Do Mormons believe that God was once a man?

[Fa_Chan]

Is it the Bible condemning homosexuals? Is it the Bible that commands the destruction of women, children, and even animals? Or, it is God?

Is the Bible just another “religious text”? Is it really “just as authoritative” as the BoM?

If you really believe this last question, then you are a Mormon at heart, because this is what Mormons believe about the Bible. They discount it, and hold the BoM to be “the most correct book ever written” (my paraphrase of Joseph Smith).

It is another religious text on par with the Baghavad Gita, the Buddhist Canon, the Koran, the BoM, etc. That doesn’t make it irrelevant. It’s an important collection of books. And I respect it. Yes, in the first pages of the BoM you will find that statement to which I can’t really disagree.

Haha, well, I don’t know about being a Mormon at heart. I do admire the teachings and the Prophet, but I simply could not live as one.

I think you were very well indoctrinated by the Mormons, but I also think that your understanding of the Bible is very limited. This is probably because you have not studied it under the guidance of the Church which wrote it and assembled it, and guarded, protected, and promoted it for almost 2 millenia.

I never visited a ward or stake. I never visited with missionaries either. I studied on my own for a reason. I wanted to know for myself what was taught without organizational influence. I did that and I don’t regret it.

My friend, I spent the first 30 years of my life as a conservative Southern Baptist and spent my years of 14-30 deeply studying my faith and the Bible. I taught Sunday School up till the end of my Christian faith. I studied it under the guidance of my own intellect and by reading and listening to teachers from various Christian traditions.

If you are Pope Fa Chan, then you will believe your own interpretations of Scripture. But if you are jes’ plain ol’ Fa Chan who’d like to understand the Bible the way God meant for it to be understood, then you may be able admit to your weaknesses, and submit to the authority that God established over you.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” Proverbs 1:7

I submit to my own intellect that God supposedly gave me and the heart he put within me. I have many weaknesses. Spiritual weakness isn’t one of them. I chose a different path in life because the one that I believed for many years simply didn’t work for me for reasons not important to this discussion.

I’m a lay Buddhist and nothing else grandiose. I respect the popes of the past, especially His Holiness Pope John Paul II. I would never equate myself to them. Following my own way of life isn’t equal to me being a pope. It’s simply equal to me listening to my head and heart.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[JonathanKinsman]

What if that question has been answered a million times before? And you must be aware of it; you have been here long enough.

zerinus

Here it is: the acknowledgement that Mormons are non-Christian because:

They believe that God was once a man and that he has eternally progressed to being the god of this planet.

---

Thanks, Zerinus, keep up the good missionary work on behalf of your sect.

You may someday be known as the St Francis de Sales of Salt Lake City!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

NotreDameMormon.

But evidently not enrolled in Notre Dame.

I asked him about some current professors and graduate students whom I know and keep in contact with.

I asked him about his ‘house’ and his schedule of classes (the mandatory ones). I gave him my two cents about who to take and who to avoid.

He never replied.

 

[Allweather]

I’m a lay Buddhist and nothing else grandiose. I respect the popes of the past, especially His Holiness Pope John Paul II. I would never equate myself to them. Following my own way of life isn’t equal to me being a pope. It’s simply equal to me listening to my head and heart.

That is a fair statement, and I take it as you give it, but I still think that you have some serious Mormon inclinations, LOL.

No, following your own way of life doesn’t equate you to the Popes, but having your own interpretations of Sacred Scripture does. Personal, private scriptural interpretations are not to be taken as doctrinal matter. We are certainly free to read Scripture and to wonder what it means, but we are not free to disagree with the 2k years of Christian people who’ve interpreted it to mean thus and so, and to have followed the doctrines of the Church which wrote and compiled it, and have used it to support those doctrines.

For instance, you apparently, like Zerinus, interpret various Scriptural things to say that polygamy is good. The Jews and Catholics and Protestants including BTW all the other cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, will not read those scriptures the same way. Someone is wrong, and that someone is Joseph Smith and all who follow him and his false interpretations of scripture.

