God Has a Body (Flesh & Blood) Is That a Mormon Teaching?

[Chris-WA]

BJ Colbert:

To: Chris_Wa

You are absolutely right on and I agree with your comments. You expressed the truth and did it well. Others in this discussion would do well to read your post. As for God, you know we only pray to one and do not worship any other. Thank You!!!

You’re quite welcome. Being married to a Mormon, I’ve learned over the years that LDS folks often interpret any challenge to their beliefs as a personal attack. I’m not sure why this is so, perhaps because the persecution of the LDS church in its earliest days is still very fresh in the minds of today’s members. All I ask is that one does not take things personally, but rather takes the discussion for what it is–a chance to explain beliefs and to learn.

I, of course, know that the LDS worship only God the Father. But I am also aware that although they do not worship other gods, they do admit to the existance of other gods. This is not speculation, nor does it come from anti-Mormon sources. This comes directly from official LDS sources, and there is plenty of documentation of people such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young teaching these beliefs. Whether your average Mormon believes these teachings is not the issue. Whether today’s Mormon church teaches it is not the issue. The fact is that LDS prophets have taught these things and if they are truly the chosen prophets of God, then we cannot just dismiss them. Again, this is not a personal attack. I just want to know what happened to these teachings? Do LDS acknolwedge them or not? If not, why not?

 

[Sweetcakes]

Sounds like Amway, doesn’t it?

This gave me the best laugh I’ve had all day. And it’s a very astute observation.

 

[leschornmom]

".Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born [on earth]
to a virgin

, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, ‘was carried away in the Spirit’ . . . and the conception which took place . . resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 322)How could Christ be born to a virgin if God had sex with her?..By the way what you tried to quot was actully on page 822 and the quote in it’s entirity is as follows "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born [on earth] to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, was carried away in the Spirit’ (!Ne 11:13-21),was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. and the conception which took place “By the power of the Holy Ghost"resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2Ne 17:14; Isa 7:14; Matt 1:18-25; Luke1:26-38.) Christ is not the son of the Holy Gohst, but of the Father. (Docterines of Salvation vol1 pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.” I highlighted the parts that this person left out so that you can see that he is trying to sway you with lies about our religion. If you dont believe in Mormonism that’s fine but please don’t believe the false-hoods put out by this person.

“Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived, and born in the normal and natural course of events . . .” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 742)

I am not denying these coments but I could not fin them in the book that this man is quoting from. What title was this under in Mormon Doctrine? It was not on page 742 of my copy.* I’m sure that it was just another one of your oversights. Surely you wouldn’t miss lead these readers on purpose! *
Any way, this is refering to the fact that Christ was born in the natural way and grew in the womb the natural way it says nothing about having sex. In fact if you read it it says the exact opposite! Even your religion says that Christ was God’s begotten son. A child can be conceved in many scientific ways today. Don’t you think it’s possible for God to bless Mary with the Christ Child with out defiling her?

Katholikos:

In the “normal and natural course of events” a father has sexual intercourse with the mother to produce a son or daughter. Therefore some Mormons have logically concluded that to beget Jesus, God had intercourse with Mary when she was allegedly “carried away in the Spirit.” This is implied in official Mormon doctrine, though it isn’t explicitly stated.

JMJ Jay

This is only in your odd oppinion of a small part of scripture.Though we use the Bible that is not being put into question here. This man is trying to tell people what our “Mormon” teachings are. So, I will respond with only “Mormon” scripture.
Try these:
“And I said unto him [she is] A virgin, most beautiful and fair.” (1Ne11:15)
“And he said unto me: behold the virgin whom thou seest is the Mother of the son of God” (1NE 11:18)
“And Behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Gohst, and bring forth a son. Yea, even the son of God.” (Alma 7:11)
Those are just a few.

 

[Sweetcakes]

To BJ Colbert:

Paragraphs, PLEASE!!!

They make long posts like your much easier to read.

 

[tkdnick]

Seems we’ve kind of moved off the topic a bit huh? We were talking about God the father having a real body and now we’re talking about whether Jesus was the product of a sexual act between God and Mary or an infusion of the Holy Spirit. What happened to the original topic?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Again the persons in the LDS church that you are quoting, are not writing scripture and can speculate on any subject they wish to speculate on

Hmmmmm… according to the LDS Bishop I work with, the doctrines of the elders of the LDS Church are indeed Scripture. That’s somewhere written in Doctrines and Convenances, I believe.

