Mormon's & Mary


#1

I read somewhere (maybe here? maybe elsewhere?) a list of quotations from various Mormon prophets and other official Mormon documents citing their contention that Heavenly Father had physical union with Mary in order to begat Jesus.

Anyone know where I can find such a list again?


#2

most of the quotes were from early LDS prophets and apostles during various general conference sessions. They were recorded in the various volumes of the Journal of Discourses. Very few LDS recognize that as authoritative now even though it is frequently quoted in their various lesson manuals. They will tell you that it was manually transcribed (which is true) and that sometimes the scribes made mistakes. (even though it was reviewed prior to publishing). apparently the only correct entries in it are they ones they still refer to in their current publications.


#3

I was born and raised in the mormon church. Through all of the mormon church education system I was taught that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, just like any man has intercourse with his wife.

Today, mormons will say that those teachings were speculation. Well, I was taught a lot of speculation as doctrine apparently. As the saying goes, mormon doctrine is about the same as trying to nail Jell-0 to a wall.

Here are two links showing the two views:

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm
fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_Have_Sex_with_Mary.html

Mormons believe their existing prophet to speak for God, literally. It was previous mormon prophets who were teaching this doctrine re: God having sex with Mary. The thing with yesterday’s mormon prophets, their once divine inspiration can be explained away as “speaking as a man and not for God”. It is up to the poor mormon followers to figure out who their prophet is speaking as. In the meantime, they have the “obey the prophet in all things” imperative beat into their heads at every moment.

But make no mistake, mormons do not believe anything remotely similar about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit or Mary. Mary is considered “an ordinary woman given an extraordinary task”. Mormons barely discuss her at all, except at Christmas.


#4

RebeccaJ : :amen: I was also born and raised LDS and lived my entire life in Utah. Everything that you stated in your post is so true!..whats amazing to me is that some of the teachings when I was growing up isn’t the same as what the mormon church teaches today. I was always told the church would NEVER change:shrug:

I do think there are alot of people leaving the mormon church today they just don’t go through the hassle of removing thier records from church headquarters.


#5

Now I do find this interesting. Leaving the topic of the OP aside, I am wondering if there is any room for the Mormon church to develop its own doctrine. I read things about the ECF that are very different from what the Catholc church currently believes and I don’t see anyone freaking out about that. For example, the Wikipedia entry on the Pre-existence of spirits notes a guy named Origen who I think is an ECF and he thought that was okay but it’s a strictly LDS belief nowadays.

Still, the LDS church operates on revelation and you would expect that the doctrine should come out perfect everytime if that’s right. On the other hand, maybe, because of man’s limited understanding, even revelation takes time to work. I am open on this topic. Majick, can you shed any light on this?

If you all decide that revelation can take time to work then you should be more sympathetic to changes in Mormon teachings. If you all decide it should come out right the first time then you’ve been under the influence of some ECF who were possibly renegades. A bit of a paradox, eh?


#6

From what I read above, I think the concern might be not that doctrine has developed, but that this development was done by prophets, not ECF’s.

The hard doctrinal work about Jesus has already been done. It escapes me as to why Mormons, JW’s, Muslim’s need to re-invent the wheel.


#7

doctrinal development as understood by Catholics is more of “fleshing out” of revealed doctrine. it can’t change to something opposite. ECF’s aren’t the same as LDS general authorities either. they are more like theologians. many also held ecclesiastical authority but that was limited to their specific office. Origen was not the pope nor was he the spokesperson for the church. we value the writings of the ECFs because it gives us great insight into what these early Christians thought and understood. For the most part Catholics would consider ECF writings to be more like Mconkie’s Doctrine than like JoD or other conference reports. and to directly respond to you… YES!!! some ECF’s were kind of renegades, hence my comparison to Mconkie and I might also accept a comparison to Orson Pratts the seer for some of them. Some ECF’s were respected bishops and did their best in their writings to teach what they believed but the magisterium doesn’t rest in them. The doctrine of the church can be seen clearly in cannon law and the catechism, the documents of the various councils and the various papal proclamations that were made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

The mormon doctrine on the other hand appears to change outright., couple this with the claim to direct revelation (face to face conversations, angelic visitations, etc.) and I find it hard to see how one day there is only one trinitarian God, then there are two but only one has a body, and now there are three and two have bodies. (as one example) how does a “prophet” ask god a direct question, receive a direct answer, proclaim it to the people and then years later a different “prophet” claims that isn’t true and teaches something new?


