Clarification on Mormon Belief

[mjf001]

Michael,
A resurrected Person does not have mortal blood, but they do have bones. Humankind were “created” in the “image of God” or in other words the “likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1). If you serve and worship a god who doesn’t “see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell,” then you don’t worship the true God but you do fulfill prophecy. (Deuteronomy 4:28)

Flesh and bones, I stand corrected. However, I do not stipulate that God is a resurrected being, unless you’re only referring to God the Son. As to the rest, I believe in a God who is not limited by my limitations as a creature. He did not have to become man to know what I know, how I feel, or what I experience. Nor is God limited by space, time, or matter. So the rest of your post seems irrelevant.

Now, do you care to comment on what I posted, instead of nitpicking that one part of my post, or was this a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing my points?

In Christ,
Michael

 

[flameburns623]

Thank you for the insight. I find it interesting that the doctrine ‘evolved’ and changed over time. What is up with that?

Early Mormonism seems to have been largely shaped by the so-called “Christian Connection”, which would become the ‘Campbellite’ movement. This is a frontier revivalist movement which would spawn the Churches of Christ, the independent ‘Christian Churches’, and the Disciples of Christ. The theology of the Book of Mormon is strongly Campbellite and some have speculated that either the real author of the BoM was a Campbellite (Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding are frequent suspects); or that one of these persons helped Smith compose the BoM. Early Mormonism probably wasn’t seriously heretical on the ‘fundamentals’ as Protestants like to speak of basic Christian doctrine.

Mormon theology however is not and never has been static or final the way most Christians understand our doctrines to have been ‘once delivered to the saints’. Mormons believe in continuing revelation; and while they do not expect God to wholly deny today what He affirmatively taught yesterday–they do believe that God reveals Himself ‘line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here and a little there’. Also, LDS believe that even when God has made a great deal of His Gospel known in ages past, humans have ultimately rejected parts of that Gospel which they did not like and supressed those parts.

So LDS believe that earlier dispensations may have known of the nature of God as flesh-and-blood but that because of apostasy, that knowledge may have been partly suppressed,. Or, because the people of God at a given time were not spiritually mature enough to receive God’s whole Truth, He may have dropped hints and allusions about that Truth while gradually readying Himself a people ready to hear and to receive more.

I’m just confused by this whole concept because I had never heard of anyone before Joseph Smith and Mormons believing that God the Father had flesh and bones. My impression from the discussion has been that Mormons contend and believe that this belief was always in existence, but was changed during the “Great Apostacy” and was then restored by Joseph Smith. I’m just not seeing where anyone believed this in the past - either directly in Scripture or in any writings or Traditions throughout history. I’m just thinking that there would be* something* out there that would confirm this belief - something written in Jewish tradition and history, Early Church Fathers, any “mainstream” theologian prior to Joseph Smith.

I’m not an expert but I believe some of the early Gnostic heresies did teach that God was flesh-and-blood. Mormon apologists actually do try to bolster their case at times by referencing (most mainstream experts would say, out-of-context), early Church fathers or even early heretical writers as evidence. You are correct however that this does not seem to have been a widespread or common teaching before the rise of Mormonism.

 

[Marie5890]

Thanks Marie. I’m not sure I understand this concept either since I believe/know Jesus to be God always and eternal/uncreated. As in John 1:1-3.

What/Who is this “Heavenly mother”? God the Father (in Mormon belief) and Heavenly Mother are spirit gods and have spirit children of which Jesus is one who is then sent to Earth? I, sadly, am becoming more and more confused.

Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s), in LDS dogma, are the spiritual parents of all human beings …Their first born spirit child was Jehovah…Lucifer was also one of their spirit children, he rejected the plan of salvation and was tossed out with 1/3 the host of heaven and became Satan and his followers…

Those who accepted the plan of salvation (plan of salvation is where Jehovah agrees to come to earth and make the atonement so the rest of us can be saved according to whether or not we accept the gospel etc) are all of us who are, or have been, or will be born here…

But Jehovah (not clear to me how he progressed according to LDS dogma to the point in the pre-existance that he became a god as well…Not sure how the Holy Ghost …another spirit child…advanced and became a god either for that matter…that was never clear to me…) But Jehovah is the only begotten of Heavenly Father in the flesh thru Mary…

For those used to looking thru a traditional prism of what Christianity is , yes it is confusing…

Outside of Christ being the redeemer and savior of the world etc…there is not a whole lot similar to traditional Christianity…

 

[ParkerD]

Not to go off topic, but the bolded part above just struck me as odd. Do Mormons believe that Jesus was/is God while He was on Earth or He became God/a god only after the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Jay,
Mormons teach and know that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, God with us, Alpha and Omega, which means He was God in pre-mortal life where He organized (created) this earth, and was never not God after He became the FirstBorn spirit son of God the Father. He was perfect in pre-mortal life. He was also the supreme intelligence of all the intelligences that have existed in the eternity that our spirits entered into when we became spirits thousands of years later than Jehovah.

He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God, by growing from grace to grace in His life on earth, but was never imperfect in that process and was learning through a re-learning process of mortality, that which He already knew in the pre-mortal life which made Him God.

That bolded part was wrong. That is not taught in Mormonism.

 

[ParkerD]

It seems to me, Jesus is talking about his divinity in this chapter. The Jews are upset because he healed the blind man on the sabbath, and he’s explaining to them that He’s just doing what his Father would do. He makes reference to giving life and judgment in this chapter, both divine prerogatives (from the footnotes in the NAB at the end of chapter 5), thus revealing his divinity. This chapter makes no mention of God being flesh and blood. The way I read it, everything that was important for us to know, the Bible spelled those things out specifically.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
I can see your point of view and that it makes a partly valid point.

I think, however, that verse John 5:26 which says “as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” implies that God the Father is a resurrected Being and that He resurrected Himself just as Jesus was going to be able to resurrect Himself. I do think the Bible spells things out specifically, including the verse I noted in Deuteronomy 4:28 which describes the true God.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Jay,
When Stephen saw God the Father and saw Jesus “standing on the right hand of God”, then when Luke described Stephen’s martyrdom and wrote about Stephen’s words, Luke didn’t stop and explain that Stephen was seeing some sort of spirit image. It was a simple concept and Luke knew exactly what he was writing about. He was writing about Stephen having seen two divine Persons who stood side by side. See Acts 7:55-60.

ParkerD, how you and other Mormons use Stephen’s vision to authenticate their Christological misses the whole story written by Luke. Rather the point of the story is Luke telling of Stephen’s defense in his trial before his accusers. It is a story of the vindication of Stephen before the court through the appearing of the star witness, Jesus Christ.

In the the beginning of Stephen’s speech in Acts chapter 7, he is defending himself against the charges of blasphemy. He is preaching to the court that the God in whom he believes is the same God of Israel. “The glory of our God appeared to Abraham”. Note the “our God”. He answers the charges that Christianity is not heresy, it is fulfillment. It is not something new that destroys something old. It is something new that fulfills something old. And so he is explaining that he believes in the same God of Abraham as his accusers, and he defines God in the same terms to them in the court.

He then charges his accusers with their ever unwillingness to submit to God throughout history and finally the murder of the righteous one and all His prophets. By the time he is done with his defense, his accusers are the ones on trial being accused of blasphemy and murder. His accusers are in a frenzy.

Now, doesn’t it seem odd that after arguing his “I believe in the same God” defense he would then gaze into the heavens and see Jesus standing, this is where you want to add your choice word “separate” from the Father. Doing so would nullify his defense and give just reason for his accusers to drag him off and stone him justly for blasphemy. Which they did do but not justly. Instead he cries out “standing on the right hand of God”. His hearers were pricked to their heart that this Jesus they murdered was standing in position of power and authority on the “right hand of God”. Where as through the vision Jesus answers the puzzle for them of David’s psalm: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Making his accusers the real enemies of God.

