Most LDS do not like to talk about this, or about the other relentlessly sexual teachings of the LDS Church.I was talking to one lds who kept telling me Jesus was the literal son of God, in otherwords sex was involved, I told him that must mean He had literal mother. Whats the real story about this according to the LDS? Official documents would be nice.
I got no response after asking this a few times so Im guessing this was a hush-hush issue?
Do you know of official lds documents that say these things or is this stuff that they dont talk about? Is this required belief for a mormon?Most LDS do not like to talk about this, or about the other relentlessly sexual teachings of the LDS Church.
They believe that Jesus is the literal “Son of God” in two senses:
Paul
- The LDS believe that their “god the father” is a polygamous resurrected human with a body of flesh and bone. The LDS believe that, like all of us, the spirit of Jesus was literally “born” of the Mormon god the father and one his goddess wives in the “Celestial Kingdom”. They believe that when gods and goddesses copulate, they give birth to “spirit children”. Mormons teach that Jesus (named “Jehovah” in the pre-mortal world), was the first-born spirit child of the Mormon god the father. This status as first-born entitled Jehovah to come to earth and be born into a physical body as the savior Jesus.
- The LDS teach that the Mormon god the father came down to earth and had sexual intercourse with his daughter Mary, resulting in Mary’s pregnancy and the birth of Jesus.
Many are unaware? Whats the logical conclusion then for them? If they say Jesus is the literal spirit-child then they have to conclude there has to be “goddess wives”.Many LDS are unaware of these teachings and the modern Mormon Church has tried to play down these teachings, but they have pervaded all of LDS teaching since the 1830’s.
si, por favorI have posted the quotes from Mormon “prophets” and “apostles” before, but perhaps it is time to post them again for the newbies.
Paul
“Literal Son of God” does not mean that “sex was involved”. Jesus’ conception took place through a miraculous process. It was done by the “power of the Holy Ghost,” as the Book of Mormon states (Alma 7:10). But still, He was the literal Son of God His Father. It is like someone being conceived through IVF. If a child is born to someone through IVF, there is no “sex” involved; but it does not mean that he is no longer the “literal son of his natural father”. When LDS emphasize the fact that Jesus was the “literal Son of God the Father,” what they are trying to do is emphasize their belief in the fact that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate personages in human form who have exactly the same relationship with each other that any father and son may have between them here on earth. In other words, it is not like the Trinity of modern Christendom, where the Father and the Son are conglomerated into one incomprehensible entity with indefinable borders.I was talking to one lds who kept telling me Jesus was the literal son of God, in otherwords sex was involved, I told him that must mean He had literal mother. Whats the real story about this according to the LDS? Official documents would be nice.
I got no response after asking this a few times so Im guessing this was a hush-hush issue?
the Trinity of modern (?!?!?!?) Christendomoriginally posted by zerinus
whether or not “sex” was involved has been the subject of much “unofficial” debate over the years. early LDS leaders were quite explicit on the subject but in recent years it pretty much hasn’t been spoken of. Foir purposes of this discussion I think it somewhat irelevant. The salient fact about LDS doctrine is that Jesus is the LITERAL offspring of God the father. That creates a number of additional beliefs equally disturbing: Jesus had a finite beginning and had to “achieve” his exaltation, we are all literal offspring as well JUST LIKE JESUS! - his literal siblings and Satan is our brother too, more implicit but still doctrinally supported in the LDS religion is that we (and Jesus) have a “heavenly mother” (or mothers), that God the father had a finite beginning and was once a mortal who “achieved” exaltation and He has a “Heavenly Father” - this process goes back infinitely and is expected to continue infinitely with faithful LDS hoping to “achieve” exaltation as well thus becoming heavenly parents and “Gods” in a literal sense.“Literal Son of God” does not mean that “sex was involved”. Jesus’ conception took place through a miraculous process. It was done by the “power of the Holy Ghost,” as the Book of Mormon states (Alma 7:10). But still, He was the literal Son of God His Father. It is like someone being conceived through IVF. If a child is born to someone through IVF, there is no “sex” involved; but it does not mean that he is no longer the “literal son of his natural father”. When LDS emphasize the fact that Jesus was the “literal Son of God the Father,” what they are trying to do is emphasize their belief in the fact that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate personages in human form who have exactly the same relationship with each other that any father and son may have between them here on earth. In other words, it is not like the Trinity of modern Christendom, where the Father and the Son are conglomerated into one incomprehensible entity with indefinable borders.
zerinus
Your missing what Im getting at as majick kind of pointed out. I highlighted some stuff in red above. Im mostly interested in the “literal Son of the Father” aspect. In order to be a “literal father” that means a “literal mother” needs to exist. You say they have “exactly the same relationship” as us, well how can it be “exactly the same” if we require the marital act and a literal mother in order to bring about offspring?“Literal Son of God” does not mean that “sex was involved”.
