Becoming a god

[Randy_Carson]

Allow me to support this claim with the sayings of Orson Pratt:

Now THAT goes into my archive!

 

[gazelam]

Sure thing.

Mormonism denies that Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit in His incarnation, teaching instead that God the Father sex with Mary, (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 547.) “instead letting any other man do it” (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 4:218).

Now, if God the Father has the equipment with which to have physical sex with Mary who was fully human, then it stands to reason that His Celestial wife will have her plumbing, also.

So, where do YOU think all those celestial babies come from?

Your claim of physical intercourse in this matter stems either from an incomplete understanding of LDS theology or a desire to purposefully cast LDS teachings in the negative light. I’ll assume it’s the former. The same Mormon Doctrine you quote states clearly that LDS accept the virgin birth (page 822 in my version) The hanky panky you read into these quotes would negate the virgin birth. LDS do believe that Jesus is the physical son of both the Father and Mary. (He inherited His divine aspects from His Father and His mortal aspects from Mary,) Given the IVF procedures available today it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that miraculously Mary was impregnated without any physical contact.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your claim of physical intercourse in this matter stems either from an incomplete understanding of LDS theology or a desire to purposefully cast LDS teachings in the negative light. I’ll assume it’s the former. The same Mormon Doctrine you quote states clearly that LDS accept the virgin birth (page 822 in my version) The hanky panky you read into these quotes would negate the virgin birth. LDS do believe that Jesus is the physical son of both the Father and Mary. (He inherited His divine aspects from His Father and His mortal aspects from Mary,) Given the IVF procedures available today it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that miraculously Mary was impregnated without any physical contact.

You may have missed post 118 from Judas Thaddeus, so I’ll quote it here:

“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father”

Orson Pratt is trying to be circumspect in that quaint way of 19th century authors, but being “associated” with a woman “in the capacity of husband and wife” means having sex with her to make a baby.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Your claim of physical intercourse in this matter stems either from an incomplete understanding of LDS theology or a desire to purposefully cast LDS teachings in the negative light. I’ll assume it’s the former. The same Mormon Doctrine you quote states clearly that LDS accept the virgin birth (page 822 in my version) The hanky panky you read into these quotes would negate the virgin birth. LDS do believe that Jesus is the physical son of both the Father and Mary. (He inherited His divine aspects from His Father and His mortal aspects from Mary,) Given the IVF procedures available today it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that miraculously Mary was impregnated without any physical contact.
Randy Carson;11209436:

You may have missed post 118 from Judas Thaddeus, so I’ll quote it here:

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife

; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father"

Orson Pratt is trying to be circumspect in that quaint way of 19th century authors, but being “associated” with a woman “in the capacity of husband and wife” means having sex with her to make a baby.

Not to mention that Joseph Smith himself said in Doctrine & Covenants:“The Father has a body of flesh
and bones as tangible as man’s;”
-D&C 130:22
The relations between the Father and Mary is one of those
doctrines that makes modern Mormons today kinda blush.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/embarrassed/embarrassed.gif​

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/embarrassed/embarrassed.gif[/INDENT][/INDENT]​

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/embarrassed/embarrassed.gif[/INDENT][/INDENT]

 

[TexanKnight]

Your claim of physical intercourse in this matter stems either from an incomplete understanding of LDS theology or a desire to purposefully cast LDS teachings in the negative light. I’ll assume it’s the former. The same Mormon Doctrine you quote states clearly that LDS accept the virgin birth (page 822 in my version) The hanky panky you read into these quotes would negate the virgin birth. LDS do believe that Jesus is the physical son of both the Father and Mary. (He inherited His divine aspects from His Father and His mortal aspects from Mary,) Given the IVF procedures available today it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that miraculously Mary was impregnated without any physical contact.

except your own “prophets” taught otherwise. BY, remember him? He taught Mary had intercourse.

Gaze, why is it you constantly deny your prophets’ teachings? Is it that you cannot stomach them? you are embarrassed by them? Please tell me why?

 

[ealfred]

You may have missed post 118 from Judas Thaddeus, so I’ll quote it here:

“The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father”

Orson Pratt is trying to be circumspect in that quaint way of 19th century authors, but being “associated” with a woman “in the capacity of husband and wife” means having sex with her to make a baby.