So you see then, the vision wasn’t given to show Jesus having flesh and bone, or standing separately in body or spirit, but a continuation of Stephen’s defense he had started and laid out from the beginning. And now his charges strengthened with a heavenly indictment of their sin (Jesus not sitting but standing) and his accusers knew they were guilty as charged. This is why they dragged Stephen out and stoned him.

The vision was Stephen looking and seeing the court doors swing wide open and his star witness standing there to testify to the court that Stephen’s testimony was true – His accusers were murderers! It’s the greatest defense anyone could hope for and it all starts back in verse 1: “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Jesus showed up at the trial and because of this his accusers knew they were damned. It’s a beautiful story. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords goes out before you to defend.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, how you and other Mormons use Stephen’s vision to authenticate their Christological misses the whole story written by Luke. Rather the point of the story is Luke telling of Stephen’s defense in his trial before his accusers. It is a story of the vindication of Stephen before the court through the appearing of the star witness, Jesus Christ.

In the the beginning of Stephen’s speech in Acts chapter 7, he is defending himself against the charges of blasphemy. He is preaching to the court that the God in whom he believes is the same God of Israel. “The glory of our God appeared to Abraham”. Note the “our God”. He answers the charges that Christianity is not heresy, it is fulfillment. It is not something new that destroys something old. It is something new that fulfills something old. And so he is explaining that he believes in the same God of Abraham as his accusers, and he defines God in the same terms to them in the court.

He then charges his accusers with their ever unwillingness to submit to God throughout history and finally the murder of the righteous one and all His prophets. By the time he is done with his defense, his accusers are the ones on trial being accused of blasphemy and murder. His accusers are in a frenzy.

Now, doesn’t it seem odd that after arguing his “I believe in the same God” defense he would then gaze into the heavens and see Jesus standing, this is where you want to add your choice word “separate” from the Father. Doing so would nullify his defense and give just reason for his accusers to drag him off and stone him justly for blasphemy. Which they did do but not justly. Instead he cries out “standing on the right hand of God”. His hearers were pricked to their heart that this Jesus they murdered was standing in position of power and authority on the “right hand of God”. Where as through the vision Jesus answers the puzzle for them of David’s psalm: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Making his accusers the real enemies of God.

So you see then, the vision wasn’t given to show Jesus having flesh and bone, or standing separately in body or spirit, but a continuation of Stephen’s defense he had started and laid out from the beginning. And now his charges strengthened with a heavenly indictment of their sin (Jesus not sitting but standing) and his accusers knew they were guilty as charged. This is why they dragged Stephen out and stoned him.

The vision was Stephen looking and seeing the court doors swing wide open and his star witness standing there to testify to the court that Stephen’s testimony was true – His accusers were murderers! It’s the greatest defense anyone could hope for and it all starts back in verse 1: “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Jesus showed up at the trial and because of this his accusers knew they were damned. It’s a beautiful story. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords goes out before you to defend.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with some though not all of what you wrote here, but I’ll defer to you since I appreciate the depth of thought you presented and would rather not detract from it. Thanks again.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Michael,I can see your point of view and **that it makes a partly valid point.
**
.

ParkerD, how you and other Mormons use Stephen’s vision to authenticate their Christological misses the whole story written by Luke. Rather the point of the story is Luke telling of Stephen’s defense in his trial before his accusers. It is a story of the vindication of Stephen before the court through the appearing of the star witness, Jesus Christ.

In the the beginning of Stephen’s speech in Acts chapter 7, he is defending himself against the charges of blasphemy. He is preaching to the court that the God in whom he believes is the same God of Israel. “The glory of our God appeared to Abraham”. Note the “our God”. He answers the charges that Christianity is not heresy, it is fulfillment. It is not something new that destroys something old. It is something new that fulfills something old. And so he is explaining that he believes in the same God of Abraham as his accusers, and he defines God in the same terms to them in the court.

