Anything Goes LDS Thread (Everyone Welcome)

[Bishka]

But Mormons do believe that God is married and has at least one wife with whom He produces spirit children, do you not? Isn't that the point of eternal marriage?

I was raised Mormon, and never heard about any of that until I was 25 years old, and it wasn't in church, so when you say you've never talked about it in church, I believe you. But I do believe it is considered doctrine. You can correct me if I am wrong.

Not doctrine.

It may be the belief or opinion of some but it is not actual doctrine.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not sure if your being facetious or sarcastic here or serious

I was being entirely serious.

The world could not contain all the accounts of Jesus aloneand yes, there are alot of things not mentioned in the bible, but either God gave us waht we needed or he is the one who has failed

And how do you know that everything He gave us ended up within the pages of your Bible? Why do you think certain of Paul's and James' epistles are specifically mentioned in the Bible but can't be found there? The burden of proof lies with you, I'm afraid. If you are going to insist that the Bible contains all of what God wants us to know, you've got to give some evidence to support your claim.

I had already mentioned you may use in your studies at church or personal, but in all my encounters on the streets or elsewhere, I have never seen the bible in the hand of a LDS brother , the only time I personally have seen this is when they are confronted with a Christian, or if someone calls for the bible to be reviewed.
I know what I have expereinced, because that was always the first question I asked, why don't you carry the bible as opposed to the book of mormon,if your christian.
Are you saying that they were all wrong in carrying their Book of Mormom.
It would make more sense to carry the bible in your hand more than the Book Mormon anyways, maybe you do that now, I don't know.

Sorry, all the Latter-day Saints I know carry both. What more than I say?

You pick the doctrine ,salvation, God as a husband, Jesus Christ and Lucifer,sim, hell, punishment, Holy SPIRIT

Roli, you are the one who is making the accusation, not me. If you want to debate one of these topics, be my guest. It wouldn't make sense for me to start a thread when you're the one who is intent on proving me wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

He hear's from God, and God can't lie, right..!!! and so your saying none of the prophets after Smith ever contradicted him, or even added or removed new doctrinal revelations and prophecies as they took control.
But is'nt it true that some of the teachings, doctrines ,writings of the original founders have changed today and throughout the years with each different new prophet.
I undersatnd men die out but is there not alot of contradiction within your own prophet circle.
Why have the prophets of Mormonism not arrived at the truth by now ,you would think that you would have arrived.

But if I were to bring up all the teachings of the past with what you practice or don't practice now, what would we see and how do you defend that.

Instead of making a blanket critisicm, why don't you give us an example of where one prophet contradicted another or added his own doctrines to the canon of scripture. It would be a lot easier to defend ourselves if you wouldn't just throw out generalities.

 

[Katzpur]

"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 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 Savior unlawfully... Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).

See, here's the problem with people who perceive themselves to be authorities of some kind of Mormonism...


The Seer was a newspaper published by Elder Orson Pratt. He was serving a mission for the Church at the time. In this newspaper, he made a number of statements which were not doctrinally correct. When the Church leadership discovered what he had written, they (i.e. the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) made the following statement:

The Seer "contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed; with proper care this can be done without much, if any, injury to the volumes.

It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church—for ample teachings have been given on the point—that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood. ​

​

While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood."​

 

[Katzpur]

Question: If something is not official doctrine, does that make the negation true? In other words, if it is not official LDS doctrine that the Heavenly Father was married to Mary, then is it official LDS doctrine that the Heavenly Father was NOT married to Mary? Because a dialogue cannot proceed until both parties agree on basic principles.

Whether a statement constitutes official doctrine and whether it's a statement of truth are two different matters entirely.

 

[Katzpur]

Before I discuss the relationship between the Father and Mary any further on this board, I will require a citation or link from official Mormon doctrine, one way or another.

