LDS: Jesus is the "son" of God?

[Chris-WA]

Ok, disregard what I said originally because you misunderstood what I was originally asking. My (revised) question has nothing to do with Mary.
What Im asking is this:
We both believe Jesus, the Son of God existed BEFORE He was born of Mary. How did the Son of God come to exist BEFORE He was born of Mary? Phrased differently, before Mary was even born, how was the “spirit” Jesus “born”, some here tell me “goddess wives”, is that correct?

Paul Dupre gave you the best answer to this question as shown by his quotes from past LDS leaders. Today’s Mormons are going to have a very difficult time answering this question because many are unaware of those teachings from the former LDS leaders, and the current church seems to take no official public position on the matter anymore. Mormons do not have an official “catechism” book from which you can get direct answers to these types of questions. The closest thing they have is “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce McKonkie, but you can’t even count on it to define the official current church position on certain things. The doctrine of the LDS church is sort of a moving target, and totally depends on what the current prophet is teaching. It can be very frustrating when you’re having discussions with Mormons because they can’t really point to a definitive source on many issues. If you bring up past teachings of LDS prophets and apostles that don’t seem to fit with current teachings, Mormons simply dismiss those past teachings as speculation on the part of the prophet or apostle. Of course, those prophets and apostles didn’t see it that way, and neither did the members of their time.

So, though currently Mormons still claim that Jesus is the literal son of God the Father and that God and Jesus are separate beings, they don’t really do too good a job of defining what that means. They also don’t really delve into the obvious implications this belief has on the idea of eternal progression. Was God once a mere mortal man as Joseph Smith once taught? Today’s Mormons won’t answer that question to anyone’s satisfaction–not even the current prophet himself as he demonstrated on his Larry King Live interview a few years ago.

 

[zerinus]

Ok, disregard what I said originally because you misunderstood what I was originally asking.

I don’t think I had misunderstood what you were originally asking. It may be that you had failed to express your thoughts correctly, but I don’t think I had misunderstood them.

What Im asking is this:
We both believe Jesus, the Son of God existed BEFORE He was born of Mary. How did the Son of God come to exist BEFORE He was born of Mary?

Here is a major difference between LDS theology and the Catholic one. We believe that Jesus was not the only one who existed before He was born. We believe that ALL mankind existed before they were born. Thus in this respect there is no difference between Jesus and the rest of mankind.

Phrased differently, before Mary was even born, how was the “spirit” Jesus “born”, some here tell me “goddess wives”, is that correct?

That is something about which sufficient information has not been revealed. Whatever you may have heard is speculation. We simply don’t know how they came to be born. What we DO know is that they WERE born; and this is confirmed in the Bible as well as in LDS scripture. The Bible tells us that Jesus was born in the pre-existence, before He was born into mortality here on earth:

Colossians 1:

15 Who {Jesus} is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

And modern LDS scripture provides the following additional insights:

D&C 93:

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
But exactly how they came to be “born,” and what is the mechanism by which it was accomplished, we do not know; it has not been revealed.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Sorry amgid, but “the first-born of every creature” does not mean that Jesus was “born” as a spirit child in the pre-existence.

The term “first-born” has a special honorific meaning in Jewish culture. It means that he who is called “first-born” is the owner of everything his father has.

Your Rev 3:14 reference is flawed as well. The actual greek means “the source of all creation”. It does not mean that Christ is a creature, as Mormons and JWs believe, but that as the gospel of John says “Nothing was made that was not made through him.”.

You cannot cherry-pick verses out of context to support your non-Christian cult that denies the essential divinity of Jesus. We will not let you get away with it.

Paul

 

[majick275]

I think it hilarious that amgid went from A to Z (zerinus) after he proved himself wrongc on this forum.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is a major difference between LDS theology and the Catholic one. We believe that Jesus was not the only one who existed before He was born. We believe that ALL mankind existed before they were born. Thus in this respect there is no difference between Jesus and the rest of mankind.

Oh, I forgot that you guys dont believe in “creation” as in God created everything (creation ex-nihilo) but in “organization” where “pre-human” spirits always existed.

From this now a new problem arises, at this point the Father cant be a literal father because the “children” are the same age as Him.

