As Todd Requested...LDS Teachings God was once a Man

[Returning_Home]

[Todd? are you aware that the Mormon Church teaches that god took on flesh and had sexual intercourse with Jesus mother? to beget Jesus?

Mormons, is the above a genuine LDS belief?

No, it is not–but that is an accusation that comes up again and again, and is refuted again and again.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Parker’s answer was deceptive. What he should’ve said was that “Mormons no longer believe that.” That would’ve been an honest answer, but he left that part out.

Mormons believe:

-That the prophet speaks for God (D&C 21:4-5)

-That we should follow his inspired teachings completely (Gospel Principles, p 49)

-That the prophet will never lead us astray (Gospel Principles, p 50)

That established, we should find a consistancy in LDS teachings, but instead, we find that Joseph F. Smith clearly taught that Jesus was, indeed, the product of physical, literal sex: “…how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father…I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you can talk to your parents about it, that God the Eternal Father, is *literally *the father of Jesus Christ.” (prophet Joseph F. Smith, speaking to children at the Box Elder Stake Conference, Dec 20 1914, quoted in *Brigham City Elder News *Jan 28, 1915 and Family Home Evening, Personal Commitment, 1972, p 125)

Since there seems to be no conditions under which the prophet can be wrong when speaking on matters of God and spirituality, it makes no sense that God would be confused about his own nature while speaking through the prophet Joseph F. Smith.

We also have confirmation of this in Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine: “Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (p 546 under “Only Begotten Son.”)

And again: “There is nothing figurative about his (Christ’s) paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says (1 Nephi 11).” (p 742)

What also needs to be noted is that just because the garden-variety Mormons don’t believe something doesn’t mean that the church itself doesn’t hold something to be true. For example, the church always publicly denied polygamy until D&C 132 was published in 1876, even though it was actively practicing it for some 40 years by that point. And even after the church renounced it, there were still polygamous marriages and families within the church, up to and including Joseph F. Smith (the same one noted above) who plead guilty to violating Utah’s anti-polygamy laws, having fathered 11 children within polygamy *after *the manifesto banning in 1890.

Smith was the prophet of the church at the time which begs the question: how can one fulfill the will of God by breaking the laws of God?.

The belief of God having a body of flesh and bone ultimately ties into polygamy because, when still practiced, Mormons were emulating God, who physically fathered his own children. This is what I refer to as a passive doctrine, something implied but never officially made clear as doctrine by the church.

This, of course, goes back to something that I’ve long been saying, and that’s that the Mormon jesus is the product of incest between the Mormon god and Mary.
[/quote]

 

[ParkerD]

1. Thank you for the link. It seems to me that the early Church had some interesting ideas about our spiritual side. However, the jump that God joined with Heavenly Mother is not referenced as far as I can see. I do not see that idea supported by scripture or by early Church writings. Do you?
2. Does that makes us the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ? If so, then what makes Jesus Christ divine and us, only human?
   Is the Pearl of Great Price considered doctrine? (I should know this by now, I know!)

Lax16,
The LDS belief is that the Bible was being literal when it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) Further, that God knew of the blessings of such a relationship as marriage, and of the nurturing power of womanhood in nurturing a child or even a spirit child.

1. It makes us the spiritual offspring of God but in a different way than Christ is the spiritual offspring of God, since He was the FirstBorn spirit, the pre-eminent One, who was full of light and truth and love and was therefore God in the pre-mortal sphere of existence, and was known by us as the FirstBorn and as our Perfect Exemplar there as well as He would be sent to earth to be so here.

So that second question is a very significant question to understand the answer to. The Bible is clear that Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ, was God the Son in the pre-mortal realm. He was omnipotent and omniscient, and was obedient in all things to truth, light, and the plan of salvation planned by Heavenly Father. Those qualities are what “made Jesus divine” in the pre-mortal world, where He also created this earth as the Word (“without Him was not any thing made that was made”–John 1:3) in complete cooperation with our Heavenly Father.

