Mormon blasphemy illustrated.

The following picture is found on page 126 of the 1972 LDS Family Home Evening Manual to describe to Mormon children “how Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.”

Utter blasphemy!

1972-family-home-eveningFor more information check out:

Mormon Blasphemy: God and Mary had “natural” relations to conceive Jesus

Redefining the Virgin Birth: Mormonism’s Teaching Concerning the Natural Conception of Jesus

Other LDS related posts:

What do Mormons really believe about Christians?

The top 5 Brigham Young teachings that Mormons desperately try to conceal from you

Mormonism on how spiritual veggies differ from earthly veggies

Thanks to Mormonism, discerning good from evil is as easy as a handshake or a hair color

Requirements for Mormon salvation

The Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught by Brigham Young

The doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught by the Mormon organization

The Mormon “Jesus” is Satan’s brother

Recognizing the 202nd birthday of Joseph Smith by posting some of his false prophecies

What Mormonism really teaches about the Bible

The Gordon B. Hinckley interview (video)

When is an “everlasting covenant” not an “everlasting covenant?” When polygamy becomes unpopular

On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the LDS church wishes to remind you that they’ve been racism-free since 1978

21 thoughts on “Mormon blasphemy illustrated.

  1. Hello Pilgrim,

    Those are some classic illustrations, just a little before my time. But I must beg to differ with you. What you call blasphemy is sacred doctrine to me.

    Speaking for myself, I am a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and as imperfect as I am, I try my best to be the best Christian that I can.

    I believe that that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages that represent the God Head. They are one in purpose but three distinct Gods as the Bible teaches me.

    I also believe in the natural law, that a man and a woman are required to bring life into this world. It is very sacred to talk about how Jesus was conceived but in order to be human yet perfect in every way as a God, he needed to have a Father that is a God. Thus Our Heavenly Father is the literal father of Jesus. Thus Jesus is the “only begotten” of the Father. I don’t see any way around how life comes into this world and any way around understanding the word begotten.

    The Bible teaches me that we are heirs to the Father, that we have the potential to have all that he has, to be all that he is. That is the hope and potential of all sons in daughters. To me this is not blasphemy but how life works, through families.

    I know that we come from a loving Heavenly Father who sent his son to Earth to pay for our sins. And the fact that Jesus is the literal son of our Father in Heaven gives Jesus the unique ability to know our pains and suffering in the flesh yet he can rise above all through the atonement and the resurrection in a way that only a perfect God can do. That if we exercise Faith and Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, his grace will be sufficient to save us after all that we can do.


  2. Hello and greetings Hermite 2000.

    Thanks for stopping by DefCon and thanks for your comment.

    I didn’t overlook your quote “That if we exercise Faith and Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, his grace will be sufficient to save us after all that we can do.

    That certainly needs to be addressed, (and can be later), but I can’t get over the wholesale acceptance of the idea that Heavenly Father had physical sex with Mary to conceive Jesus.

    Allow me to clarify what you’re saying . . . and correct me if I’m wrong.

    You’re saying that the eternal, holy, Triune creator of Heaven and earth had sexual intercourse with a human being and that lines up perfectly with you?

    What makes this even more disturbing (not to mention this would render Mary no longer a virgin) is the fact that according to LDS theology Mary was the physical daughter of God the Father as a result of his polygamist sexual relations with one of his goddess wives. So this means that not only did the God of LDS theology have sex with his own creation, but that the intercourse was incestual.

    Does that even seem remotely disturbing to you?

    – The Pilgrim

    When the virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family . . . . What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. . . . Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.

    – Brigham Young / Millennial Star / Volume 15 / Pages 769-770 / 1853

    . . . do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20

    The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35


  3. Thanks for the quick response.

    I have searched the scriptures and have never found any of our doctrines contrary or inconsistent with a loving Heavenly Father providing us a way to return and live with him.

    To answer your question about the potential incestual nature of our Holy Father in Heaven and Mary, I have to disagree once more. In fact, I believe that we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father and in some form or fashion that would make any relationship we have with anyone here on earth would be of an incestual nature. It is just not an issue for me. If I can be with my wonderful and bring 4 beautiful children to this earth then God the Father can be with Mary in order to beget his Child so that we can be saved. If incest is an issue, how did the first few generations of Adam and Eve procreate. Brothers and sisters had to have married. Now, please do not get me wrong. I am in know way condoning incest at this time. But I have no idea how the children of Adam and Eve could get around the issue.