That is something about which sufficient information has not been revealed. Whatever you may have heard is speculation. We simply don’t know how they came to be born. What we DO know is that they WERE born; and this is confirmed in the Bible as well as in LDS scripture.

Then shouldnt the term “literal father” not be used, its cleary not literal pro-creation as humans know it. It can only be a different sort of “father” relation.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was born in the pre-existence, before He was born into mortality here on earth:
Colossians 1:

15 Who {Jesus} is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

In the Col 1 quote it says:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

He is the “image of the invisible God” while we are not. Jesus is the “first-born” in two senses, the first and only begotten Son of God and as Paul Dupre says the pre-eminent of all “creatures” where the Jews saw “firstborn” as the highest rank under the father. As Col 2:9 says: “For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

As for the Rev 3 quote thats a play on theme that Jesus reveals Himself as in this book, for example Rev 1:8 Jesus says: “I am Alpha and Omega [ie A to Z of greek alphabet], the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” In otherwords “the begining” means the source of everything.

But exactly how they came to be “born,” and what is the mechanism by which it was accomplished, we do not know; it has not been revealed.

Fair enough, all Im saying is the qualifier “literal” as used in “literal father” shouldnt be used.

 

[mjf001]

Just a thought… …If Jesus is the oldest son (pre-mortal existence) and he is just a creature like the rest of us, how could his death on the cross and his resurrection possibly redeem mankind? God obviously meant this to be a source of grace - the way I understand it, this is only possible because of Christ’s divinity.
God Bless,
Michael

 

[PaulDupre]

Yeah, Michael. You got it.
God love you,
Paul

 

[mjf001]

Yeah, Michael. You got it.
God love you,
Paul

Thank you.
Michael

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Jesus is indeed the “Son” of God, and how he came to take upon him flesh in order to suffer and overcome temptation in the wilderness, psychological suffering in the Garden of Gethsemanie and the indescribable torture and death on the cross is just as much a mystery as the fact that all who place their faith in this will find salvation.

It is not the church you attend that is crucial, but the Doctrine of Christ you believe and the love which you have in you hearts for others like the LDS, Catholics or whatever the label.

Asa

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Here is a major difference between LDS theology and the Catholic one. We believe that Jesus was not the only one who existed before He was born. We believe that ALL mankind existed before they were born. Thus in this respect there is no difference between Jesus and the rest of mankind.

Hi again Zerinus,
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???

If you would, can you please try and explain this a bit better for me. ( where, if it is, in the BoM that this is taught and explained)

Thanks ( as always ) for your time in responding

God bless,
Carl

 

[BDawg]

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?

Hi Catholic Dude,

Here is a post I made on another thread yesterday. Majick seemed to think it was a pretty good explanation.

Hi Dubya,

No problem–here’s the scoop. Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical body in human form. That’s very clear in our scriptures. So how would such a person go about “begetting” an earthly son, as the New Testament says he did? Well, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and some other early LDS leaders speculated that “begetting” always happens the same way–sexually–so that’s obviously how the Father “begot” the Son. They never really came out and said they believed God had “sexual intercourse” with Mary, but it is clear enough that they believed there was a sperm and an egg, so to speak. Anyway, the problem is that the scriptures also are very clear that Mary was a virgin after the “begetting” took place, and so more recent LDS prophets, like E.T. Benson, have made it clear that, whatever the mechanics of conception, Mary was still a virgin after it took place. In this age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it is much easier to imagine all sorts of ways this could have taken place.

So, to recap, here’s how today’s Mormons typically see the issue.

Our scriptures are clear that:

1. God has a physical body in human form,
2. God was the father of Jesus’ body with Mary,
3. Mary was a virgin before and after the conception.

Our scriptures say nothing about the mechanics of conception, and to our knowledge none of our prophets have had any non-canonized revelations about the subject. However, some of our early leaders speculated a bit about it, but the speculation sort of ran its course a long time ago, and we prefer just to leave it an open question, while emphasizing what our scriptures are clear about.

This seems to me to be, once again, analogous to the Catholic belief about the fate of unbaptized infants. There was lots of early (and not so early) speculation about “limbo,” and the like. (Limbo was even in the Baltimore Catechism.) However, now the Catechism points to the scripture where Jesus said “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” about little children, and leaves the fate of unbaptized infants as an open question.