Nonetheless, the BYU source that I quoted from states that these are not speculations, but LDS “doctrines” : “**(1) men can become gods, (2) there exists many gods, (3) the gods exist one above another innumerably, and (4) God was once as man now is.” **

If one god is above another innumerably, then God the Father is below another God, the one that he worshipped while he was still just a man on whatever planet he lived upon.

I’m not trying to misunderstand LDS doctrine. I’m a post-grad student of religioous studied and the LDS religion is but one of the many religions I’m trying to understand. I go to LDS official sources and speak to LDS Bishops to help me to understand. They are telling me exactly what I’ve provided above. I discuss religion with the good LDS Bishop that I work with quite often. He hasn’t given me the impression that I have misunderstood him. He’s certain that I don’t agree with his religion and he does not agree with mine. But we both still enjoy discussing our religious beliefs just the same, so the each can understand more fully what it is we belief and why.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Also that there is a female God along with a male God.

From the BYU LDS FAQ source…
What do Latter-day Saints believe about a mother in heaven?

Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father. … A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness, although very little has yet been revealed concerning her.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Againt from the LDS Elder, Orson Pratt:

“…i****t will be seen that the GREAT MESSIAH who was the founder of the Christian religion, WAS A POLYGAMIST, . . .the MESSIAH chose. . .by marrying honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that HE approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensation in which His polygamist ancestors lived. . . .We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives. . .” (The Seer, page 172)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is my understanding, in accord with what an LDS Bishop asserted to me, that whatever an LDS priest shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Spirit shall be Scripture …

D&C 68:2-4:

And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

I believe his caveat was that what was Scripture to one person may not be Scripture to another, as an LDS priest’s inspired teaching may be for a particular person or persons in a particular circumstance.

 

[leschornmom]

itsjustdave1998,
What you are quoting is sertainly not scripture Not even the book entitled Mormon Doctrine is considered scripture. It is, however, writen by Bruce R McConkie , a leader of our church. This Book is approved by the First Presidency in our church as a kind of hand book for those who wish to learn about our religion. It should not be the only book studied. It should only accompany the studies of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. These are our scriptures.

To answer the original question: Does God have a body of flesh and blood ?
Yes we believe he does. We believe that we are his children and we were created in his likeness.
I’m sorry that I got off the suject.

 

[leschornmom]

D&C 68:2-4:It is my understanding, in accord with what an LDS Bishop asserted to me, that whatever an LDS priest shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Spirit shall be Scripture …

I believe his caveat was that what was Scripture to one person may not be Scripture to another, as an LDS priest’s inspired teaching may be for a particular person or persons in a particular circumstance.

I think I understand what you are saying here. I pretty much agree but that is not necessarily a Mormon teaching…it may be more of my own opinion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Isn’t Doctrines and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price also considered Scripture by the LDS?

I got that quote above from scriptures.lds.org/dc/68

I don’t think D&C 68 is mere LDS opinion, but is described and listed by LDS.ORG as LDS Scripture.

I suppose these are considered universal LDS Scritpure, whereas an LDS priest can add to this Scripture when what he speaks he asserts as having been moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Exporter]

The following by ItsjustDave,
"Hmmmmm… according to the LDS Bishop I work with, the doctrines of the elders of the LDS Church are indeed Scripture. That’s somewhere written in Doctrines and Convenances, I believe.

Nonetheless, the BYU source that I quoted from states that these are not speculations, but LDS “doctrines” : “**(1) men can become gods, (2) there exists many gods, (3) the gods exist one above another innumerably, and (4) God was once as man now is.” **

This by a man who works with an LDS Bishop and has gone to BYU for an answer. This sounds authentic to me.