    So the Savior must be of the flesh in order to complete the plan. Without the condescension of Jesus Christ, where Christ is spiritually and physically here, we could not be saved. He has to be a God from the flesh, in order to prove all things and rise above them and to know how to help us. There is no other way to bring a life into this world other than two parents, a mother and a father.

    I feel that this topic is very sacred and that throughout the scriptures there seems to be times when the Lord leaves us hints and not entire knowledge in order to protect and keep certain aspects sacred. I believe this is one area why the word “Holy Spirit” is used in Matthew and Luke. I know of no way that a spirit can imbue or transmit DNA or any other matter. The Holy Spirit as a member of the God Head is a testator of truth, a comforter. We feel his presence but he does not have flesh and bones as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ have. Why did Luke and Matthew use “Holy Spirit”, I do not know. All I do know is that the Holy Ghost does not have the ability to help conceive a child, it is just not possible.

    We believe the Bible to be true as long as it is translated correctly. We also believe in modern revelation and living prophets. I am grateful for a prophet like Brigham Young that has clarified this point of doctrine for us in this modern age. Just like we no longer sacrifice lambs as they did in Jesus’ time, we have received modern revelation to help us understand points of doctrine where ancient scriptures might have lost some of there plain and precious truths.

    These are my personal views and not necessarily the views of my Church but I feel that they are consistent with the teachings of the prophets and my Church.

    Again, I know of no other way in order to bring a life into this world. There had to be a physical conception. Also, I have faith that there are also some things about my faith and religion that has to be taken completely on faith. I do not understand it all right now, I may some day but for now I am satisfied that the plan of happiness is set out for me, and that the Church is true. If Joseph Smith is a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God then the Church is true and it is all true. I do not need complete understanding of all point of doctrine to know that it is true.

    Thanks for listening to me and appreciate the opportunity to share my feelings and understanding on this matter.


  4. Isn’t it important to understand that English versions of the Bible are translations and hold their authority by nature from the original language, that is the autographa? Therefore believing the Bible is correct inasmuch as it is translated correctly shouldn’t hold anymore weight than someone who reads the Bible in its Greek form, the Septuagint, or translates Hebrew texts along with the Septuagint? I mean to say that the scholars who translated the ESV are just as competent and trustworthy as what any LDS person would claim over an LDS scholar.

    If the Holy Spirit can help create the Earth when hovering over the face of the waters, creating a human life inside the mother wouldn’t be too much of a stretch.

    Wouldn’t a better rendering of the Biblical word ‘faith’ preclude blindness or blind assumption or even blind belief? As I understand it, the God who calls for faith calls for a kind of belief that is more transformational than informational (that is: effectual rather than a core set of beliefs), and more informational than assumptive (that is: based upon plausible assertions, i.e. having a reason to believe God’s promises [that are clearly evidenced in the Word] because he has shown that he keeps his promises).

    I’m just throwing all this randomly out there. I know there is an LDS defense for this stuff. But it just gets me how Scripture itself isn’t enough, that there is more. At what point will this stop? Gnostics did it. Islam did it. Ba’hai did it. Mormons did it. And another group will come along soon and do it. And in another 100 years, if Christ doesn’t return, another group will do it. It seems that, if you take all this, that there is no final court of arbitration, only the rule of power and enforcement.

    I’ll take the Bible alone any day (and not just for the prior simplistic reasoning).


  5. Dear Hermite 2000:

    You acknowledge my quick response and then I follow it up with no response for a couple days. Sorry; been a little busy. Hope I didn’t let you down. :o)

    Any-who, you said:
    “I have searched the scriptures and have never found any of our doctrines contrary or inconsistent with a loving Heavenly Father . . .”

    Perhaps not the god of LDS, but they certainly conflict with the revealed will of the God of the Bible. The amount of LDS inconsistencies and conflicts with Scripture (and by this I mean the Holy Bible) abound. To scratch the surface though, would detract from the issue at hand (which come to think of it, is an example of those LDS teachings contrary to the Bible).