He then charges his accusers with their ever unwillingness to submit to God throughout history and finally the murder of the righteous one and all His prophets. By the time he is done with his defense, his accusers are the ones on trial being accused of blasphemy and murder. His accusers are in a frenzy.

Now, doesn’t it seem odd that after arguing his “I believe in the same God” defense he would then gaze into the heavens and see Jesus standing, this is where you want to add your choice word “separate” from the Father. Doing so would nullify his defense and give just reason for his accusers to drag him off and stone him justly for blasphemy. Which they did do but not justly. Instead he cries out “standing on the right hand of God”. His hearers were pricked to their heart that this Jesus they murdered was standing in position of power and authority on the “right hand of God”. Where as through the vision Jesus answers the puzzle for them of David’s psalm: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Making his accusers the real enemies of God.

So you see then, the vision wasn’t given to show Jesus having flesh and bone, or standing separately in body or spirit, but a continuation of Stephen’s defense he had started and laid out from the beginning. And now his charges strengthened with a heavenly indictment of their sin (Jesus not sitting but standing) and his accusers knew they were guilty as charged. This is why they dragged Stephen out and stoned him.

The vision was Stephen looking and seeing the court doors swing wide open and his star witness standing there to testify to the court that Stephen’s testimony was true – His accusers were murderers! It’s the greatest defense anyone could hope for and it all starts back in verse 1: “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Jesus showed up at the trial and because of this his accusers knew they were damned. It’s a beautiful story. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords goes out before you to defend.
ParkerD;5935834:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with some though not all of what you wrote here, but I’ll defer to you since I appreciate the depth of thought you presented and would rather not detract from it. Thanks again.

Look RocketMan has been granted the boon by the arbiter of valid points.

 

[kikkichan]

Michael,
… I do think the Bible spells things out specifically, including the verse I noted in Deuteronomy 4:28 which describes the true God.

Hi!

I’m back with another pedestrian question. When I read Deuteronomy 4:28 I’m
seeing man-made idols being described. So is the point that

if false gods can “* … neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell."
then
a true god must be able to " … see, hear, eat, smell.*”,

which implies having the necessary equipment to do these things, (i.e., a body), correct?

I’m thinking that the point being made is that these false man-made
gods are so lame, they can’t even do the things that the men-that-made-them
can do. I think this is a description of the idols and not an indirect description
of what God is like.

But that’s just me talking!

-kc

±-----------------------------------------------------------------+
hareidi.org/bible/Deuteronomy4.htm#4
27 And HaShem shall scatter you among the peoples, and ye shall be left few in number among the nations, whither HaShem shall lead you away.
28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with some though not all of what you wrote here, but I’ll defer to you since I appreciate the depth of thought you presented and would rather not detract from it. Thanks again.

Why would Stephen begin his speech with the defense "Hey, I believe in the one God of Abraham just like all of you. Wasn’t Judaism monotheistic? Then end the defense with “Hey, I see two separate persons”? Doesn’t that seem like a lousy defense to you and give the court the ammunition they needed to stone him, justly in their view?

Instead, they stoned him because of their guilt, just as they had crucified Jesus.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi!

I’m back with another pedestrian question. When I read Deuteronomy 4:28 I’m
seeing man-made idols being described. So is the point that

if false gods can “* … neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell."
then
a true god must be able to " … see, hear, eat, smell.*”,

which implies having the necessary equipment to do these things, (i.e., a body), correct?

I’m thinking that the point being made is that these false man-made
gods are so lame, they can’t even do the things that the men-that-made-them
can do. I think this is a description of the idols and not an indirect description
of what God is like.

But that’s just me talking!