Just like there are Catholic who don’t know the finer points of Catholic Doctrine…I am sure there are Mormons who do not know their own Doctrines completely.:tsktsk:

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Sorry about the long posts with no paragraphs, just started writing and did not think about correct form…
Katholikos, tnaque,tkdnick and itsjustdave1988, I appreciate all you have written and the lengths you go to research what you write. I am not researching but writing off the cuff.
I agree with a lot of what you have researched, and have heard many of the things you point out from McConkie and others, but those are writings that are not normally taught as scripture. I only know what I know. Mormon priests are boys 16 years old and when they reach 18 they may become elders and as elders they may go on 2 year missions, they remain elders, until they are called to be a Bishop or other callings so I don’t believe they write scripture. The Bible(King James version) The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are all scripture of our Church. Other writings by our Prophet or Apostles may be considered present day revelation or scripture also, as God is constantly guiding the leaders of His Church.
I believe there are other gods and other worlds, but they are not the God of this world and we do not pray to them.
Even though truth never changes, even God is not stagnant, but constantly learning as we are. No one can stand still and I don’t believe that God just sits on His laurels. I don’t know that though, so don’t bite my head off over that. It is OK that you don’t believe what I believe, but no matter what you say, we do believe in the same God, because there is only One and it is only in our understanding of Him that we differ. As for LDS believing that He is our Father in Heaven, I know that Catholics recite the Lord’s Prayer and it calls Him"Our Father Who Art in Heaven". So you too must believe that He is your Father in Heaven. Which means He is the Father of your spirits, as that is where your spirits came from. Right?

 

[Chris-WA]

BJ Colbert:

I believe there are other gods and other worlds, but they are not the God of this world and we do not pray to them.

BJ, please understand that for us Catholics, and for all other Christians for that matter, this statement is a very big deal. Nowhere does the bible indicate that there are other gods–in fact it’s very much the opposite. Again and again and again, God tells us that besides Him, there is no other. He never hints that he’s only talking about this world either. For us it’s not just important that we only worship God, but it’s also important that we don’t believe in the existance of any other gods for any other worlds.
BJ Colbert:

Even though truth never changes, even God is not stagnant, but constantly learning as we are. No one can stand still and I don’t believe that God just sits on His laurels. I don’t know that though, so don’t bite my head off over that.

No plan to bite off anything off of anybody. But again, the bible clearly teaches that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He can’t learn because he already knows all there is. It’s that simple. God is not part of creation. He is the creator of all creation, and therefore not subject to any of its limitations. He’s not sitting on his laurels. He is a loving Father intimately involved in the lives of his children.

 

[Katholikos]

leschommom:

This answers your post #43, not quoted here because of space limitations.

The following was written by Orson Pratt, one of the original 12 apostles chosen by Joseph Smith. In 1853 he was appointed by Brigham Young to write and publish periodicals, pamphlets, books, etc., regarding the principles and doctrines of the Church. This is only a fraction of the detail from Pratt’s publication, The Seer. I’m sure you can find it at your local LDS bookstore.

QUOTE: We are informed in . . . Luke that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom He begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee . . .” There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary . . . The Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide the presence of the Father without being consumed: but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called “The only begotten of the Father”; that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father . . .

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 together 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 . . . God, having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful for Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch 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. END QUOTE Orson Pratt, The Seer, P. 158

Orson Pratt, one of the original 12 apostles of the Mormon Church, taught this as official doctrine with the approval and sanction of the First Presidency. This is a brief excerpt , but should be plenty to demonstrate that the official Mormon teaching when the Church was formed was that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. If this doctrine isn’t taught now, one should ask, Why Not?

JMJ Jay

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Which means He is the Father of your spirits, as that is where your spirits came from. Right?

God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) created our soul. He created the earth too, but that doesn’t mean He had conjugal relations with some other spirit being to do so. He did not have, nor did he need a Heavenly Mother to create any of our souls. Humans are made up of body and soul. God created Adam and Eve and we inherited our human bodies from them. That’s how God planned it. God, however, created my human soul (all human souls) from nothing and infused it into my body at conception. No heavenly copulation was required. Unlike LDS theology, Catholics do not believe the soul pre-existed the body.

You insist we believe in the same God because you only worship one of they many gods you believe exists. Many polytheist, such as the Greeks and Romans believed in the existence of many gods, even if some only worshipped one of them. That doesn’t mean that the god they worshipped is the same god as the Christian God. Your conclusion fails to follow from the premise and is no more convincing than the Greek pagans insisting they worship the same God as Christianity.