If you are following your own private interpretations that depart from orthodoxy, you are your own Pope. If you are following your own way of life without reference to God who created you, then you are your own god. Either one isn’t a very good way to go, although they may satisfy your needs for a time. Ultimately, you will come face to face with God, and will give an account of how you used your intellect, which God created and gave you to use as He intended.

 

[Fa_Chan]

That is a fair statement, and I take it as you give it, but I still think that you have some serious Mormon inclinations, LOL.

No, following your own way of life doesn’t equate you to the Popes, but having your own interpretations of Sacred Scripture does. Personal, private scriptural interpretations are not to be taken as doctrinal matter. We are certainly free to read Scripture and to wonder what it means, but we are not free to disagree with the 2k years of Christian people who’ve interpreted it to mean thus and so, and to have followed the doctrines of the Church which wrote and compiled it, and have used it to support those doctrines.

For instance, you apparently, like Zerinus, interpret various Scriptural things to say that polygamy is good. The Jews and Catholics and Protestants including BTW all the other cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, will not read those scriptures the same way. Someone is wrong, and that someone is Joseph Smith and all who follow him and his false interpretations of scripture.

If you are following your own private interpretations that depart from orthodoxy, you are your own Pope. If you are following your own way of life without reference to God who created you, then you are your own god. Either one isn’t a very good way to go, although they may satisfy your needs for a time. Ultimately, you will come face to face with God, and will give an account of how you used your intellect, which God created and gave you to use as He intended.

I understand your position and respect it and your sincerity. I disagree of course, but nonetheless can see you are pure in faith. I hope that if I do meet the Christian God that he will have mercy. And I will remind him of you and your faith.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Kristine1957]

I work with four active LDS. I just went around and asked them all (seperately) if they believed God was once a man and that he “progressed” to Godhood. One had to think about it for a minute, but they all said “yes”. My office is in Salt Lake City. The ages of these people are 29, 26, 49, and 32. I think I can say with confidence that LDS believe that God was once a man.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[Allweather]

I understand your position and respect it and your sincerity. I disagree of course, but nonetheless can see you are pure in faith. I hope that if I do meet the Christian God that he will have mercy. And I will remind him of you and your faith.

Peace…

Fa Chan

Same here, Fa Chan. I will be seeing Jesus tomorrow morning in the adoration chapel, and will remember you in my prayers before Him.

 

[PaulDupre]

Also, it us utterly and blatantly false that Abraham had only one wife. He had many wives; and even many concubines (Genesis 25:1-6; 1 Chronicles 1:32).

zerinus

Abraham was first married to Sarah, who died in chapter 23 of Genesis.

Then, in chapter 25, he married Keturah. The sacred author refers to Keturah as a “concubine”, which often means “a wife of second rank” - that is, a wife who is not the mother of his first-born.

There is absolutely no evidence that Abraham was married to Sarah and Keturah at the same time, and a plain reading of the text indicates that Abraham married Keturah after the death of Sarah.

You made the claim that Abraham “had many wives; and even many concubines”. The bible names two wives, each married monogamously to Abraham. Please name the “many wives and concubines” that Abraham had, and please cite your sources.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[zerinus]

Abraham was first married to Sarah, who died in chapter 23 of Genesis.

Then, in chapter 25, he married Keturah. The sacred author refers to Keturah as a “concubine”, which often means “a wife of second rank” - that is, a wife who is not the mother of his first-born.

There is absolutely no evidence that Abraham was married to Sarah and Keturah at the same time, and a plain reading of the text indicates that Abraham married Keturah after the death of Sarah.

You made the claim that Abraham “had many wives; and even many concubines”. The bible names two wives, each married monogamously to Abraham. Please name the “many wives and concubines” that Abraham had, and please cite your sources.

Thanks,
Paul

Genesis 25:

5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Z,
You’re right, it does say concubines. But there were only 2 concubines (aka wives of lower rank) in Abraham’s life - Hagar, who much earlier in the story gave Abraham a son at Sarah’s request then was out of the picture some time later, and Keturah, whom he married after the death of Sarah. No others are named or implied in the text. So, while I understand that you are an enthusiastic supporter of polygamy, I think it is a stretch to portray Abraham as living a Brigham-Youngesque lifestyle.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Allweather]

Z,
You’re right, it does say concubines. But there were only 2 concubines (aka wives of lower rank) in Abraham’s life - Hagar, who much earlier in the story gave Abraham a son at Sarah’s request then was out of the picture some time later, and Keturah, whom he married after the death of Sarah. No others are named or implied in the text. So, while I understand that you are an enthusiastic supporter of polygamy, I think it is a stretch to portray Abraham as living a Brigham-Youngesque lifestyle.

