivered through the womb of woman.

What about that is not procreation?
11-09-2011, 03:30 PM
BigJulie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

You pushed it so lets look at quotes from your leaders.

"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).
Can you tell me what this statement means?

Regarding the Journal of Discourses:

Quote:

Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church....

Critics also ignore other statements by LDS leaders that explain how they saw the material published in venues like the Journal of Discourses. ....

One might ***ume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker.

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.
11-09-2011, 03:30 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

What about that is not procreation?

"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).

The natural action.
11-09-2011, 03:31 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

"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).

So you don't believe Brigham Young?
11-09-2011, 03:32 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

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

Can you tell me what this means?
11-09-2011, 03:42 PM
BigJulie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

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

Can you tell me what this means?

Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses are your "scriptures'---okay.

This is what is interesting about the critics of the my faith---they want to make the discussion surrounding our scriptures our doctrine while ignoring our doctrine. I have told you what I believe. The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are not scriptural. They are discussions--nothing more and nothing less.
11-09-2011, 03:49 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses are your "scriptures'---okay.

You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God don't you?

Why is it unfair to quote one of your revered leaders. Do you think that he is wrong?
11-09-2011, 03:54 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

dberrie----However you might think God impregnated Mary--Mary was the mother, and God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ.

There was a baby in her womb.

Mary's gestation period was the same as any other normal pregnancy--the baby was a normal baby delivered through the womb of woman.

What about that is not procreation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

"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).

The natural action.

It was procreation whether you believe it was a natural or a unnatural action.

Jesus Christ was a begotten Son of God the Father. Period. Your straining at gnats will not change that.
11-09-2011, 03:55 PM
BigJulie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God don't you?

Why is it unfair to quote one of your revered leaders. Do you think that he is wrong?

Well, first off---you make the mistake of thinking that everything that comes out of a prophet's mouth is prophetic. The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are excellent examples of apostles and prophets stating their opinions. If they had been revelations, their statements would have been canonized into our scriptures.

So, what happens in the church? Prophets receive revelation from God and then all the members, including the prophets and apostles do their best to understand the revelation. For this, we get tons of discussion.

So, what do the critics do? They mull over this discussion as ways to make points as to what we believe. But as members, we understand that this is just discussion, nothing more and nothing less.

Do I agree with the discussion of Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie? I don't know. We dont' have revelation and so I can't say definitively what is right and what is wrong. What I can tell you is what I know. 1) Sex is not some disgusting thing as you seem to think it is . 2) I don't know the method in which Christ was conceived as we have no revelation to that matter--in fact, even our comments from these two apostles are not clear on that matter as you seem to think--see Dberries comment above. 3) Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father. These three things I know for sure.
11-09-2011, 03:55 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

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

Can you tell me what this means?

It means Bruce R McConkie has an opinion.
11-09-2011, 04:03 PM
BigJulie

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

It means Bruce R McConkie has an opinion.

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.
11-09-2011, 04:09 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

It suites their cause--but it just is not the composition of a truthful discussion, not when trying to establish it as LDS doctrine. It isn't. Never has been.

Billy has not done very well in our discussions, so I understand his need to do so.
11-09-2011, 04:13 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

Do you feel the need to distance yourself from some of the quotes from your leaders?
11-09-2011, 04:27 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you feel the need to distance yourself from some of the quotes from your leaders?

Nope--not at all. I feel they are en***led to their opinions, as well as I am to mine.

All we are saying is--don't confuse that with LDS scripture.
11-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Nope--not at all. I feel they are en***led to their opinions, as well as I am to mine.

So you would cl***ify all of the teachings of your leaders as "opinion" unless it is in your Quad?"
11-09-2011, 04:41 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you would cl***ify all of the teachings of your leaders as "opinion" unless it is in your Quad?"

Regardless of how I feel about the teachings of our leaders--there is a difference between canonized scripture and the comments of any leader in the church. It takes time and unity of the church to determine if it will be canonized scripture.
11-09-2011, 04:50 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Regardless of how I feel about the teachings of our leaders--there is a difference between canonized scripture and the comments of any leader in the church.

So Thomas Monson gives you lots of his opinions a couple of times a year at conference?
11-09-2011, 04:55 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

So Thomas Monson gives you lots of his opinions a couple of times a year at conference?

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture. But if the church goes in another direction than a prophet's voice--then it is considered his opinion.
11-09-2011, 04:59 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture.

But it is still his opinion and nothing more. Is this a fair ***essment?
11-09-2011, 05:07 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

But it is still his opinion and nothing more. Is this a fair ***essment?

Is that what I said?
11-09-2011, 05:14 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Is that what I said?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion,

What exactly is "more than an opinion"? Is that simply just a plain old opinion like my opinion?
11-09-2011, 05:17 PM
dberrie2000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

What exactly is "more than an opinion"? Is that simply just a plain old opinion like my opinion?

No. No LDS would listen to your opinion as they would a prophet's voice. It is more than an opinion to them. But again--if a prophet should state something that the church disagrees on--then it would be considered his opinion.

The LDS believe the prophet has his opinions also, as do all prophets.
11-09-2011, 05:19 PM
BigJulie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billyray

What exactly is "more than an opinion"? Is that simply just a plain old opinion like my opinion?

No---it means that when the student gives an opinion it does not hold as much weight as the teachers opinion, but we understand it is only the "text" that is revelation and not opinion.

So, Billyray, are you still going to avoid the question, do you believe that Jesus Christ is not really the Son of God, but that the idea that he is the "only begotten" of the Father is just more of a poetic figure of speech?
11-09-2011, 05:20 PM
Billyray

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

No. No LDS would listen to your opinion as they would a prophet's voice. It is more than an opinion to them. But again--if a prophet should state something that the church disagrees on--then it would be considered his opinion.

When would the church disagree with the prophet? Can you give me a recent example?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page