The Gnostics, for example, also took Scripture and attached their own unique meanings to them, then created their own Scripture. They too believed their seers had secret access to new revelations from God. They have an entirely different understanding of God than Christianity. Their god was not the same as ours either, even if they, like LDS, use similar terms from Scripture. You see, that’s where the similarity begins and ends. The underslying meaning is far different, which is the quintessential thing when using terminology. I can call my left foot “God the Father” and say I worship only my left foot, the “one true God,” but that doesn’t make my God the Christian God. (no offense intended). I just feel it’s important to state clearly the similarities and the true differences in our religions. Your religion differs in its fundamentals from Christianity.

I know my Bishop friend will disagree with me on whether or not he is Christian. However, I use the example of Thomas Jefferson. He described himself as Christian, yet he also denied anything supernatural, to include miracles. His *Jefferson Bible *took all the miracles out of the Bible and just left the ethical teachings. Would you call him Christian? He asserted that he was, but he using the term “Christian” in his own unque way. But can we redefine what Christianity is to suit our own personal meaning? That’s nothing more than to distort the meaning of previously used words in an effort to either purposefully or inadvertently confuse others. Yet Jefferson’s claim to Christianity was based upon his agreement with what Jesus taught ethically, while denying anything miraculous or supernatural about Jesus. More precisely, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, in the commonly held usage of these words.

In a similar way, LDS have taken what was considered Christianity up to the time of Joseph Smith and redefined the terminology to fit their purposes, adding an entirely new theology and changing previous theology to such extent that it really is no longer Christianity. One who studies theology knows that even if they use the same terms, the substance of the theology is completely dissimilar, so much so that they are different religions altogether, yet each insisting that they are to be called Christian.

 

[flameburns623]

leschornmom:

How could Christ be born to a virgin if God had sex with her?..By the way what you tried to quot was actully on page 822 and the quote in it’s entirity is as follows "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born [on earth] to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, was carried away in the Spirit’ (!Ne 11:13-21),was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. and the conception which took place “By the power of the Holy Ghost"resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2Ne 17:14; Isa 7:14; Matt 1:18-25; Luke1:26-38.) Christ is not the son of the Holy Gohst, but of the Father. (Docterines of Salvation vol1 pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.” I highlighted the parts that this person left out so that you can see that he is trying to sway you with lies about our religion. If you dont believe in Mormonism that’s fine but please don’t believe the false-hoods put out by this person.
I am not denying these coments but I could not fin them in the book that this man is quoting from. What title was this under in Mormon Doctrine? It was not on page 742 of my copy.* I’m sure that it was just another one of your oversights. Surely you wouldn’t miss lead these readers on purpose! *
Any way, this is refering to the fact that Christ was born in the natural way and grew in the womb the natural way it says nothing about having sex. In fact if you read it it says the exact opposite! Even your religion says that Christ was God’s begotten son. A child can be conceved in many scientific ways today. Don’t you think it’s possible for God to bless Mary with the Christ Child with out defiling her?

This is only in your odd oppinion of a small part of scripture.Though we use the Bible that is not being put into question here. This man is trying to tell people what our “Mormon” teachings are. So, I will respond with only “Mormon” scripture.
Try these:
“And I said unto him [she is] A virgin, most beautiful and fair.” (1Ne11:15)
“And he said unto me: behold the virgin whom thou seest is the Mother of the son of God” (1NE 11:18)
“And Behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Gohst, and bring forth a son. Yea, even the son of God.” (Alma 7:11)
Those are just a few.

I have posted several times in other threads on this topic several ‘classic’ LDS writers on Mormonism. I strongly advise folks to learn of Mormonism directly from works such as those and not from ‘anti-Mormon’ sources which may or may not provide accurate information. One instantly loses credibility with most people if one cites an innacurate citation, even if this is done innocently: the impression is that not enough research has been done, and that the innacuracies are perhaps born of some sort of personal bigotry. Such bigotry is also displayed, btw, when one not only insists upon calling the Latter-Day Saints exclusively by what was originally an insulting nickname, “Mormons”; but don’t even take the trouble to spell it correctly. For the record: the word is NOT “Morman”

 

[flameburns623]

flameburns623:

I have posted several times in other threads on this topic several ‘classic’ LDS writers on Mormonism. I strongly advise folks to learn of Mormonism directly from works such as those and not from ‘anti-Mormon’ sources which may or may not provide accurate information. One instantly loses credibility with most people if one cites an innacurate citation, even if this is done innocently: the impression is that not enough research has been done, and that the innacuracies are perhaps born of some sort of personal bigotry. Such bigotry is also displayed, btw, when one not only insists upon calling the Latter-Day Saints exclusively by what was originally an insulting nickname, “Mormons”; but don’t even take the trouble to spell it correctly. For the record: the word is NOT “Morman”