Cheers,
Paul

I agree with Paul. However, it doesn’t seem to me that we have to stretch far to make this case. Abram was a Babylonian, and probably wasn’t all that convinced that God would keep his promises with regard to the coming heir. It appears that he and Sarai got impatient, and thus comes Hagar the Egyptian. So, since Abram was disobient in not waiting for the Lord’s promise in the Lord’s own time, it isn’t beyond thinking that he may have had polygamous ideas pop up along the way, and take on other concubines. I don’t see any problem with that in terms of the Mormon argument that God desires men to have multiple wives today.

We know FOR SURE that Jesus proscribed polygamy via his explicit teachings regarding marriage, divorce, and adultery and fornication. We know that polygamy has been prohibited by the Christian Church(es) in all times and places. We know that it has been prohibited even in secular societies. There are very good reasons that polygamy has been prohibited, not least the fact that God has established a One Man, One Woman model for us from the very beginning, and that He uses the same allegory of Bride of Christ to describe the living Church that he established to carry forth his teachings in the world. The NT has a great deal of matter dealing with this model of One Man, One Woman. So, why are the Mormons using these OT fragments of a Babylonian patriarch who had more than one wife to justify their polygamous teachings? I think it is because they can’t find any other Biblical sources. For sure, the NT offers no support whatever.

 

[zerinus]

Z,
You’re right, it does say concubines. But there were only 2 concubines (aka wives of lower rank) in Abraham’s life - Hagar, who much earlier in the story gave Abraham a son at Sarah’s request then was out of the picture some time later, and Keturah, whom he married after the death of Sarah. No others are named or implied in the text. So, while I understand that you are an enthusiastic supporter of polygamy, I think it is a stretch to portray Abraham as living a Brigham-Youngesque lifestyle.

Cheers,
Paul

Not true. The “concubines******” it mentions are all those whom he married after the death of Sarah. It does not include Hagar. The context makes that perfectly clear. Verse 6 states that to the sons of his “concubines******” he gave gifts and sent them all eastward, unto the east country. Ishmael, Hagar’s son, was not sent to the east. He was sent to the south, to the Arabian Peninsula, where he became the progenitor of the Arab nation. Abraham clearly had many concubines, of whom only Keturah is mentioned by name. That is not unusual in the Bible. Solomon had 1,000 wives and concubines; but very few of them are mentioned by name. Abraham likewise had many wives and concubines; but only a few are mentioned by name.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Abraham clearly had many concubines, of whom only Keturah is mentioned by name. That is not unusual in the Bible. Solomon had 1,000 wives and concubines; but very few of them are mentioned by name. Abraham likewise had many wives and concubines; but only a few are mentioned by name.

zerinus

I am not seeing where he had “many.” The word is simply plural. It could mean only two.

But that isn’t the point. Abraham was a Babylonian, a region where polytheism was the normal type of religion. Polytheism produces polygamy. Monotheism produces monogamy. It is of more than passing interest that the polytheist religion of Mormonism also gives rise to the practice of polygamy.

What I get out of the story is that the offspring of these concubines had a lesser status than the offspring of promise, Isaac, such that they aren’t even named. While Ishmael is given more respect, though not the child of the Promise, that is because Abraham loved Ishmael and begged God to bless him, and God agreed. Abraham and Ishmael were circumcised together on the same day, so they shared in a very special way in the convenant. To me, this is demonstrative of the mercy of God, rather than his approval of Abraham’s impatient disobedience in fathering a child with the Egyptian servant. Note how in Gen 25:6 “…he sent them away eastward…away from his son Isaac.” Ishmael and Hagar were also banished, though Ishmael shows up again later, where it says that Isaac and Ishamel buried Abraham.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Z,

So, while I understand that you are an enthusiastic supporter of polygamy, I think it is a stretch to portray Abraham as living a Brigham-Youngesque lifestyle.