…
When LDS emphasize the fact that Jesus was the “literal Son of God the Father,” what they are trying to do is emphasize their belief in the fact that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate personages** in human form who have exactly the same relationship with each other that any father and son may have between them here on earth**. In other words, it is not like the Trinity of modern Christendom, where the Father and the Son are conglomerated into one incomprehensible entity with indefinable borders.
zerinus
I thought that is exactly what I had answered.Your missing what Im getting at as majick kind of pointed out. I highlighted some stuff in red above. Im mostly interested in the “literal Son of the Father” aspect.
Exactly. Jesus had a literal Father as well as a literal mother. His literal Father was God, and His literal mother was Mary. I don’t know how it can be expressed any plainer than that.In order to be a “literal father” that means a “literal mother” needs to exist.
I don’t know about the marital act; but there was a literal mother as well as a literal Father (without any sex involved), as explained above. What do you find difficult to understand about that?You say they have “exactly the same relationship” as us, well how can it be “exactly the same” if we require the marital act and a literal mother in order to bring about offspring?
I don’t care what the Catholics believe and what they don’t believe. You had asked a question about what the LDS believe, and I had told you. What do you find difficult to understand about that?When Catholics talk about God the Father we dont mean the Father was male nor do we mean there is a human-father-son relationship between the Father and the Son.
Im not talking about Mary nor the human nature of Jesus. Im talking about the Father being the “literal” father to the pre-incarnate Son.I thought that is exactly what I had answered.
Exactly. Jesus had a literal Father as well as a literal mother. His literal Father was God, and His literal mother was Mary. I don’t know how it can be expressed any plainer than that.
I don’t know about the marital act; but there was a literal mother as well as a literal Father (without any sex involved), as explained above. What do you find difficult to understand about that?
I don’t care what the Catholics believe and what they don’t believe. You had asked a question about what the LDS believe, and I had told you. What do you find difficult to understand about that?
zerinus
Here you go:si, por favor
President Brigham Young
“The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866)
“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)
President Joseph Fielding Smith
“They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible!” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18)
“Jesus was not the son of any mortal man. His biological father was God, the Father. As Son of God, Jesus represents the Father and acts as his agent in all things.” (The Restoration of All Things, p.61)
“Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, page 18)
Continued…President Ezra Taft Benson
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which he performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, pages 6-7)
Apostle Orson Pratt (Appointed by President Brigham Young as Official publicist for LDS doctrine):
"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: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully.
It was also lawful in Him, after having 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." (The Seer, Oct. 1853, page 158)But 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.
Apostle Heber C. Kimball:
In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Journal of discourses, 8:211)
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:
**“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” **(Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)
“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And 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, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 742)
“For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466)
Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God, and had come to be worthy of the fulfilment of the promises heretofore made, to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said: “God hath done wonderful things unto me.” “And the Holy Ghost came upon her,” is the story, “and she came into the presence of the highest.” No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. (The Promised Messiah, p.472 - p.473)
Poster’s note: “Jesus the Christ” was required reading when I was a full-time missionary. I know of no missionary (during the 1970’s) who did not read it and fully comprehend its meaning.Apostle James E. Talmadge
And so, in the final analysis it is the faithful saints, those who have testimonies of the truth and divinity of this great latter-day work, who declare our Lord’s generation to the world. Their testimony is that Mary’s son is God’s Son; that he was conceived and begotten in the normal way; that he took upon himself mortality by the natural birth processes; that he inherited the power of mortality from his mother and the power of immortality from his Father—in consequence of all of which he was able to work out the infinite and eternal atonement. This is their testimony as to his generation and mission. (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.5, p.43)
These were the original questions you had asked:Im not talking about Mary nor the human nature of Jesus. Im talking about the Father being the “literal” father to the pre-incarnate Son.
The term “literal father” is in reference to males who have had children, males (and females) are created beings by God and God designed them to procreate as male and female through the marital act.
LDS believe that Jesus was the “literal Son of God,” and that does not entail that “sex was involved”.I was talking to one lds who kept telling me Jesus was the literal son of God, in otherwords sex was involved, . . .
Of course He had a literal mother, just as He had a literal Father. His literal mother was Mary, and His literal Father was God.. . . I told him that must mean He had literal mother.
The real story is the one I told you. God the Father was Christ’s literal Father, and Mary was His literal mother (without sex being involved, as in IVF for example). For official documents see Alma 7:10, as previously given.Whats the real story about this according to the LDS? Official documents would be nice.
There is nothing hush-hush about it. You have got a response now! But you don’t seem to be very adept at picking it up.I got no response after asking this a few times so Im guessing this was a hush-hush issue?
Ok, disregard what I said originally because you misunderstood what I was originally asking. My (revised) question has nothing to do with Mary.These were the original questions you had asked:
LDS believe that Jesus was the “literal Son of God,” and that does not entail that “sex was involved”.
Of course He had a literal mother, just as He had a literal Father. His literal mother was Mary, and His literal Father was God.
The real story is the one I told you. God the Father was Christ’s literal Father, and Mary was His literal mother (without sex being involved, as in IVF for example). For official documents see Alma 7:10, as previously given.