The plan of salvation was that there is a way for us to become like Jesus in perfection and in Oneness with the Father, just as He prayed for in His intercessory prayer (only through Him because of the atonement and sacrifice He suffered for humankind).

But for us that required this mortal life, away from the presence of God, to be both tested and to be purified through adversity (consider Job) and through sanctification. Jesus didn’t need that same kind of mortal experience, because He was already full of the qualities of perfection, light, fullness of truth and fullness of love. He really is Emmanuel, God with us.

Yes, the Pearl of Great Price is considered doctrine in the LDS church teachings.

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home - Thank you for your response. I have a couple of things to say, but am afraid to be off topic. I am tempted to start a new thread…

In Numbers 30, it is clear that a vow of abstinence, even in marriage, was not unheard of.

Have you read St. Jerome on The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary vs. Heludius (380 A.D.)? What are your thoughts?

In the many approved apparitions of Mary, she is called the Virgin Mary. Why would this be? (for example, The Virgin of Guadalupe)

I can start a new thread if it seems like this might turn into an interesting conversation!

Yes, you can start another thread on this if you like.

On your first point, I agree, but like Parker pointed out, Matthew 1:24-25 says that Joseph didn’t *know *Mary till (the same as until) the firstborn Jesus was brought forth. This sets the time that he’d *know *her, as in have sex with, in the future.

No, I haven’t read St. Jerome and on the other issue, I’ll save my opinion should you start the new thread.

 

[campeador]

We have all of his brothers named and in the Greek text, ‘brother’ comes from adelphos, which always means brother or brotherhood, but explanations run from these men being his cousins, his neighbors, or sometimes Joseph’s kids from a previous marriage.

Hmmm…
(1 Cor 15:6)???adelphos

 

[Stephen168]

Your response seems to be:
A. Mormons believe God was once a man
B. Mormons believe God was never sinful
Therefore _________________(run away and quote the catechism)

My question would be: How does the Mormon Church fill in the blank?

God is not sinful, BECAUSE GOD IS NOT SINFUL

To Summarize:
A. Mormons believe God was once a man (a=b)
B. Mormons believe God was never sinful (a≠c)
Therefore God was not sinful (a≠c)
so Man is not sinful (b≠c)

Does the Mormon Church teach that man is not sinful?

 

[ParkerD]

I find his being “pleasantly surprised” by these two teachings hard to believe since he seems quite familiar with that “abomination” the Nicene Creed where both are clearly stated. Quite frankly the level of ignorance shown in the statement and the amount of time spent on this board belie the the claim of seeking understanding.

Zaffiroborant,
I never happen to read the Nicene Creed unless someone posts it and I happen to read it in their post. I also go more on what people write “off the cuff” as to what they really believe rather than a creed that says what they’re “supposed to believe”.

I must have misunderstood when Catholics seemed to come across as saying that the LDS belief that Jesus was the literal Son of God the Father was a belief that was something to show surprise about. I honestly misunderstood what they were writing, evidently.

Not until I read parts of the older thread where the topic was addressed and discussed by some Catholics “talking” with each other and came up on the first page one day, did I see a clear position presented on that question. If you need me to try and find the thread, I suppose that I could take the time to do that.

 

[PaulDupre]

The teaching that the Mormon heavenly father had sex with Mary was widely taught in times past, but when I was LDS not all Mormons knew of this teaching or accepted it.

Before I had ever been contacted by LDS missionaries, I had considered this question. When I was an investigator, I asked the missionaries “how did Mary get pregnant”? Jeff, the senior companion (who later married my sister) answered that God the Father, having a body of flesh and bones, came down to earth and “overshadowed” the virgin Mary, having physical sex with her. He explained that “overshadowed” meant that the Father was on top of Mary, thereby casting his shadow on her. Ron, the junior companion, strenuously objected to the idea and they had an argument about it right there in our living room. Jeff said they would go and ask the mission president and get back to me.

A few days later, they returned. Ron said that he had been mistaken, and that the mission president had informed him that God the Father indeed came down to earth and had intercourse with Mary. I could tell that he was not happy about it.