Having said this: Mormons who seek to confuse the issues when the plain and straightforward truth about LDS teaching is posted here need to be brought up short. Latter-Day Saint doctrine clearly teaches that God the Father is a personage of flesh and bone and is one of three separate beings in the Godhead. Mormonism is clearly and irrevocably polytheistic, even if one accepts the modern LDS teaching that Heavenly Father will always be 'God" to we His spirit-children. (This has not always been taught thus, though I have no citation at hand: at one time it was pointed out that just as natural children can achieve more than their natural fathers, so it is possible that some of us who are God’s spirit-children might someday achieve more than our own Heavenly Father).

It is fair to alert anyone who posts to this forum that citations might need to include the year of publication and/or edition. There is a tendency for LDS works to be re-released with certain controversial passages edited or revised to minimize or eliminate the controversy. This has occurred particularly with McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” as well as with the “Journal of Discourses” and “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”. The editiing of such classic works does NOT appear to indicate a repudiation of controversial ideas but appeats to simply be a smokescreen making it more difficult for critics to show the sharp contrasts between authentic Christian teaching and authentic, classic LDS teaching.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Confusing, isn’t it?

Mormons say this. Mormons say that. Texts are brought up as proof and then dismissed out of hand by other (more modern) texts without any attempt at all to synthesize the previous texts. It all seems so arbritary.
I once explained the communion of the saints to a Mormon co-worker. He accused me of “watering it down” to make it sound harmless (because there is in fact nothing wrong with it). I found this reaction singular.
Until I read about the “milk before meat” strategy used by Mormon missionaries. This is where you save introducing the really alarming stuff for later. Is this a particular charity, or deliberate deception?
When I evangelize, I do not save what Protestants would find “weird” for last. I was praying the rosary before I entered RCIA and found that the hardest stuff to accept about Catholicism actually was the most well-founded. I also realized in the process that Catholic conversion is not horizontal – that is, you do not drop x belief for y belief while keeping some of w. Catholic conversion is vertical: you go up. I dropped nothing. I gained everything. It was fantastic because everything connected perfectly. The theology, the practice, even the art EVERYTHING is organic. Holy Mother Church is struck through with unity and this unity is the source of her beauty. Her beauty comes thus from her conformity (marriage) with Truth. “Truth is not a something. Truth is a Somebody.”
After this, I naturally expected to find similar unity in thought and teaching in the other oft-persecuted authoritative church – the Mormon church.
But too many times, I had the displeasure of walking into the room and catching the rear end of some anti-Catholic banter between the Mormons and some curious Protestant friends. If they were interested in an open discussion, why wait until I leave and stop when I walk into the room? Could it be because they would not accept my (name removed by moderator)ut at face value? Why would they think so unless something about their own experiences evangelizing would give them reason to suspect my words?
We should not be surprised to see so many Mormons in contradiction with each other and with their own teachings. Their concept of Truth (and thus their concept of God) completely contradicts our own. And though their church organization has taken great pains to ressemble our own (with a president in place of a papa, bishops, etc), it is not ultimately authoritative in spiritual matters. Mormons have the “freedom” for example to get abortions and use birth control, so long as they pray beforehand and get a direct answer from God (the answer usually comes in the form of a warm fuzzy).
This is no different from any other form of relativist Protestantism. But if Truth is mutable, then it is no longer Truth, but the dogma of convenience. When our Church was as old as the Mormon church is, we stuck to our beliefs even though that meant becoming lion chow.
Mormonism cannot make sense as it stands. Just like Protestantism, the practioners of a hundred years ago would be appalled at the professed beliefs and actions of practioners today. What was Gospel truth for them is not for modern Mormons. In less than two centuries, it has already experienced a major division and is rife with in-fighting and dissent. Each believes what he wants and tosses the rest to the winds. If the belief is patently offensive (polygamy, polytheism) it is hidden under a whitewash of self-defeating logic. Of course you cannot get a straight answer.

Maybe if you just “pray directly to God and get the answer from Him” … :banghead: