Why Christianity is the truth

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

If you'll answer this then it might help clear up the subject a little.

Begotten how? It seems some people here only have one interpretation of the word.

Why worry bout how some people here iterpret begotten, just go by what Brigham Young, said.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Why worry bout how some people here iterpret begotten, just go by what Brigham Young, said.

Why worry about it? Because if there are different interpretations of what that Bible says why can't there be different understandings of what B. Y. said? We can't ask him to clarify what he meant. What I believe he was saying was that the LDS believe that Jesus is the actual Only Begotten Son of the FATHER dispeling other's beliefs that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit.

Ezra Taft Benson taught "He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth."

Now that is a very clear statement, without ambiguity, that portrays the true LDS belief on the subject.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Why worry about it? Because if there are different interpretations of what that Bible says why can't there be different understandings of what B. Y. said? We can't ask him to clarify what he meant. What I believe he was saying was that the LDS believe that Jesus is the actual Only Begotten Son of the FATHER dispeling other's beliefs that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit.

Ezra Taft Benson taught "He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth."

Now that is a very clear statement, without ambiguity, that portrays the true LDS belief on the subject.

look just stop the BS! I admit my patiences are running short on this subject because we all know what Brigham Young meant. It goes side by side with Joseph Smith jr. SEX addiction. Here is just one of many tidbits; “Thousands of Nauvoo Mormons search[ed] for Orson Pratt after discovering a suicide note. They find him distraught because Smith, according to Pratt's wife, had tried to seduce Pratt's wife Sarah.
Joseph Smit jr. Said The mormon god is a god of flesh and bone.....ie .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... [Y]ou have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you..."
Yes, you TBMs believe your god is a god just like yourself, the only difference is you are not exalted yet, but the workings of begotten is still the same....ie.."If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? What Joseph Smith jr. Is laying down is the LDS doctine of Heavenly hanky-panky is in no way different then the earthly hanky-panky and Brigham Young put it to words more clear than you are confortable with....ie...Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547
"The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now..." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City.
"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, vol. 8, p. 115).
I love this last statement even more......ie.."God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, 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 the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, pp. 122-123)

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

look just stop the BS! I admit my patiences are running short on this subject ...

Well, sure! Because it exposes the fact you could be wrong. Anti-LDS don't like to be shown that their ideas and views could be incorrect. Their pride has them believing that theirs is the only right way and everyone else is wrong.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Sir

Well, sure! Because it exposes the fact you could be wrong. Anti-LDS don't like to be shown that their ideas and views could be incorrect. Their pride has them believing that theirs is the only right way and everyone else is wrong.

Either you are another Obama with your words, or else you suffer from cognitive dissonance of the third kind. Joseph Smith jr. was a sex predator of the first kind, and Brigham Young was just trying to put it in the plain english. Nature and begotten.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Either you are another Obama with your words, or else you suffer from cognitive dissonance of the third kind.

Neither.

But I understand you are simply emoting out of angst and your patience is rather thin, so......

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Sir

Well, sure! Because it exposes the fact you could be wrong. Anti-LDS don't like to be shown that their ideas and views could be incorrect. Their pride has them believing that theirs is the only right way and everyone else is wrong.

And when someone has that particular subject on the brain a lot, well then they start to read that into everything.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

...we all know what Brigham Young meant....

That is a false statement. Not only is it false to say that we all know what he meant, it is also false to say that there is even an official doctrine among the LDS as to what BY meant.

It's kind of interesting to see an outsider:

a. tell us how we should interpret our own leader's statements; and

b. tell us that we all know what an author meant when what that author said was quite ambiguous.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That is a false statement. Not only is it false to say that we all know what he meant, it is also false to say that there is even an official doctrine among the LDS as to what BY meant.

It's kind of interesting to see an outsider:

a. tell us how we should interpret our own leader's statements; and

b. tell us that we all know what an author meant when what that author said was quite ambiguous.

Most of his wildly false teaching were very clear.. He clearly taught that Adam was God.. He went so far as to teach tat he was the ONLY GOD with whom we had to do.. There is no question in his meaning. He was teaching in the name of another God.. Other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. There was no ambiguity in that. He was flat teaching sin to the LDS.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That is a false statement. Not only is it false to say that we all know what he meant, it is also false to say that there is even an official doctrine among the LDS as to what BY meant.

It's kind of interesting to see an outsider:

a. tell us how we should interpret our own leader's statements; and

b. tell us that we all know what an author meant when what that author said was quite ambiguous.

Once again, just asks yourself' "Why did Brigham Young, go to all the trouble to explain, natural, and begotten?
Why didn't your prophets just let the Holy Bible speak for itself and not add any thing to wht was understood by Christians for 1800 years?
Sex, is the only explanation.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Once again, just asks yourself' "Why did Brigham Young, go to all the trouble to explain, natural, and begotten?
Why didn't your prophets just let the Holy Bible speak for itself and not add any thing to wht was understood by Christians for 1800 years?
Sex, is the only explanation.

"Why didn't your prophets just let the Holy Bible speak for itself and not add any thing to wht was understood by Christians for 1800 years?"

That is exactly why. Because he was teaching that Christians have gotten it wrong to 1800 years. Many still teach today that Christ was begat/conceived whatever you want to call it BY the Holy Spirit .

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

"Why didn't your prophets just let the Holy Bible speak for itself and not add any thing to wht was understood by Christians for 1800 years?"

That is exactly why. Because he was teaching that Christians have gotten it wrong to 1800 years. Many still teach today that Christ was begat/conceived whatever you want to call it BY the Holy Spirit .

Because all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).. It is not open to be changed by the will of men to create their own gods in their image. To bestow on then the physical attributes Smith and Young were so very fond of.. Namely sexual contact with women.. The Bible teaches that "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.".. It wasn't the Church that made changes there. The Church trusted that which we have in the scripture is God's unadulterated message to mankind. It was the 19th century cultists that made changes.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

If you'll answer this then it might help clear up the subject a little.

Begotten how? It seems some people here only have one interpretation of the word.

The reference is Luke clears that up..

Luke 1:35
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.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.

Is the Holy Spirit refereed to as God? YES! He is God, just as it is recorded in Acts 5:3-4.. Just because a 19th century man that called himself a prophet denied the Holy Spirit's divinity doesn't make his denials the truth, especially because he so clearly disagreed with the Bible.. It come down on who we will believe. Jesus promised to keep His word alive for us.. Smith and his followers denounced the purity of the word of God.. I believe Jesus no matter how many mere men tell me that it is impossible that I have the very real meaning God first gave to apostles and prophets to record and give to us.. Jesus doesn't lie.. Men do.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Why worry about it? Because if there are different interpretations of what that Bible says why can't there be different understandings of what B. Y. said? We can't ask him to clarify what he meant. What I believe he was saying was that the LDS believe that Jesus is the actual Only Begotten Son of the FATHER dispeling other's beliefs that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit.

Ezra Taft Benson taught "He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth."

Now that is a very clear statement, without ambiguity, that portrays the true LDS belief on the subject.

There are no "different interpretations of what that Bible says" in regard to the Gospel.. There is no difference in believing the Bible that the Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. Only Mormonism believe that the Heavenly Father has a physical body, and begot the Son in the same natural way a mortal Father begets his children.. There is nothing that is ambiguous about that either.. Only when it is twisted to try to say something other than what it clearly states is any ambiguity added.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Most of his wildly false teaching were very clear.

That statement worries me, Jim. Actual experts on the subject aren't sure what BY intended these p***ages to mean. So for someone (like yourself) who is at the beginner level on the subject to claim the intended meaning is very clear, raises some red flags.

He clearly taught that Adam was God.. He went so far as to teach tat he was the ONLY GOD with whom we had to do.. There is no question in his meaning.

If you actually read it in context, he was probably saying that Adam, who is called the son of God in the Bible, is the only god who is the patriarch of the human race.

I should add this: If BY believed the Pearl of Great Price story about God the Father and His Son Jesus visiting and teaching Adam and Eve in the Garden, then that makes it HIGHLY unlikely that BY believed that Adam was also God the Father.

Can you see why?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Once again, just asks yourself' "Why did Brigham Young, go to all the trouble to explain, natural, and begotten?

I asked myself that decades ago, and the answer is: Because some Christians, maybe even some LDS ones, had adopted the belief that the virgin birth story was just an illusion because Jesus was too holy to REALLY, actually become a mortal, physical being. Some Christian offshoot sects believed that to be mortal was a terrible thing, it was the opposite of being spiritual, so someone as spiritual and godly as Jesus would never really stoop so low as to become one of us, when to be bodiless was the ideal condition to be in.

Why didn't your prophets just let the Holy Bible speak for itself and not add any thing to wht was understood by Christians for 1800 years?

Christians have been getting stuff wrong for over 1900 years. Heck, if Calvinism is correct, then it implies that Christianity had been messed up for over 1400 years, and it wasn't until Calvin came along that things got corrected.

Sex, is the only explanation.

It is to people who are obsessed with sex being the answer to everything, I guess.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

"Why didn't your prophets just let the Holy Bible speak for itself and not add any thing to wht was understood by Christians for 1800 years?"

That is exactly why. Because he was teaching that Christians have gotten it wrong to 1800 years. Many still teach today that Christ was begat/conceived whatever you want to call it BY the Holy Spirit .

Well it seems we are getting somewhere here. First, Christians believe by the powerof the Holy Ghost Jesus was Elohim's only begotten Son, and Mary was a Virgin at Jesus's birth. Even today Catholic's believe Mary was a virgin even after she gave birth to other children, which of course is nutty, but that is another story for another time, and place.
We Christians believe Elohim is Spirit, as the word of God tells us, and we don't try to go beyond what the Scriptures says on the subject.
Second. Joseph Smith jr. put LDSinc. in a box with his King Follet sermon; God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.
Here is a strange part of his sermon; Jesus, Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. It seems the mormon jesus wasn't the first to be sacificed for his spirit children or brothers? Do you wish to explain that?
It seems to me the only difference between mortal and inmortal beings is blood in LDSinc. Doctrine.
So now that Joseph Smith jr. Has put the LDSinc. in a box Brigham Young, came along an wrapped the box with bobwire, electricfied bobwire that no TBMs wish to touch in 21 th centry mormonism, and who can blame you?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That is a false statement. Not only is it false to say that we all know what he meant, it is also false to say that there is even an official doctrine among the LDS as to what BY meant.