I’m sorry and I’m not trying to offend, but how can you call that Christian?!. She is called the Virgin Mary for a reason. Otherwise why do we say Virgin!. She is not just a Virgin she is The Perpetual Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry and I’m not trying to offend, but how can you call that Christian?!. She is called the Virgin Mary for a reason. Otherwise why do we say Virgin!. She is not just a Virgin she is The Perpetual Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Christ.

I agree.

However, Mormons are not Christians, and they have their own ideas about Mary.

 

[ealfred]

I agree.

However, Mormons are not Christians, and they have their own ideas about Mary.

Well I do not know why they are trying so hard to associate with Christianity.

As for your comment about The Blessed Virgin, the ideas are awful. She is the perfect human and they reduce her to this

 

[iepuras]

Your claim of physical intercourse in this matter stems either from an incomplete understanding of LDS theology or a desire to purposefully cast LDS teachings in the negative light. I’ll assume it’s the former. The same Mormon Doctrine you quote states clearly that LDS accept the virgin birth (page 822 in my version) The hanky panky you read into these quotes would negate the virgin birth. LDS do believe that Jesus is the physical son of both the Father and Mary. (He inherited His divine aspects from His Father and His mortal aspects from Mary,) Given the IVF procedures available today it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that miraculously Mary was impregnated without any physical contact.

The posters quoting Mormon prophets and apostles who stated that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary actually have a very clear understanding of LDS theology. They have a clearer understanding than most LDS, including me when I was LDS. When I got that clear understanding, I bolted.

I will also remind you that Bruce R. McConkie also taught that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary, and he died after the first IVF baby was born. When the new technology was announced, why didin’t he come out and clarify his earlier teachings? When I was growing up Mormon, I had always assumed the virgin birth was a result of IVF or some similar technology. Then I attended seminary and BYU and was taught on more than one occasion in the 1990’s that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary. This was well after IVF and other fertility treatments became more common and accepted. I was shocked and disgusted at these teachings on Mary. I also cannot tell you how many times in Sunday School, Young Women’s and Relief Society that a virgin is simply someone who obeys the law of chastity. A married woman with children could be a ‘virgin’ under this definition. So Mary could be married to Heavenly Father, have intercourse and still remain a ‘virgin’.

Let’s have some more mind twisting. I was also taught many times in the Mormon church that the Greek word for virgin used in the New Testament actually meant “young woman” and did not indicate whether or not the young woman is actually a virgin (i.e., a person who has never had intercourse). So I was taught on numerous occasions that Mary wasn’t necessarily a virgin according to the common understanding of the term and that the Greek was not translated correctly so as to teach false doctrine on Mary.

So why do you not believe your prophets and apostles? Were Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie not prophets, seers and revelators? Did you ever sustain McConkie as such? If so, why do you not believe what he taught? They were either prophets and apostles or they were not. You don’t get to pick and choose what they taught. You cannot simply decide that they were speaking as men and not as prophets or apostles because what they teach makes you feel uncomfortable and sounds bad to non-Mormons. If it is ok for Mormons to abandon the teachings of Brigham Young or Bruce McConkie, is it ok for them to also abandon the teachings of Moses, Isaiah or even Peter and Paul simply because they are uncomfortable?

 

[kimg901]

Hello Novacastrian, you’re CCC 460 very clearly says man can become a god, do you reject you’re CCC

CCC 460, The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

We will be sinless like God. Not become a god. If we are all to become gods, what do we need God for?

 

[iepuras]

Well I do not know why they are trying so hard to associate with Christianity.

As for your comment about The Blessed Virgin, the ideas are awful. She is the perfect human and they reduce her to this

The LDS PR department is trying really hard to make Mormons appear to be mainstream Christians. My guess is so they can attract new converts.

Their teachings on The Blessed Virgin Mary are disgusting. I always felt sick about it long before I decided to research Mormonism and leave. I cannot tell you how much I love our Blessed Mother now that I am learning the truth about her.

 

[Stephen168]

What is really interesting is to actually understand the theological contexts that these quotes (which seem to be taken from the talk Our Identity and Our Destiny by Elder Tad R Callister of the Presidency of the Seventy) from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, etc come from, and the continuity they have with the Catholic and Orthodox teachings on the matter, and not the LDS context.

Yes, Mormons take the ECF out of context and try to make them fit their beliefs. My favorite ECF quotes for Mormons are:
St. Athanasius:

He said that God had made all things out of pre-existent and uncreated matter, just as the carpenter makes things only out of wood that already exists. But those who hold this view do not realize that to deny that God is Himself the Cause of matter is to impute limitation to Him, just as it is undoubtedly a limitation on the part of the carpenter that he can make nothing unless he has the wood. How could God be called Maker and Artificer if His ability to make depended on some other cause, namely on matter itself?