Here's our official doctrine:

Luke 1:26-38 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

[Delphine]

Hi, Delphine. It looks like your question got overlooked. I think it's a good question, and I see where you're coming from. I guess the main reason would be that we see the Gospel of Jesus Christ as bringing blessings into our lives here and now. I believe that most people who are converted after hearing the gospel message in this life, choose to become members of the Church because of the blessings the gospel brings into their lives before they die. To me, the gospel is as much about answering my questions about my relationship with God and understanding His plan for my happiness as it is about what I need to do to get to Heaven. It gives direction to my life and provides solace when needed. It helps me accept the challenges I may have to face and gives me hope for something better in the next life. Hopefully, it also makes me a better person. Since I see the knowledge I believe I have as a good thing, it's only natural that I would want to share it. Eighty-five years may not be much of a head start, but it can be a very long time for someone who is looking for something to believe in.

Thank you for your reply. It was nice to read. I consider myself agnostic now, but, as strange as it may sound, I feel that it is involuntary, and I miss having an active belief in God, because it did provide some comfort and give meaning to my life.

Having said that, though, some people are already quite content with their own faith, and as such are unlikely to accept the gospel in this life. Therefore I wondered whether it wasn't better for some not to hear the gospel until the next life, when they may be more receptive to it, (since I am given to understand that Mormons believe if one hears the gospel in this life, but doesn't accept it, they won't get another chance in the next life). But I guess it is impossible for us to know.

 

[Katzpur]

Ok, one step at a time ,was God once man as we are.

If He was -- and I say "if" because we have no official doctrine on this matter -- it would have been during the time preceding the Biblical account of the creation of our universe.

 

[Delphine]

Not doctrine.

It may be the belief or opinion of some but it is not actual doctrine.

I stand corrected.

 

[Katzpur]

Go for it, Was God married to Mary or any women to produce the offspring of Jesus and Lucifer.

God was never married to Mary. We believe that God has a eternal companion, who is our Mother in Heaven. Except in some of the lowest species, all creatures have both a mother and a father.

 

[Katzpur]

That surprises me. What does the canon say about where our spirits came from?

It just says that God is the Father of our Spirits and that we are His offspring. The doctrine of the Pre-existence of souls can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants. I can get the sections for you if you'd like.

 

[athanasius]

God was never married to Mary. We believe that God has a eternal companion, who is our Mother in Heaven. Except in some of the lowest species, all creatures have both a mother and a father.

That is interesting. I have never heard that before. Does the D&C or the book of Mormon talk about the Fathers Wife?

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for your reply. It was nice to read. I consider myself agnostic now, but, as strange as it may sound, I feel that it is involuntary, and I miss having an active belief in God, because it did provide some comfort and give meaning to my life.

I'm not sure whether you meant that it may sound strange that you consider yourself agnostic or whether you feel that it is involuntary. My own feelings are that it is very likely involuntary. My sister and I were both raised by active LDS parents. We were both taught pretty much the same things, from the same perspective. She considers herself agnostic and has done for years. I have seriously tried to consider the possibility that there is no God. I just can't convince myself that that's the case. I almost feel as if I was born believing He exists; I guess it would be accurate to say that the concept that He is real is just a part of who I am. From that standpoint, I would say that my belief in Him is also involuntary. I definitely don't believe it is possible for a person to just will himself to believe in God.

Having said that, though, some people are already quite content with their own faith, and as such are unlikely to accept the gospel in this life. Therefore I wondered whether it wasn't better for some not to hear the gospel until the next life, when they may be more receptive to it, (since I am given to understand that Mormons believe if one hears the gospel in this life, but doesn't accept it, they won't get another chance in the next life). But I guess it is impossible for us to know.

I think that since only God knows to what extent the person truly felt the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost, we don't have a right to say, "Well, so-and-so had his chance. He won't get another one." Obviously there are some people who are simply stubborn and have a rebellious nature. I don't know if they'll get a second chance or not, but if that's how they are now, that's probably how they're going to be in the next life, too. Anyway, I'm willing to leave it up to God. Since neither one of my grown kids is active in the Church, I'm hoping He'll allow them the chance to return to the fold, even if it's not in this life.