It's kind of interesting to see an outsider:

a. tell us how we should interpret our own leader's statements; and

b. tell us that we all know what an author meant when what that author said was quite ambiguous.

Great, now we have the word ambiguous. So now tell me if you birth was natural and you were begotten by your father the same way the mormon jesus was begotten by his mormon father was your mom still a virgin the day after your birth?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Well it seems we are getting somewhere here. First, Christians believe by the powerof the Holy Ghost Jesus was Elohim's only begotten Son, and Mary was a Virgin at Jesus's birth. Even today Catholic's believe Mary was a virgin even after she gave birth to other children, which of course is nutty, but that is another story for another time, and place.
We Christians believe Elohim is Spirit, as the word of God tells us, and we don't try to go beyond what the Scriptures says on the subject.

So are you saying that the God the Father is the father of Jesus? Earlier, James said that the Holy Spirit conceived/begat, or whatever you want to call it, Jesus. So why don't you guys take a moment and decide amongst yourselves what mainstream Christianity believes.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

So are you saying that the God the Father is the father of Jesus? Earlier, James said that the Holy Spirit conceived/begat, or whatever you want to call it, Jesus. So why don't you guys take a moment and decide amongst yourselves what mainstream Christianity believes.

Only because LDSinc. have a problem understanding the working of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost being ONE Godhead is the reason you are confused as to the begotting or conceived of Jesus.
Christians understand God is Spirit, we also understand the Holy Ghost is the Power of God The Father. We believe as the Holy Bible says. < Matthew 1:18-25 >
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS.
As for me, I don't know why LDSinc. Have a problem with what Matthew says here do you?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Only because LDSinc. have a problem understanding the working of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost being ONE Godhead is the reason you are confused as to the begotting or conceived of Jesus.
Christians understand God is Spirit, we also understand the Holy Ghost is the Power of God The Father. We believe as the Holy Bible says. < Matthew 1:18-25 >
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS.
As for me, I don't know why LDSinc. Have a problem with what Matthew says here do you?

Part of why we don't understand it is because you guys flip flop so often on your terms and other things.

Let simplify this.

Which member of the Godhead is Jesus the "Only Begotten" son of?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Part of why we don't understand it is because you guys flip flop so often on your terms and other things.

Let simplify this.

Which member of the Godhead is Jesus the "Only Begotten" son of?

I admire your attempt to change the subject, however once again we Christians have no misunderstanding as to how Jesus of the Holy Bible was begotten, ie Holy Ghost, and we have no misunderstanding as to Jesus being the only begotten Son of God. There is but ONE God! This is what the Holy Bible proclaims. The same Holy Bible proclaims; the prophet Isaiah declared, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel. IS: 7-14.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' which means, 'God with us.'" Matt: 1, 22-23.
Before Jesus went back to His Father, He promised He would send his Comforter 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14.26.
Thus, we Have the Father in Heaven. His Son here on Earth, and when The Son went back to His Father in Heaven He sent his Comforter, ie the Holy Ghost to be His Repersentative to mankind until His return.
At NO time and I repeat at NO time does the Holy Bible say that the Father was here on Earth to inpregnant Mary with His Son........

[Snow Patrol]

Sorry, but I just have the time to try and sort through all the terms you guys use interchangably to fit your beliefs around. The Father is the Father but not of Jesus, that is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost begat Jesus but Jesus is not the "Only Begotten of the Father" as the Bible says. Sorry, it is just to much of a tangled web.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Sorry, but I just have the time to try and sort through all the terms you guys use interchangably to fit your beliefs around. The Father is the Father but not of Jesus, that is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost begat Jesus but Jesus is not the "Only Begotten of the Father" as the Bible says. Sorry, it is just to much of a tangled web.

Lets slow it down alittle. Why don't we just believe what the Holy Bible tells us, and not go beyond it, as your LDDinc. Leaders often do, not as much today as they did in times pasted, but that is for another time to debate.
Again, let answer the question, was Jesus of the Holy Bible conceived of the Holy Ghost, true or false?
Was Jesus of the Holy Bible the only begotten Son of God of the Holy Bible, true or false?
I say true to both questions, what do you say?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Again, let answer the question, was Jesus of the Holy Bible conceived of the Holy Ghost, true or false?

How about this, Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost but not OF the Holy Ghost. Yes

Was Jesus of the Holy Bible the only begotten Son of God of the Holy Bible, true or false?

Yes

Now, was Jesus of the Holy Bible the only begotten of the Father of the Holy Bible, true or false? (See John 1:14) I say Yes