St. Irenaeus:

For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one near unto God.

 

[SteveVH]

The posters quoting Mormon prophets and apostles who stated that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary actually have a very clear understanding of LDS theology. They have a clearer understanding than most LDS, including me when I was LDS. When I got that clear understanding, I bolted.

I will also remind you that Bruce R. McConkie also taught that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary, and he died after the first IVF baby was born. When the new technology was announced, why didin’t he come out and clarify his earlier teachings? When I was growing up Mormon, I had always assumed the virgin birth was a result of IVF or some similar technology. Then I attended seminary and BYU and was taught on more than one occasion in the 1990’s that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary. This was well after IVF and other fertility treatments became more common and accepted. I was shocked and disgusted at these teachings on Mary. I also cannot tell you how many times in Sunday School, Young Women’s and Relief Society that a virgin is simply someone who obeys the law of chastity. A married woman with children could be a ‘virgin’ under this definition. So Mary could be married to Heavenly Father, have intercourse and still remain a ‘virgin’.

Let’s have some more mind twisting. I was also taught many times in the Mormon church that the Greek word for virgin used in the New Testament actually meant “young woman” and did not indicate whether or not the young woman is actually a virgin (i.e., a person who has never had intercourse). So I was taught on numerous occasions that Mary wasn’t necessarily a virgin according to the common understanding of the term and that the Greek was not translated correctly so as to teach false doctrine on Mary.

So why do you not believe your prophets and apostles? Were Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie not prophets, seers and revelators? Did you ever sustain McConkie as such? If so, why do you not believe what he taught? They were either prophets and apostles or they were not. You don’t get to pick and choose what they taught. You cannot simply decide that they were speaking as men and not as prophets or apostles because what they teach makes you feel uncomfortable and sounds bad to non-Mormons. If it is ok for Mormons to abandon the teachings of Brigham Young or Bruce McConkie, is it ok for them to also abandon the teachings of Moses, Isaiah or even Peter and Paul simply because they are uncomfortable?

Wow. I don’t know what else to say.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your claim of physical intercourse in this matter stems either from an incomplete understanding of LDS theology or a desire to purposefully cast LDS teachings in the negative light. I’ll assume it’s the former. The same Mormon Doctrine you quote states clearly that LDS accept the virgin birth (page 822 in my version) The hanky panky you read into these quotes would negate the virgin birth. LDS do believe that Jesus is the physical son of both the Father and Mary. (He inherited His divine aspects from His Father and His mortal aspects from Mary,) Given the IVF procedures available today it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that miraculously Mary was impregnated without any physical contact.

Still an idea here that God the Father impregnated Mary in a physical fashion. It is reminiscent of pagan ideas of gods who copulate with humans, creating demigods.

There are several problems with this idea, least of which is that of Father impregnating daughter. If LDS prophets are to be believed, Mary was married to her Father? I hope you can understand how repugnant this sounds to Catholic ears.

The Father is Spirit, and as such, does not have a body or body function, no cellular generation, including that of gametes.

Jesus is not a demigod, but is fully God.

Science does not produce what a Christian would call a miracle. A miracle is of supernatural origin and has no explanation, which is why we call a miracle a miracle.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholics, and other traditional Christians, believe that there is a chasm between man and God. This could be seen as a “species” difference: God is God, man is man, and we are not of the same nature. Man, body and soul/spirit, is created by God.

It’s important to understand that God does not have a species.

The difference is Creator and created. The created (us) does not become the Creator.

Except in LDS teaching where all are Creators in the making, and there are un-numbered Creators in existence. There is no difference to a Mormon.

The difference is so great, that Mormons have no hope to understand Truth until they can let go of their desire to be GOD.

 

[twopekinguys]

The posters quoting Mormon prophets and apostles who stated that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary actually have a very clear understanding of LDS theology. They have a clearer understanding than most LDS, including me when I was LDS. When I got that clear understanding, I bolted.