So when someone says that “Mormons believe…” some weird thing or other, and reference the Journal of Discourses, the truth is probably that some Mormons speculated about the subject at some point, but it never became official doctrine. The same goes for Limbo. Some Catholics speculated about it at some point, but it never quite made the cut for official dogma.

Clear enough?

 

[falisrm]

It must be the 59 scripture references in the New Testament alone that say he was the “Son of God.”

Plus the 8 references in the New Testament that claim he was the “Only Begotten Son”

John 3:16
John 1:18
Acts 13:33
Heb 1:5
Heb 5:5
Heb 11:17
1 Jn 4:9

Maybe you need to look up the definition of Begotten again
Root word Beget

Plus you have hundreds of other references in the Scriptures that point to this doctrine

Plus the testimony of the Holy Ghost that he is the Son of God.

Plus its just commen sense. Something that is highly lacking in Catholism

 

[majick275]

It must be the 59 scripture references in the New Testament alone that say he was the “Son of God.”

Plus the 8 references in the New Testament that claim he was the “Only Begotten Son”

John 3:16
John 1:18
Acts 13:33
Heb 1:5
Heb 5:5
Heb 11:17
1 Jn 4:9

Maybe you need to look up the definition of Begotten again
Root word Beget

Plus you have hundreds of other references in the Scriptures that point to this doctrine

Plus the testimony of the Holy Ghost that he is the Son of God.

Plus its just commen sense. Something that is highly lacking in Catholism

god creates adam from the dust of earth that he created from nothing yet he has to resort to biology to create a body for the incarnation? he then has to be a literal progenitor and thus have infinite eternal progression/regression ? and that’s common sense? i’m sure the scientologist think their religion makes sense too. me i’ll stick with God being God (only one anywhere ever), 3 persons one God and man is man a creation of God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Catholics believe in the Trinity, but they also believe that Jesus was the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is a very difficult concept to understand, it requires a leap of faith, and is usually described as a Mystery. It is best understood through prayer. (Glory to God in the highest…)

It seems like us Catholics are more mystical and poetic than the pragmatic and reasoning Mormons. I don’t see that we are millions of miles apart on this issue though.

 

[wmscott]

Catholics believe in the Trinity, but they also believe that Jesus was the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is a very difficult concept to understand, it requires a leap of faith, and is usually described as a Mystery. It is best understood through prayer. (Glory to God in the highest…)

It seems like us Catholics are more mystical and poetic than the pragmatic and reasoning Mormons. I don’t see that we are millions of miles apart on this issue though.

I saw in a post somewhere else that explained the Trinity like this:
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit 1x1x1

A simple explanation but fitting

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi Catholic Dude,

Here is a post I made on another thread yesterday. Majick seemed to think it was a pretty good explanation.

Hi Dubya,

No problem–here’s the scoop. Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical body in human form. That’s very clear in our scriptures. So how would such a person go about “begetting” an earthly son, as the New Testament says he did? Well, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and some other early LDS leaders speculated that “begetting” always happens the same way–sexually–so that’s obviously how the Father “begot” the Son. They never really came out and said they believed God had “sexual intercourse” with Mary, but it is clear enough that they believed there was a sperm and an egg, so to speak. Anyway, the problem is that the scriptures also are very clear that Mary was a virgin after the “begetting” took place, and so more recent LDS prophets, like E.T. Benson, have made it clear that, whatever the mechanics of conception, Mary was still a virgin after it took place. In this age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it is much easier to imagine all sorts of ways this could have taken place.

So, to recap, here’s how today’s Mormons typically see the issue.

Our scriptures are clear that:

1. God has a physical body in human form,
2. God was the father of Jesus’ body with Mary,
3. Mary was a virgin before and after the conception.

Our scriptures say nothing about the mechanics of conception, and to our knowledge none of our prophets have had any non-canonized revelations about the subject. However, some of our early leaders speculated a bit about it, but the speculation sort of ran its course a long time ago, and we prefer just to leave it an open question, while emphasizing what our scriptures are clear about.

This seems to me to be, once again, analogous to the Catholic belief about the fate of unbaptized infants. There was lots of early (and not so early) speculation about “limbo,” and the like. (Limbo was even in the Baltimore Catechism.) However, now the Catechism points to the scripture where Jesus said “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” about little children, and leaves the fate of unbaptized infants as an open question.