Since then, I have heard many Mormons opine on the subject. While I was LDS it was about 50/50, breaking down uniformly along age lines. I’m not sure how it would break down these days. I suspect that Mormons my age and older would mostly agree with Jeff, while younger Mormons (who seem to be woefully ignorant about the teachings of former prophets) would agree with Ron.

If Mormonism is distancing itself from this teaching, I can only be glad.

 

[ParkerD]

Does the Mormon Church teach that man is not sinful?

Answer:

Man of Holiness was not sinful, ever.

Any man who is not a Man of Holiness is, by practice through their imperfect choices, sinful and needs redemption from their sinful state to a state of holiness.

 

[Todd520]

The teaching that the Mormon heavenly father had sex with Mary was widely taught in times past, but when I was LDS not all Mormons knew of this teaching or accepted it.

If Mormonism is distancing itself from this teaching, I can only be glad.

Paul, thanks for sharing.
I 'm hoping some long term LDS will comment on the extent this was taught and where it came from. I’m new an haven’t encountered it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Lax16,
The LDS belief is that the Bible was being literal when it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) Further, that God knew of the blessings of such a relationship as marriage, and of the nurturing power of womanhood in nurturing a child or even a spirit child.

You know I’ve always found this attitude toward “nurturing” offensive, and it isn’t only from LDS that I see it either, although they do natter on about it. The idea that women alone are capable of nurturing children insults the men in my life. It insults my grandfather who was widowed with 7 young children and who I spent many hours with recounting my woes, receiving sympathy and wisdom as a result. My dad who was one of my dearest friends and confidents, who I still miss 18 years after his untimely death. My uncles who were also were always in my life and available when I needed them. And my brother, I can not possibly describe the empathy, compassion, tenderness and perception he has shown towards me growing up, my children, and now his. This is not to say the women in my life were not nurturing but that men are always given short shrift in this area and it is terribly insulting to them. This attitude furthers the crippling of the nurturing aspect of men, encouraging them to leave it up to the women who are good at this stuff. Nurturing is not a woman thing it’s a human thing, that’s what the Gospel teaches us, and that is what the men in my family have lived. I’d also add that when I married, the men in the family I gained have also shown an innate ability for nurturing. The loss of my FIL and BIL is still felt these years later because of their nurturing.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
I never happen to read the Nicene Creed unless someone posts it and I happen to read it in their post. I also go more on what people write “off the cuff” as to what they really believe rather than a creed that says what they’re “supposed to believe”.

I must have misunderstood when Catholics seemed to come across as saying that the LDS belief that Jesus was the literal Son of God the Father was a belief that was something to show surprise about. I honestly misunderstood what they were writing, evidently.

Not until I read parts of the older thread where the topic was addressed and discussed by some Catholics “talking” with each other and came up on the first page one day, did I see a clear position presented on that question. If you need me to try and find the thread, I suppose that I could take the time to do that.

I would appreciate your time if you did. Quite frankly I don’t understand at all why you have not read the Nicene Creed yet you confidently go along with JS statements that our creeds are an abomination. At a few hundred words (maybe 350) I would think in your life you could have come up with the 3 minutes it would take to read it. I assume you were a missionary who gave lessons on the abomination of the creeds it seems to me that if you are going to tell people they are an abomination the least you could have done is actually read it. LDS here continuously advise the we read the 600 pages of the BOM but you can’t bring yourself to spend a couple of minutes reading that which you actively preach against

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
The LDS belief is that the Bible was being literal when it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) Further, that God knew of the blessings of such a relationship as marriage, and of the nurturing power of womanhood in nurturing a child or even a spirit child.

The passage says “God created man…” not “God and heavenly mother procreated and there was man in their likeness.” How is that a literal interpretation?

1. It makes us the spiritual offspring of God but in a different way than Christ is the spiritual offspring of God, since He was the FirstBorn spirit, the pre-eminent One, who was full of light and truth and love and was therefore God in the pre-mortal sphere of existence, and was known by us as the FirstBorn and as our Perfect Exemplar there as well as He would be sent to earth to be so here.