I will also remind you that Bruce R. McConkie also taught that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary, and he died after the first IVF baby was born. When the new technology was announced, why didin’t he come out and clarify his earlier teachings? When I was growing up Mormon, I had always assumed the virgin birth was a result of IVF or some similar technology. Then I attended seminary and BYU and was taught on more than one occasion in the 1990’s that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary. This was well after IVF and other fertility treatments became more common and accepted. I was shocked and disgusted at these teachings on Mary. I also cannot tell you how many times in Sunday School, Young Women’s and Relief Society that a virgin is simply someone who obeys the law of chastity. A married woman with children could be a ‘virgin’ under this definition. So Mary could be married to Heavenly Father, have intercourse and still remain a ‘virgin’.

Let’s have some more mind twisting. I was also taught many times in the Mormon church that the Greek word for virgin used in the New Testament actually meant “young woman” and did not indicate whether or not the young woman is actually a virgin (i.e., a person who has never had intercourse). So I was taught on numerous occasions that Mary wasn’t necessarily a virgin according to the common understanding of the term and that the Greek was not translated correctly so as to teach false doctrine on Mary.

So why do you not believe your prophets and apostles? Were Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie not prophets, seers and revelators? Did you ever sustain McConkie as such? If so, why do you not believe what he taught? They were either prophets and apostles or they were not. You don’t get to pick and choose what they taught. You cannot simply decide that they were speaking as men and not as prophets or apostles because what they teach makes you feel uncomfortable and sounds bad to non-Mormons. If it is ok for Mormons to abandon the teachings of Brigham Young or Bruce McConkie, is it ok for them to also abandon the teachings of Moses, Isaiah or even Peter and Paul simply because they are uncomfortable?

I have to say, I really enjoy reading your posts.

I can’t wait until you’re Catholic!!!

 

[gazelam]

She is not just a Virgin she is The Perpetual Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Christ.

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 13:55, 56 (KJV)

1. Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
2. And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Per the Bible Mary’s virginity seems to have ended at some point after the birth of Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

It might appear that way at first, but a closer look reveals more.

Matthew 1:25 – “Until”

Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne Jesus.

The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Non-Catholics really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument.

Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, some people argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the non-Catholic point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Consequently, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Matthew 13:55, 56 (KJV)

1. Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

1. And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Nope. Here’s why that fails:

Matthew 13:55 – James, Joseph, Simon and Judas

Many non-Catholics seek to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based upon the references to Jesus’ “brothers” as found in passages such as: "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55)

Although this appears to be ample evidence to prove that Jesus had brothers and thus that Mary was not ever virgin, the key to explaining this verse is understanding the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called “brothers” (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a “brother.” Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like “brother” having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.

Per the Bible Mary’s virginity seems to have ended at some point after the birth of Jesus.

:nope:

Per a proper understanding of what the Bible ACTUALLY says, we see that there is no evidence for your assertion whatsoever.

 

[iepuras]

I have to say, I really enjoy reading your posts.

I can’t wait until you’re Catholic!!!

Thanks! I’m glad someone appreciates my posts. I really want to get the truth about Mormonism out there, but I can’t say anything to my family yet. I’m still working on gaining their acceptance for leaving Mormonism and becoming Catholic. Then I can figure out the best way to bring them to the truth. It’s a tough road.

I can’t wait until I’m Catholic either! I feel like I have so much to read and learn before I am baptized, but I will get there! I’m planning on Easter Vigil 2014. I’ve been in RCIA since February. I am now the only unbaptized heathen in my family. Husband was Orthodox but did the profession of faith last month, and our kiddos were baptized not long after. In so many ways, I feel like my soul was just ready for the truth. It was suddenly easy for me to reject Mormonism and it has been incredibly easy for me to learn and accept Catholic teaching. The process has been much easier than I expected.

 

[MartinJordan]

Thanks! I’m glad someone appreciates my posts. I really want to get the truth about Mormonism out there, but I can’t say anything to my family yet. I’m still working on gaining their acceptance for leaving Mormonism and becoming Catholic. Then I can figure out the best way to bring them to the truth. It’s a tough road.

I can’t wait until I’m Catholic either! I feel like I have so much to read and learn before I am baptized, but I will get there! I’m planning on Easter Vigil 2014. I’ve been in RCIA since February. I am now the only unbaptized heathen in my family. Husband was Orthodox but did the profession of faith last month, and our kiddos were baptized not long after. In so many ways, I feel like my soul was just ready for the truth. It was suddenly easy for me to reject Mormonism and it has been incredibly easy for me to learn and accept Catholic teaching. The process has been much easier than I expected.

:hug1:

MJ