#8

Ha, so you think McConkie was renegade. Well, we finally agree on something! In your quote above, you’re probably refering to something on another thread which has been well beaten before so I’ll try to stick to the subject of the OP.

I also appreciate your differentiating between the various Mormon “voices”. Clearly the prophet is the trump card and the current prophet the right bower (any euchre players? It’s the highest trump card)

So your claim is that the Catholic doctrine did not shift or evolve much from its early days? I’m not enough of a scholar to dispute that but I do wonder.


#9

Origen and the 15 anathemas against him:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html

“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”

Preexistence in mormonism and platonism (Origen borrowed from Plato and other Greek philosophers):

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/plato_preexist.html

Joseph Smith borrowed a lot from everywhere and created a religion out of that borrowing. His “revelations” regarding preexistence and hereafter (three degrees of glory) are found in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn connects Smith to Swedenborg’s writings in his book “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View”.


#10

I was born and raised in the mormon church. Through all of the mormon church education system I was taught that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, just like any man has intercourse with his wife.

That is an interesting speculation! One minor bit of detail overlooked: God is pure Spirit so ‘how could He have intercourse like any man!’ :stuck_out_tongue:

Why would the Creator have to rely on behaving like the created!


#11

Oh please, for everyone who is tempted to make gratuitous statements like this, based on thin air, please, I would ask you all, to refrain.

However, the links to Origen were interesting. I know that not everyone in the Catholic church believes the “party line” 100% anymore than all the liberals support all of the Democratic Party platform. But it still makes me wonder how much “evolving” of the doctrine took place over the years.


#12

However, it is interesting the similarity between Swedenborg’s heavenly levels and Joseph Smith’s. Not that it is very likely that Joseph knew about Swedenborg. Probably just a coincidence.

But it still makes me wonder how much “evolving” of the doctrine took place over the years.

Can you be more specific? Your “wondering” about vague suggestions is not helping us to nail anything down. I’d be curious about doctrinal evolutions myself. If you could present two or three examples, then maybe we could get at them.


#13

It’s true. my knowledge is lacking. My point is that too many Catholics take the evolution of their doctrine for granted and as a result, won’t grant Mormons the same privilege. Especially noticeable since you all have an 18 century head start on us.

The only thing that really comes to mind is from recent history and that would be the believer’s baptism. I have some vague recollection of being taught about Limbo, where the unbaptised go, from my (Catholic) school teacher. But apparently she was either renegade or Limbo has been replaced by the believer’s baptism.


#14

rmcmullan posted:

My point is that too many Catholics take the evolution of their doctrine for granted and as a result, won’t grant Mormons the same privilege. Especially noticeable since you all have an 18 century head start on us.

Actually no, we have a 20 century head start :wink:

It is what we call ‘the deposit of faith’. It comes from the idea that Christ left us with a seed which God has tended and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit has grown into the great body of faith that is significantly greater than that practiced and understood by the early Church.

There is biblical foundation for this: Christ said ‘There is still much I need to tell you but it will be too much for you now, but the Advocate will come and He will guide you in all truth!’

He is still guiding us now and the faith is still evolving in the human sense and still growing in the theological one :thumbsup:

Some have evolved but ‘away’ from the truth. I am not saying Mormonism is in that group. I am not qualified to say, that is for the True Church to decide. But we have not evolved away but evolved into the very truth and will continue to do so, while we remain loyal to Christ’s Holy authority vested in His appointed Shepherd the Bishop of Rome.

The Holy Church will continue to evolve and the deposit of faith continue to grow until the end of time when the then Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter will hand back the keys to Christ. :slight_smile:


#15

i’m a little confused about what you are referring to. do you mean baptism of desire? limbo was/is a concept that applied to unbaptized infants (and children under the age of accountability) that expressed the fact that we do not what God does in those cases. The Catholic church has always left it up to God regarding who goes to heaven. could you be more specific?


#16

I’m probably mixing concepts up here. I told you it was a vague memory. I thought that limbo had been discontinued and was replaced by the believer’s baptism. Unbaptised infants do grow into adults. So what becomes of them? It’s probably not baptism on behalf of the dead? Believer’s baptism? Is limbo part of the “deposit of faith?”