    You said:
    “I believe that we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father and in some form or fashion that would make any relationship we have with anyone here on earth would be of an incestual nature.”

    You are both right an wrong.

    Where I agree: We all stem from our parents Adam and Eve so in that respect we could say mankind is incestual, however, it wasn’t until the Law was given to Moses that we were instructed to no longer have relations with those within our immediate family. Your view is that God broke His own law to have sex with Mary . . . His own daughter!

    Where I disagree:
    We are not all spirit children of God. The Bible is very clear on who is and who isn’t a child of God. To save space I direct your attention to a brief post I wrote citing the Scriptural support that not everyone is a child of God. You can check it out here.

    Where I also disagree:
    God’s command to Adam & Eve to multiply was Scriptural. The LDS teaching that God had sex with Mary is not. To use God’s command to Adam & Eve to justify the abhorrent
    and utterly blasphemous notion that eternal Deity had intercourse with mortal man is not only unscriptural, but it is plain sick and heretical.

    You said:
    “We feel his presence but he does not have flesh and bones as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ have.”
    Wrong again! God does not have flesh and bone. Have you not read:

    God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:24

    You said:
    “Why did Luke and Matthew use ‘Holy Spirit’, I do not know. All I do know is that the Holy Ghost does not have the ability to help conceive a child, it is just not possible.”
    Really? Would not creating the world, and parting the sea, and raising the dead all be “impossible?” You would rightly say “Not to God.” However you suggest that the Holy Spirit being used in the conception of Christ is impossible? Think about this. Consider what you’re saying here. The miracles of God are possible when LDS agrees with them, but the moment a miracle conflicts with your pretexts, then you have discovered something impossible for God to do. Very intellectually dishonest.

    You justify ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture with I don’t know, but I know it’s impossible. Wouldn’t this be one of the mysteries of God that you spoke about?

    This is a classic case of LDS teaching not lining up with the Bible so out goes the Bible. Didn’t you open your comment with “I have searched the scriptures and have never found any of our doctrines contrary or inconsistent . . .”?

    You said:
    “I am grateful for a prophet like Brigham Young that has clarified this point of doctrine for us in this modern age. Just like we no longer sacrifice lambs as they did in Jesus’ time . . .” Uh, that doctrine did not originate with Brigham Young. But Brigham did teach Blood Atonement. You know, the teaching that we no longer sacrifice lambs but people!

    You said:
    “If Joseph Smith is a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God then the Church is true and it is all true. I do not need complete understanding of all point of doctrine to know that it is true.”

    And conversely, the opposite is true.

    And I stand here and proclaim to you–bearing my testimony–that I know that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, and that the Book of Mormon is not true, and that the LDS organization is not true.

    Now in conclusion, you’ve left two comments in regards to the original post and I have yet to see you cite any Scriptural reference to support the horrendously blasphemous idea that God Almighty had sex with His own creation. In fact, the opposite is true; you have completely ignored what Scripture clearly says and even summarily dismissed it.

    That should (and does) raise red flags. As for me, I will be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to compare what man says against what God has revealed.

    – The Pilgrim


  6. Hermite,

    You said, “We believe the Bible to be true as long as it is translated correctly. We also believe in modern revelation and living prophets.

    Question: When the “modern revelation and living prophets” say something that contradicts what is “translated correctly” in the Bible–which one do you believe? The Bible? Or the prophet?

    And what if the teachings of the LDS church contradict one another? Because, according to Gospel Principles, chapter 11,

    The angel told [Mary] that she was to be the mother of the Son of God. She asked him how this was possible (see Luke 1:34). He told 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” (Luke 1:35). Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ.

    That’s official Mormon teaching.

    So who impregnated Mary? Was it intercourse between the Father and Mary? Or was it the Holy Ghost and Mary?


  7. Hello Pilgrim and others,

    I am very busy myself and try to find time to blog when I can, so worries.

    I respectfully disagree with you but I respect your point of view. Faith is ultimately a personal quest that we all must undertake.

    It is with faith and my testimony that I know Joseph Smith is a Prophet of the Lord.