**from the Ensign magazine: Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We should come to ‘know … the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent’ (John 17:3). ‘… To know God is to think what he thinks, to feel what he feels, to have the power he possesses, to comprehend the truths he understands, and to do what he does. Those who know God become like him, and have his kind of life, which is eternal life.’ … He instructed his Nephite disciples: ‘What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am’ (3 Ne. 27:27)” (“Our Lord and Savior,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 7).

It seems to me if man has the power that God possesses, and His comprehension, etc. that Mormons believe that man has already reached his ability to be god-like with no need of a Messiah.**

So that second question is a very significant question to understand the answer to. The Bible is clear that Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ, was God the Son in the pre-mortal realm. He was omnipotent and omniscient, and was obedient in all things to truth, light, and the plan of salvation planned by Heavenly Father. Those qualities are what “made Jesus divine” in the pre-mortal world, where He also created this earth as the Word (“without Him was not any thing made that was made”–John 1:3) in complete cooperation with our Heavenly Father.

The plan of salvation was that there is a way for us to become like Jesus in perfection and in Oneness with the Father, just as He prayed for in His intercessory prayer (only through Him because of the atonement and sacrifice He suffered for humankind).

But for us that required this mortal life, away from the presence of God, to be both tested and to be purified through adversity (consider Job) and through sanctification. Jesus didn’t need that same kind of mortal experience, because He was already full of the qualities of perfection, light, fullness of truth and fullness of love. He really is Emmanuel, God with us.

**This sounds good, but why the belief that we were conceived by heavenly Father and Mother and hangin’ around in heaven waiting to be born?
Where does this teaching originate from?
Why is it even necessary? **

Yes, the Pearl of Great Price is considered doctrine in the LDS church teachings.

Okay.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul, thanks for sharing.
I 'm hoping some long term LDS will comment on the extent this was taught and where it came from. I’m new an haven’t encountered it.

Todd520,
I’m fifty six and a life-long active member. I’ve never heard that taught, but have heard it speculatively mentioned as a comment by perhaps two people at two different times in my life. I assume they read the following writing by Bruce R McConkie, which particular piece of writing I don’t agree with since it is ambiguous and goes beyond a scriptural basis in what he wrote:

“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”

I think that statement is either deliberately ambiguous, or says the wrong thing and creates a misunderstanding on the part of the reader of “Mormon Doctrine”.

A virgin is a virgin is a virgin. Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost and through being “overshadowed” by the “power of the Highest”, and thus Jesus became literally the Son of the Highest, but by a means that preserved Mary’s virginity.

I don’t hear the specific subject discussed as to how Mary conceived, other than the verses from the Bible and the Book of Mormon that do not discuss the “how” beyond being “overshadowed” (which I take to mean the Father was near her and His glory surrounded her) and that the Holy Ghost came upon her in a special way.

 

[lax16]

Todd520,
I’m fifty six and a life-long active member. I’ve never heard that taught, but have heard it speculatively mentioned as a comment by perhaps two people at two different times in my life. I assume they read the following writing by Bruce R McConkie, which particular piece of writing I don’t agree with since it is ambiguous and goes beyond a scriptural basis in what he wrote:

“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”

I think that statement is either deliberately ambiguous, or says the wrong thing and creates a misunderstanding on the part of the reader of “Mormon Doctrine”.

A virgin is a virgin is a virgin. Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost and through being “overshadowed” by the “power of the Highest”, and thus Jesus became literally the Son of the Highest, but by a means that preserved Mary’s virginity.

I don’t hear the specific subject discussed as to how Mary conceived, other than the verses from the Bible and the Book of Mormon that do not discuss the “how” beyond being “overshadowed” (which I take to mean the Father was near her and His glory surrounded her) and that the Holy Ghost came upon her in a special way.

There are also these LDS teachings from prophets (and one LDS author):

**Brigham Young **taught: “The birth of the Savior 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); and “when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).

**Brigham Young **said: “I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ…he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it” (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); “Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).

**Orson Pratt **(LDS apostle) taught: “the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife…as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity” (The Seer. p.158, 1853).