#17

Hi Sixtus,
Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a human being, with a glorified and perfected human body of flesh and bone. They teach that God the Father lived on a planet like our earth, worshipped his god (an earlier God the Father) and progressed to godhood - just another in a long line of gods. They believe that God the Father is married to multiple wives. They teach a multiplicity of gods, and believe that they can become gods themselves someday by obeying all the rules of the Mormon church.

Since the Mormon god is equipped with male genitalia, it is not much of a stretch to teach that he uses it.

God bless,
Paul


#18

“Limbo” was never a doctrine. It was just a word used to describe the inability of us to know what becomes of babies and children under the age of accountability who die unbaptized.

Once a person grows to the age of accountability, then he is responsible for his decisions. It is the Church’s job to teach these people the truth about Jesus so that they can make right decisions about Christ, get baptized, and enter in.

It probably is true that some people just never hear the word. I grew to my mid-20s without ever hearing it. There are others who hear it but don’t understand it, or can’t understand it for various reasons. You’re probably old enough to know how easy it is to misunderstand things, and how you gradually increase your understanding as you age.

We can’t know how Jesus will judge each person, but each person will certainly be judged according to his own behaviors, and Jesus is well aware of all the mitigating factors. As for babies, there is no Scriptural statement about the unbaptized infant. The Bible says you must be baptized. However given other things Jesus said about children, and knowing his loving disposition towards us, it is hard for me to imagine them not in Heaven.


#19

I think the question was not whether Catholic doctrine has evolved “into truth” or “away from truth;” but whether it has evolved at all. The answer is that it has—and not always “into truth”. For example, once upon a time the Catholic Church taught that Children who died in infancy without baptism would go to hell. Then, when that became politically incorrect, they changed hell to limbo, which was not much better. Now they seem to be back-pedalling on that as well, and saying that we don’t know! I have already discussed that subject in this thread. That is a huge thread. Don’t start reading from the beginning. My discussion of the subject begins in post #584, and ends in post #627. That is the range you need to look at to see the full discussion.

Catholic “evolution” of doctrine has not always been “into truth”. Sometimes it has been “away from truth”. For example, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was not always Catholic doctrine. It was canonized fairly recently. It was a very popular doctrine among the Catholic laity, and the Catholic Church decided to canonize it because of its popularity. It effectively became Catholic doctrine by popular vote! But it is not a true doctrine. It was never taught in the early Christian church, and there is not a shred of support for it in scripture. There is no support for it even in Catholic Tradition—except that it gained popularity among the laity during the Middle Ages. But the doctrine is completely false. There is no truth in it whatsoever.

zerinus


#20

So, Zerinus announces that the question wasn’t whether Catholic doctrine has evolved “into truth” or “away from truth” yet then proceeds to answer the question that he says wasn’t asked. In any case, I doubt there is serious question whether there has been development of Catholic doctrine over the centuries. And since, according to Z, THAT is the question, then we can let it remain there, because it is clear that Z being a Mormon is under the impression that the Catholic Church is and has been apostate since the end of the first century A.D. Therefore, any evolution of doctrine therein is not worth consideration, and one doth wonder why he gives it so much.

For example, once upon a time the Catholic Church taught that Children who died in infancy without baptism would go to hell. Then, when that became politically incorrect, they changed hell to limbo, which was not much better. Now they seem to be back-pedalling on that as well, and saying that we don’t know!

What you mean, “we” kimosabe? You’re not a Catholic, so it seems your choice of pronouns is inappropriate.

As for what the Catholic Church has ever taught about unbaptized children going to Hell, I have never heard of such a thing, except that it is certainly doctrine that ye must be baptized. This is probably one of the main reasons for urgency in the baptism of infants, and one certainly doth wonder why Mormons don’t feel a similar urgency, given their fondness for identification with Catholicism.

…the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was not always Catholic doctrine. It was canonized fairly recently. It was a very popular doctrine among the Catholic laity, and the Catholic Church decided to canonize it because of its popularity. It effectively became Catholic doctrine by popular vote! But it is not a true doctrine. It was never taught in the early Christian church, and there is not a shred of support for it in scripture. There is no support for it even in Catholic Tradition—except that it gained popularity among the laity during the Middle Ages. But the doctrine is completely false. There is no truth in it whatsoever.

zerinus

Well! That is certainly a stinging rebuke of Catholic doctrine on Immaculate Conception, and one which we should immediately forward over to Pope Benedict so that he can be apprised. After such a thorough and scholarly condemnation of this important Catholic Doctrine by Zerinus, no doubt the Pope will want to revisit it with a view of reversing the 1854 definition.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.