    The Bible contains the word of God but it also contains many inconsistencies, most Biblical scholars know that. A basic look at the chronology of the Bible and the historical lineage of the authors shows that many books were left out while some, like The Song of Solomon, remained in.

    This is not Blasphemy this is realistic, that context, translation and many other factors play into scripture, for good and for Bad. Was King James a Prophet of the Lord? No, he did his best what he was given. Thus the need for modern Prophets is always needed. That is how the Lord works, through Prophets.

    I appreciate the discussion and in the end I must say that through prayer and study this is what I believe and I hope and pray that you can continue in your search. Ultimately I am not going to convince you of anything, no scripture bashing session or theological discussion is sufficient. Really all I can say is that we need to ask God if these things are true. I have asked God and he has answered, and thus I believe. Somethings I do not fully understand. If they did then I would not be human. If we knew and understood everything then where would the test be?

    There will always need for faith. I am LDS not because someone has convince me but because the Spirit has confirmed that it is true. There is no other way to know. Just like in the Epistle of James, that if you ask God he will answer, and my questions about Joseph Smith, The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and Modern Prophets have been confirmed. There is no contradiction, only peace.

    I wish you the best in all your good endeavours in life.

    Thank you for your time.


  8. Dear Hermite 2000:

    If there are so many of these books left out of the Bible (as you claim), then one would expect to see them in LDS’ standard works. After all, the Book of Mormon (as LDS claims) contains the fullness of the everlasting Gospel . . . right? So why does it not contain these supposed “lost books?”

    And as you attack the Bible (as every cult does from LDS to JWs to Christian Science etc) you conspicuously neglect to mention that the Book of Mormon has undergone almost 4,000 documented corrections, changes, additions, subtractions, etc.

    Additionally you said that: “That is how the Lord works, through Prophets.” Wrong again, Hermite!

    Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly says:
    “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”

    You have not used Scripture to support any of the assertions that you have made in your comments. But you have successfully revealed what Mormons really believe about the Bible in spite of what the LDS commercials say.

    You may resort to calling the careful study and application of holy writ as a mere “scripture bashing session” but like the Bereans I choose to study to see if these things are so. You, however, have chosen to base your eternal destiny on a feeling, at the exclusion of the mountains of evidence against LDS. I have studied Mormonism and it is because of this study that I can confidently say that LDS is a false religion started by a false prophet.

    In closing, you initially attempted to defend the utterly blasphemous heresy that God the Father had sex with his own daughter to create Jesus (and his spirit brother Lucifer too), yet never once did you attempt to do so from Scripture.

    I firmly feel that this exchange has only helped to further reveal the false doctrines of LDS.

    The “Jesus” of LDS does not save because the “Jesus” of LDS is an idol that does not exist. I sincerely hope and pray that you are one day led to repentance and faith in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. For many will come to Him saying “Lord Lord” and many will be told to depart from Him because He never knew them.

    – The Pilgrim

    Never speculate about Church Doctrine.
    Gospel Principles
    Page 2

    But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.
    Herber C. Kimball
    Journal of Discourses
    Volume 6 Page 32

    When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.
    Ward Teachers Message Improvement Era
    Deseret News, Church Section Page 354
    Page 5 1945
    May 26, 1945


  9. I was delighted to find your website. The first hing I saw was 50 answer to 50 Mormon answers to 50 anti Mormon questions. It seems to me that to often it is difficult to carry on a volley of ideas back and forth my previous experience is that an answer is followed by a change of subject.

    I have a couple of thoughts regarding your response to the Mormon concept of God the Father’s relation to Jesus and to Mary. Much is made that Mormon’s believe that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, yet I cannot find this phrase in any of the Mormon teachings which you cite. I do find where Mormons believe that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father in the Flesh, but to leap from their to the comment about intercourse is not a leap that I have ever seen made. God has all power that exists. The New Testament says that it was by the power of the Holy Ghost that it was done. I believe that it is possible for:
    1. God the Father to be the father of Jesus Christ and for Jesus to inherit immortal power from Him,
    2. for it to be done by the power of the Holy Ghost,
    3. For Mary to be a virgin, and
    4. for sexual intercourse which seems to be consistently mentioned here yet conspicuously absent from from Mormon teachings to not even be in the picture. Remember, it is the power of God we are talking about here. Somehow the intercourse concept has been added by those who do not comprehend the teachings of the Mormon church and the Power of God


  10. Dear David Robert:

    Thank you for your comment. The fact is Mormonism has taught that God the Father had physical relations with his own daughter Mary (just like us mortals do), to begot the LDS Jesus. You simply cannot escape this fact.