-kc

±-----------------------------------------------------------------+
hareidi.org/bible/Deuteronomy4.htm#4
27 And HaShem shall scatter you among the peoples, and ye shall be left few in number among the nations, whither HaShem shall lead you away.
28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Yes, that’s what happens when you take things out of context or cherry pick. He doesn’t even give the whole verse let alone the chapter.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, how you and other Mormons use Stephen’s vision to authenticate their Christological misses the whole story written by Luke. Rather the point of the story is Luke telling of Stephen’s defense in his trial before his accusers. It is a story of the vindication of Stephen before the court through the appearing of the star witness, Jesus Christ.

In the the beginning of Stephen’s speech in Acts chapter 7, he is defending himself against the charges of blasphemy. He is preaching to the court that the God in whom he believes is the same God of Israel. “The glory of our God appeared to Abraham”. Note the “our God”. He answers the charges that Christianity is not heresy, it is fulfillment. It is not something new that destroys something old. It is something new that fulfills something old. And so he is explaining that he believes in the same God of Abraham as his accusers, and he defines God in the same terms to them in the court.

He then charges his accusers with their ever unwillingness to submit to God throughout history and finally the murder of the righteous one and all His prophets. By the time he is done with his defense, his accusers are the ones on trial being accused of blasphemy and murder. His accusers are in a frenzy.

Now, doesn’t it seem odd that after arguing his “I believe in the same God” defense he would then gaze into the heavens and see Jesus standing, this is where you want to add your choice word “separate” from the Father. Doing so would nullify his defense and give just reason for his accusers to drag him off and stone him justly for blasphemy. Which they did do but not justly. Instead he cries out “standing on the right hand of God”. His hearers were pricked to their heart that this Jesus they murdered was standing in position of power and authority on the “right hand of God”. Where as through the vision Jesus answers the puzzle for them of David’s psalm: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Making his accusers the real enemies of God.

So you see then, the vision wasn’t given to show Jesus having flesh and bone, or standing separately in body or spirit, but a continuation of Stephen’s defense he had started and laid out from the beginning. And now his charges strengthened with a heavenly indictment of their sin (Jesus not sitting but standing) and his accusers knew they were guilty as charged. This is why they dragged Stephen out and stoned him.

The vision was Stephen looking and seeing the court doors swing wide open and his star witness standing there to testify to the court that Stephen’s testimony was true – His accusers were murderers! It’s the greatest defense anyone could hope for and it all starts back in verse 1: “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Jesus showed up at the trial and because of this his accusers knew they were damned. It’s a beautiful story. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords goes out before you to defend.

Rocket Man,
I guess I’m being asked to be specific about what I disagree with in what you wrote here.

Of course Stephen believes in the same God of Israel as the God of Abraham that was acknowledged by the Jewish leaders, if they were worshiping correctly. Why would he not? I agree with everything you wrote except that and the idea that Stephen, by declaring that God the Father was standing “separate” from Jesus Christ, “would nullify his defense and give just reason for his accusers to drag him off and stone him justly for blasphemy.”

The testimony of Stephen matches the testimony of Christ Himself, which the Jewish leaders had already rejected. Jesus had described Himself as the “head stone of the corner” and “I AM” and the Christ, which means the Anointed One. Stephen says (v. 37) that Moses had prophesied of this “Prophet” coming to the Jews, whom they should hear.

Jesus had described Himself as having been sent by His Father, and that He was the Son of God. He had prophesied of His own resurrection. All this would have been known by the Jewish leaders, and by Stephen. For Stephen to declare that He saw “Jesus standing on the right hand of God” was confirming what Jesus had taught about having been sent by His Father and that He would return to His Father. The vision is of Two Persons, and at the same time Stephen is described as “being full of the Holy Ghost”. This clear and vibrant testimony would be one of the reasons that centuries later the Nicene council had to deal with the issue of whether there were Three Diving Beings or One Divine Being. The Nicene council came out with “Three Persons in One Divine Being” or however it is described, but that does not match what Stephen testified of having seen.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, that’s what happens when you take things out of context or cherry pick. He doesn’t even give the whole verse let alone the chapter.