**Joseph Fielding Smith **wrote: “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit” (Religious Truths Defined, p.44).
This teaching persists today:

**Bruce McConkie **(LDS apostle) states: “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).

**Carfred Broderick **(Mormon author) writes: “God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone…latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus…The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).

McConkie explains: “Suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (The Promised Messiah, p. 466).

 

[ParkerD]

There are also these LDS teachings from prophets (and one LDS author):

Lax16,
Several of those statements were differentiating between Jesus being the Son of the Highest or the Son of the Holy Ghost. He was the Son of the Highest, in the flesh.

I feel totally comfortable disagreeing with what Orson Pratt wrote, as it is totally non-scriptural. I also disagree with the words of Bruce R McConkie in the last sentence you posted which was a statement by him as an author, writing on his own and not by assignment within his position as an apostle.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
Several of those statements were differentiating between Jesus being the Son of the Highest or the Son of the Holy Ghost. He was the Son of the Highest, in the flesh.

I feel totally comfortable disagreeing with what Orson Pratt wrote, as it is totally non-scriptural. I also disagree with the words of Bruce R McConkie in the last sentence you posted which was a statement by him as an author, writing on his own and not by assignment within his position as an apostle.

Please explain how that would change the meaning of their quotes.

How can an apostle speak in a non-scriptural way regarding church teachings?

So, once an apostle retires (or whatever happened to him?) he loses the ability to ______.

btw - how does one lose their position as an apostle?

 

[ParkerD]

I would appreciate your time if you did. Quite frankly I don’t understand at all why you have not read the Nicene Creed yet you confidently go along with JS statements that our creeds are an abomination. At a few hundred words (maybe 350) I would think in your life you could have come up with the 3 minutes it would take to read it. I assume you were a missionary who gave lessons on the abomination of the creeds it seems to me that if you are going to tell people they are an abomination the least you could have done is actually read it. LDS here continuously advise the we read the 600 pages of the BOM but you can’t bring yourself to spend a couple of minutes reading that which you actively preach against

Zaffiroborant,
It was the thread entitled, “Did Jesus have Mary’s DNA?”

I have re-read the Nicene Creed, and do remember having read it before a few times.

I was a missionary, but never taught and I don’t know that any LDS missionary teaches “lessons on the abomination of the creeds”. (Perhaps a convert from Catholicism or Protestantism might have cited a creed to make a distinction, I suppose, at some point in their teaching of someone.)

 

[ParkerD]

Please explain how that would change the meaning of their quotes.

How can an apostle speak in a non-scriptural way regarding church teachings?

So, once an apostle retires (or whatever happened to him?) he loses the ability to ______.

btw - how does one lose their position as an apostle?

Lax16,
The apostles are called from among other leadership positions, and serve the remainder of their life in that calling. Everything they say or write (especially Orson Pratt) need not be thought of as “church teachings” and certainly not as anything close to being “scripture” or needing to be believed when they were writing on a speculative subject.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
The apostles are called from among other leadership positions, and serve the remainder of their life in that calling. Everything they say or write (especially Orson Pratt) need not be thought of as “church teachings” and certainly not as anything close to being “scripture” or needing to be believed when they were writing on a speculative subject.

It seems to me BY is **very clear **on how Jesus was conceived! And no one can say that he wasn’t a prophet at the time he was speaking…or is that coming next?

 

[Stephen168]

Your response seems to be:

A. Mormons believe God was once a man
B. Mormons believe God was never sinful

To Summarize:
A. Mormons believe God was once a man (a=b)
B. Mormons believe God was never sinful (a≠c)
Therefore God was not sinful (a≠c)
so Man is not sinful (b≠c)

Does the Mormon Church teach that man is not sinful?

Answer:

Man of Holiness was not sinful, ever.

Any man who is not a Man of Holiness is, by practice through their imperfect choices, sinful and needs redemption from their sinful state to a state of holiness.

You didn’t clearly answer (yes/no) the question, but it seems to me you are contradicting your first answer and suggesting God was not a man.