    You will find a plethora of quotes on this very matter from LDS leaders (with sources noted) at your very fingertips simply by going to this previous DefCon link.

    Also check out Redefining the Virgin Birth by MRM.

    Once you understand the true LDS teachings on this subject, you’ll finally understand what’s so wrong with the picture in this post. And that’s only the tip of the proverbial iceberg with Mormon theology.

    – The Pilgrim

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


  11. Thanks, Actually I had seen the quotes you mentioned before I posted, I’ve read them and if you believe they support a belief that God the Father had physical relations with Mary you get more from them than I do. I can see how someone unacquainted with Mormon teachings could be confused but physical relations is simply not an inference made by Mormons from the quotes cited. (Orson Pratt perhaps being an exception but he tended to sometimes say things that were his beliefs and not the teachings of the Mormon church.
    The Holy Ghost had a role. (Luke 1:35) The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest (which Mormons understand to be God the Father) shall overshadow thee. Mary was a virgin, Jesus was both mortal because of his mother and Immortal because of his Father, God the Father. It was by the power of the Holy Ghost and not through physical relations that Jesus was conceived. To infer something else is to twist words into something that would not be recognized by Mormon’s as a tenant of their belief. Though they are reading the same quotes that you cite.


  12. David Robert – To read the quotes as they are written with an understanding of the English language, the only conclusion is that the doctrine holds to a physical relationship “…in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” There is no overshadowing as far as I understand with mortal men being begotten by mortal fathers. But, maybe things are done differently where you live.


  13. Mormonism and its defenders spend a tremendous amount of time:

    1. Telling people that what LDS once taught, they no longer teach.

    2. That what LDS once believed they no longer believe.

    3. And (in this case) what is an easy to understand transfer of information via the written word, and which anyone who can read and anyone with even the slightest grasp of the English language can see, is actually just an illusion. It’s not really there; what you are reading does not really say that.

    Just one isolated verse? Perhaps you could argue the point of a misunderstanding, but the myriad of teachings from a wide range of LDS leaders and teachers on this subject (including Pratt who you summarily dismiss yet if he was teaching heresy why has he not been rebuked and why do his books continue to be sold by LDS?) cannot be ignored.

    With all due respect, David, please try to sell your theory somewhere else. We’re not buying it and you’re not going to change over 100 years of LDS teaching by telling us what all those men said is not really what they said.

    And amazingly, in spite of your insistence that we don’t understand what we are so obviously reading, there are still Mormons today who do in fact believe what they read (something you’re attempting to keep us from doing).

    I’ll leave you with an excerpt from an article by Mormon Kevin Barney writing in the LDS Times and Seasons from March 2005:

    Anyway, what I want to focus on in this post is “the belief that Jesus Christ was born as the result of sexual intercourse between Elohim and Mary.”

    Critics of the Church of course love this scandalous nugget (some conflating it with the Adam-God Doctrine to have Adam having sexual intercourse with Mary). It is a commonplace in anti-Mormon literature and websites. And since on its face it appears blasphemous, we have a tendency to recoil from it, to be (overly?) defensive about it, and increasingly to reject it. My usual tack when asked about it is to point out that the idea is not now and never was doctrine; it was a speculation. It is not binding on anyone, and in fact my impression is that it has become very much a minority view in the Church, and that most Mormons do not accept this characterization of the physical generation of the mortal Jesus.

    I will confess, however, that I actually like this idea. Maybe it is because I have a streak of old fashioned Mormonism somewhere inside me. But I find it appealing on several levels. First, there is a certain naturalism to the idea. I presume the mortal Jesus had 46 chromosomes, and that 23 came from Mary, but where did the other 23 come from? As a Mormon, I’m not big on the idea that they were created ex nihilo for this specific purpose. I like being able to say that Jesus really did have a father, not in a metaphorical sense only (the language of begetting in the creeds doesn’t mean litera begetting), but in a physical sense. He really was the Son of God.