Zaffiroborant,
I didn’t give the whole verse because I am on a website of a religion that uses the “work of men’s hands, wood and stone,” to make images or replicas or depictions that become the objects of worship for some of its adherents, thus fulfilling this very specific prophecy by Moses through divine inspiration about the future.

 

[TheosisM]

. The Nicene council came out with “Three Persons in One Divine Being” or however it is described, but that does not match what Stephen testified of having seen.

And how does “Three Persons in One Divine Being”, i.e. three distinct Persons, of one essence, not match what Stephen testified of having seen?

 

[kikkichan]

"Zaffiroborant:

Yes, that’s what happens when you take things out of context or cherry pick. He doesn’t even give the whole verse let alone the chapter.

Zaffiroborant,
I didn’t give the whole verse because I am on a website of a religion that uses the “work of men’s hands,
wood and stone,” to make images or replicas or depictions that become the objects of worship for some
of its adherents, thus fulfilling this very specific prophecy by Moses through divine inspiration
about the future.

Parkerd,

First of all, I apologize for not defending your use of a single verse. I actually think Deut 4:28 does contains
sufficient context to be evaluated alone. In my analysis I did not use the adjacent verses. (I did post the preceding
verse, but that was to show-off that I was using a Jewish text. ) However, my comment was that I didn’t think
that Deut 4:28 supported the assertion that God has “flesh and bones” (i.e., a corporal body).

It almost seems that with your post re: fulfilling this very specific prophecy, that you agree.

with prayers,
–kc

 

[ParkerD]

And how does “Three Persons in One Divine Being”, i.e. three distinct Persons, of one essence, not match what Stephen testified of having seen?

TheosisM,
Hi, and I hope you are well,
If by “essence” you mean glory, then Stephen certainly did see that there is a divine glory and that both the Father and the Son had that divine glory. The word “essence” is not used in the King James Bible at all. Is it used in the DR Bible?

 

[ParkerD]

Parkerd,

First of all, I apologize for not defending your use of a single verse. I actually think Deut 4:28 does contains
sufficient context to be evaluated alone. In my analysis I did not use the adjacent verses. (I did post the preceding
verse, but that was to show-off that I was using a Jewish text. ) However, my comment was that I didn’t think
that Deut 4:28 supported the assertion that God has “flesh and bones” (i.e., a corporal body).

It almost seems that with your post re: fulfilling this very specific prophecy, that you agree.

with prayers,
–kc

Hi, Kikkichan,
Thanks for your prayers. No, I don’t agree, but I guess I can see your point.

In Exodus 33:11, we learn that
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

I think it’s pretty clear that Moses was writing and teaching the Israelites that God has a body, and that He has a face.

 

[Marie5890]

Hi, Kikkichan,
Thanks for your prayers. No, I don’t agree, but I guess I can see your point.

In Exodus 33:11, we learn that
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

I think it’s pretty clear that Moses was writing and teaching the Israelites that God has a body, and that He has a face.

Do you believe that Moses actually wrote that? Or was it written down thru oral tradition of the Jewish people?

 

[ParkerD]

Do you believe that Moses actually wrote that? Or was it written down thru oral tradition of the Jewish people?

Marie5890,
I agree with the following statement with the caveat that Moses may have had some of the writing done by a scribe, but with his reading the text afterword to make sure it was correct.

“Ancient Jewish and Christian writers, such as Ecclesiasticus, Josephus, Philo, and Origen were essentially in full agreement that the Pentateuch was written solely by Moses. The Mishnah and the Talmud also confirm this. Tradition during the first millennium of Christian history agrees with this belief.” (source: Google search about Moses writing the Pentateuch)

 

[kikkichan]

Do you believe that Moses actually wrote that? Or was it written down thru oral tradition of the Jewish people?

Marie5890,

  What would be the significance one way or another? Would it be less reliable if it weren't Moses, or someone close?

thanks,
–kc