So when someone says that “Mormons believe…” some weird thing or other, and reference the Journal of Discourses, the truth is probably that some Mormons speculated about the subject at some point, but it never became official doctrine. The same goes for Limbo. Some Catholics speculated about it at some point, but it never quite made the cut for official dogma.

Clear enough?

I see what you are saying but the problem is still there. Even if it wasn’t physical relations the idea that God’s DNA mixed with Mary’s DNA to create Jesus still seems to be what you believe, except you don’t claim how God’s DNA “got there”. Catholics believe such a notion is blasphemous and a misunderstanding of the nature of God (eg no DNA). If you don’t believe it was literal relations then how can you also argue it was literal “begetting”?

 

[BDawg]

I see what you are saying but the problem is still there. Even if it wasn’t physical relations the idea that God’s DNA mixed with Mary’s DNA to create Jesus still seems to be what you believe, except you don’t claim how God’s DNA “got there”. Catholics believe such a notion is blasphemous and a misunderstanding of the nature of God (eg no DNA). If you don’t believe it was literal relations then how can you also argue it was literal “begetting”?

Hi CD,

Like I said, in the age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it isn’t hard to imagine all kinds of ways it could have been done. It was a miracle. Let’s leave it at that.

Suppose I had a son through artificial insemination of my wife. Would you say that I had “begotten” a son, or what? It seems to me that, since it really is my son, with my genes, then I “begot” him.

I understand that Catholics view this differently, since you have a different concept of the nature of God. But lots of people just want to discuss titillating stuff like “Did God Have Sex With Mary?” instead of addressing the real issues.

If you recognize this fact, why don’t you start a new thread, and ask why Mormons believe in such a different concept of God. Then we would be addressing a real issue, instead of a silly sideshow.

 

[falisrm]

Our belief is that Jesus Christ is seperate from the father and is the literal Son of God physically. We don’t care about how God the Father had sex but its clear he is the only one who is the literal Son of God. We don’t believe in the trinity that they are 3 people somehow combined physically that just changes form or someone who just references himself throughout the entire bible. So they are a father and son just like your own son or father are to you. They are United in every word and act that they do.

We also believe that God the Father has a physical body just like Christ does. Which are both perfect in form. So they don’t get sick and so forth.

The Holy Ghost only has a spirit and is therefore able to influence the minds and spirits of all of us and testify what we hear to be true.

 

[BDawg]

We don’t believe in the trinity that they are 3 people somehow combined physically that just changes form or someone who just references himself throughout the entire bible.

Hi falisrm,

I don’t think you really understand the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. Most Catholics don’t understand it, either, so I don’t mean to be too critical of you. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s wise to lob criticisms like that, which would only undermine your credibility to the Catholics here who do understand their doctrine. We don’t like it when they do the same thing to the LDS, so we shouldn’t do it, either.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi CD,

Like I said, in the age of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and such, it isn’t hard to imagine all kinds of ways it could have been done. It was a miracle. Let’s leave it at that.

Suppose I had a son through artificial insemination of my wife. Would you say that I had “begotten” a son, or what? It seems to me that, since it really is my son, with my genes, then I “begot” him.

I understand that Catholics view this differently, since you have a different concept of the nature of God. But lots of people just want to discuss titillating stuff like “Did God Have Sex With Mary?” instead of addressing the real issues.

If you recognize this fact, why don’t you start a new thread, and ask why Mormons believe in such a different concept of God. Then we would be addressing a real issue, instead of a silly sideshow.

I understand what you mean by different ways “God’s DNA” could have been “implanted”, my point (the Catholic view) is that the fundamental issue has not changed much. The idea of God having DNA and even spreading that DNA is a “real issue” because it impacts just who/what God is. For example, sexual reproduction is a function of created material beings, it is not how God creates. If God is codependent on a “wife” in order to create then the concept of God as almighty and creator of the universe is greatly distorted. You cannot be “almighty” and codependent. Further, God is perfect and whole, things like DNA, blood, pee, etc cannot be taken away from Him nor can they be separate and distinct “parts” of Him. The Theological ramifications are very significant and make the difference between a pagan god or the One True God, mixing up the two is blasphemy by definition.