    I also find it fascinating that people see this idea as being so totally offensive. To me, that speaks not only to our radically different conception of God and man as being of the same species, our literalist notion of divine paternalism and our radical materialism, but also to our Puritan heritage. If it is so disgusting to suggest God sired a son by sexual intercourse, why, I wonder, did God ordain that to be the natural method by which we conceive our own children? Is that just some sort of a cosmic joke? Does God sit in yonder heavens and look down on his creatures and laugh at their disgusting and dirty and ridiculous actions? Isn’t it possible that, if God ordained sexual intercourse as the means by which we create children, that it is divinely appointed and not disgusting or dirty at all?

    I freely concede that the old fashioned Mormon speculators didn’t think all the way through this idea, and there are theological loose ends, to be sure. But I am curious: does anyone else here kind of like this old notion, or is it Mormon materialism run amuck?

    I guess, David, us non-Mormons aren’t the only one’s who are inferring “something else” and “twist[ing] words into something that would not be recognized by Mormon’s as a tenant of their belief. Though they are reading the same quotes that [I] cite,” as you say.

    – The Pilgrim


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

    David Robert,

    How were you begotten by your mortal father? That is how the Mormon church believes Jesus was begotten by Heavenly Father. It’s as simple as that. Here are some more:

    * “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7)

    * “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh…” (First Presidency and Council of Twelve, 1916. Cited in Ensign. April 2002. p.13.)


  15. This reminds me of the composite picture of a young girl and an old women. Whichever one you see is the one you have been exposed to first. I read the responses to my post and think they prove my point.
    1. Resorting to a first edition (1966) version of Mormon Doctrine, the one that, according to David O’McKay’s biography “The Rise of Modern Mormonism” contained 1,067 errors. would indicate that it was an error subsequently removed.
    2. To quote an unknown Mormon (Kevin Barney) on an unofficial website (times and seasons) on something he believes when he states that most Mormons do not accept this characterization of the physical generation of the mortal Jesus. is to restate the very point I was making,
    He may accept it, but he is out of step with most Mormons. A reading of the comments his statement brings out hammers that home.
    3. “To read the quotes as they are written with an understanding of the English language,” would seem to require the same interpretation of the statement:
    “Jesus is the only Son of God by nature”

    I don’t believe the author of those words at means there was actual physical relations but the same phrase on a Mormon website would be quoted to prove your point because of what you expect to see.


  16. Dear David:

    1. The original Book of Mormon contains 3,913 “errors” but it’s ok, just Mormon Doctine’s 1966 edition is bad/unreliable because it contains 1,067 errors. That makes a whole lot of sense. (BTW, Is anyone else seeing a pattern of “errors” here in Mormonism?)

    2. This “unknown” Mormon (Kevin Barney) is now wrong in your eyes because he believes something Mormonism has historically taught, but which most Mormons today reject? Truth is truth, regardless of majority opinion. Mormons reject a lot of what its founders taught (see Blood Atonement, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, etc). I have much more respect for Mormons who stick to their guns and adhere to their founder’s original teachings (in spite of public opinion) as opposed to those who change whatever they don’t like whenever it becomes unpopular (or illegal, or prevents Utah from obtaining statehood status, or because racism is no longer tolerated, etc.).

    3. Scripture interprets Scripture. The same can be applied to LDS doctrine when it comes to the beliefs of its founders. You can back peddle all day long, but what early Mormons taught and believed is plain (for those who study it without the indoctrination of current LDS spinsters) for all to see.

    Ironically, anyone who has reviewed the early LDS documents, teachings, and writings will see a drastically stark difference between the Mormonism of yesteryear, and the new Mormonism that tries desperately to cover up its many awful teachings and appear more, and more like Christianity. A tactic that Satan is very successful at.

    I must admit, David, you have given it a valiant attempt in your endeavor to skew the plain and simple teachings of LDS. Unfortunately, in spite of all your efforts, it is what it is and all the word games in the world will not change it, so if you wish to continue putting icing on excrement and calling it a cupcake, I suggest cooking in someone else’s bakery.

    – The Pilgrim


  17. I don’t see how this is blasphemy. I can see how if it’s misunderstood, it may seem weird. I wasn’t always a member of the LDS church. In fact up until two years ago I was anti-Mormon. But that’s not the point I’m making. The point is nothing on that page contradicts any thing in the Bible. With no scriptural basis, I don’t see how you can scream blasphemy. To address some of the others on this page who are speaking against my faith I ask you, As Christians aren’t we to be like Christ? Christ teaches in Matthew 5:44 “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” Although I’ve heard the argument that you only say these things to us to try and bring back to the truth and “away from a brainwashing cult,” I don’t know if you realize the impact your words can have. Not only am I offended by some of the things said not just here but also throughout the entirety of the internet, because of people trying to “help me out” most of my family has disowned me. Your words of “helping love” turned into the powder keg that destroyed my family. I am only 19 years old and members of my own household have trouble speaking to me because they read a bunch of anti-Mormon literature. Call it a personal crusade if you will but I just want to let you know rather then helping people you tend to hurt them. Take the Christ like attitude. Let us worship how we please. Just as the eleventh Article of Faith states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” All we ask for is that same attitude in return.


  18. Bro.Ertel:

    No one here is forbidding you (or anyone else) from worshiping who or what you choose. IF, however, I truly loved someone, who displayed evidence of placing their eternal security in false beliefs, and I didn’t make some attempt to tell them God’s word concerning their eternity, would I be truly loving them? If I silently let them worship who or what they chose to worship without a word of warning, would I be loving them (given that according to God’s word, worship of anything or anyone other than the true God of the Scriptures is idolatry, and no idolaters will enter heaven (1 Cor. 6:9).

    The same loving Jesus told those who thought they were followers of His, to depart from Him (because they were also practicing what He forbids) (Matt. 7:21-23). The same loving Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites”, “vipers”, “blind fools”, “blind guides”, “children of hell” (Matt. 23). This same loving Jesus overturned the merchant’s tables in the Temple. This same Jesus rebuked 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation for their errors. This same God brought fire from heaven, killing the sons of Aaron for attempting to worship Him in a way He had not approved.

    My friend, the Mormon church brings a different gospel from that what is given in the Scriptures (you merely need to look at their actual quoted teachings given elsewhere in this site), and God’s word has said something about that as well:

    “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8-9

    My friend, we will not be judged for all eternity on what we think, what other men tell us, what our church teaches, or what we feel is right. We will only be judged by what God has said in His word (Jn. 12:48). I do not want you to perish in your sins. I implore you to take heed to God’s word.


  19. Nice to hear our story Bro.Ertel. Whether we are for or against any give idea or subject the basis of conversation has to be rooted in respect. It seems that so many of those in the Blogosphere and elsewhere are extremely hostile and down right hateful toward Mormons. All I want to do is live my life the best I know how, to share what I know with those that want to listen and respect others faiths and beliefs as I hope they would do the same to me.

    I believe in the Book of Mormon, I believe that we came from a loving Heavenly Father who wants us to return and live with him someday through following the example of his Son, Jesus Christ. That is what we believe, that Christ saves and that those that follow him will be saved. I believe that our Church is guided by a living Prophet just like Moses, Jacob, and Elijah of Old. If Christ teaches it we teach it, if he did not teach it we don’t teach it. It his his Church and not ours, he is the head and we are the learners, learning line upon line and precept upon precept.

    All we ask is some civility in the discussion. A difference of belief and opinion is not grounds for disrespect. I have many friends who are not Mormons and we get along fine. Peace


  20. hermite2000,

    We are not being hateful towards you. In fact, as DavidW stated, we are warning you out of love for you… out of a concern for where you will spend your eternity.

    While you may say your church teaches biblical Christianity, you are mistaken. The LDS church was established by Joseph Smith, who claimed he was given a revelation that the Christian Church had fallen into apostasy, and that he was to bring the restored church to the world.

    Your church founders indeed had the most unkind things to say about Christians and the Christian Church, so before you cry victim here, you need to do your homework.


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s