Cheers,
Paul

Paul and Allweather: is this the reason why Bring 'em Young and other mormon “prophets” wore those funky, Babylonian type beards???

I think of my History of Art class text full of all those middle Eastern bas reliefs and statuary showing mustache-less beards.

Come to think of it: one of my 1960s edition of the BoM has color plates in it showing the Nehis and Laminates in Babylonian garb and hirsute elegance.

However, newer paintings in wards and stake buildings of those exciting times in meso-America show a more “biblical” quasi-Hollywood look to the Mormon gods and godettes hacking their way through the Cain-cursed you-know-whos.

Pax Christi

 

[Allweather]

Paul and Allweather: is this the reason why Bring 'em Young and other mormon “prophets” wore those funky, Babylonian type beards???

I think of my History of Art class text full of all those middle Eastern bas reliefs and statuary showing mustache-less beards.

I kinda think it was a widespread style in those days. Lincoln had a moustachless beard, though it was fairly short in every photo of him I’ve seen. I’m thumbing through a book by John C. Waugh, Reelecting Lincoln, about the 1864 election campaign, and I see some other of this type of beard. Clement Valandigham, Horace Greely (though Greely looked more like long mutton chops from what I can see. Secretary of Navy Gideon Welles had a big ol’ poofy one.

But I suspect there was an awful lot of posturing going on among those early Mormons. I keep having this image of them being like the King and the Duke characters in Huckleberry Finn, just a couple of con men pretending to be royalty.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

But I suspect there was an awful lot of posturing going on among those early Mormons. I keep having this image of them being like the King and the Duke characters in Huckleberry Finn, just a couple of con men pretending to be royalty.

You nailed it to a ‘t’ ! I love that book, it’s my all time favorite read! Remember the comment about the poster: “women and children not allowed” something to the effect of: “If I know Arkansas, that will bring them in.”

Mormon patriarchal every-man-a-god beliefs: “If I know these brow-beaten farmers, this will pack our wagon trains,” Bring’em Young, 1840s

Mark Twain had no respect for mormon beliefs and customs. They were a more bizarre cult in the 1800s then they are now, and that may be the reason why they lay low: mormon documents and history is readily available on line and from exMormons who have found the Love and Faith in Christ.

Stuff that grows in the dark with a lot of manure shrivels in the light of the Son.

Pax Christi

 

[Renzo]

Yes.

Mormons are not even Christians by any accepted standard. They don’t follow Jesus as God, nor any of the most basic theological precept other Christians do, they can’t even be considered a monotheistic religion.

In my personal view they are down there with new age wackos, astrologers and all the rest of the pagan folks.

I am surprised to find them to be a regular topic here. I am new here so…

 

[Allweather]

Yes.

Mormons are not even Christians by any accepted standard. They don’t follow Jesus as God, nor any of the most basic theological precept other Christians do, they can’t even be considered a monotheistic religion.

In my personal view they are down there with new age wackos, astrologers and all the rest of the pagan folks.

I am surprised to find them to be a regular topic here. I am new here so…

There’s a resident Mormon missionary who has made it his missionary career to inhabit this space. He insures that there will always be lots of Mormon talk.

 

[Renzo]

That’s just sad .

But as far as I know, I am sure everything I said is true. They don’t follow Christ as real God. They believe in existence or potential existence of many gods, ergo not being monotheistic.

Please correct any of these statements if they are untrue.

The part about the new ages, astrowackos and miscellaneous is a personal opinion that started when i learn about the Mormons story about how the American Indians came to be… check that one out, is mind blowing.

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s just sad .

But as far as I know, I am sure everything I said is true. They don’t follow Christ as real God. They believe in existence or potential existence of many gods, ergo not being monotheistic.

Please correct any of these statements if they are untrue.

The part about the new ages, astrowackos and miscellaneous is a personal opinion that started when i learn about the Mormons story about how the American Indians came to be… check that one out, is mind blowing.

As has been pointed out in other Mormon threads, Mormons are technically Henotheists, not Polytheists; that is, they believe in the existence of many gods, but worship only one of them.

Best wishes,
Paul (an ex-Mormon, now Catholic)