 

[Scott C.]

Explain to me ,Was God once man and married Mary?

I’m going to go out on a limb and try to answer some difficult questions. I’m only speaking for myself and giving my opinions. In the course of this post, I will address the issues of Heavenly Father being married, intimate relationships in heaven, the conception of Jesus, and the relationship of the Father to the Virgin Mary.

The LDS Church has an official declaration entitled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”. Here’s a quote from this declaration:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

We can safely extract some firm doctrine from these statements. We have heavenly parents. This means a Father and a Mother. That is doctrine. There is no other doctrine that says that Heavenly Father has such a relationship with any other person. We know nothing doctrinally concerning mother, except that she exists. We don’t know how our heavenly parents “begat” us as their spirit children before the creation of the world. Some LDS speculate that a holy and intimate physical union played a part in the process. I don’t consider this to be doctrine. Logically, I can’t see how a union of physical beings would produce spirit (non-physical) offspring.

Another doctrine from the quotation above concerns gender. We had gender as spirit children of God, before the world was created. We have the same gender now and will have the same gender in the resurrection. Those who are exalted to the highest heaven will have the privilege of living in a married state forever. They will be able to enjoy the blessing of eternal progression and spiritual offspring. We came to earth, in part, to obtain a physical body to be like our Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father has a glorified, perfect, and celestial physical body that imposes no limitations on his omnipotence.

I hesitate to even discuss these issues because some enemies of my church (and I’m not talking about my friends on RF) distort our doctrine of gender and marriage for eternity, to make it sound lascivious and carnal or as if we degrade God. Whatever the answers are to the questions of spirit children, it is sacred to LDS and I don’t like it to be mocked. Discussing it raises that risk.

I believe that the more God reveals to mankind, the more questions are raised. The fact that we know that God is physical and spiritual, that there is gender in heaven, that we are begotten spirit children of heavenly parents, and that we can live in a married state in eternity raises many more questions. The problem is, the revelation pretty much ends there. The rest is speculation.

What is the relationship between God the Father and the Virgin Mary? The following is what at least some LDS believe:

God the Father condescended from Heaven to physically (intimately) unite with the Virgin Mary to cause her to naturally conceive the physical body of Jesus. The Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary to protect her from being consumed by the glory of God. Even though Mary had physical contact with the Father, the conception is still considered virgin and miraculous because Mary “knew no mortal man” and the condescension of God was miraculous. Thus, Jesus, who was already the Firstborn spirit child of the Father before the creation of the world, became the “Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh”. Mary was married (sealed) to the Father before this act occurred. Mary will therefore be sealed to the Father forever. Because of this, Mary married Joseph for “time” only, but not for eternity.

I heard these ideas many years ago from friends in the church. I can’t remember for certain, but they probably quoted people like Orson Pratt to make their case. However, this description of the conception of Jesus is not doctrine and I do not believe it occurred that way. I also don’t believe that the Father married Mary. It’s just not doctrine. I believe the rest is true. Some LDS may ask why in the world I bring up such a notion if it is not doctrine and why would I put it our there. I did not put it out there. Other members of the church did over the years and the question comes up over and over in this forum. Let me say in defense of the non-Mormons who bring it up, that they are not pulling these ideas out of thin air. After defending the non-Mormons, I would ask them to try to understand what we really believe. We know what is taught day in and day out at church. We do know what is important to our faith.

 

[Francine]

We can safely extract some firm doctrine from these statements. We have heavenly parents. This means a Father and a Mother. That is doctrine.

Now I am completely confused. There is absolutely no reference to Heavenly Mother in the King James Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price. But you say it is official doctrine.

In earlier posts I was chastised for "extracting" a Mary-had-intercourse theory from the Mormon assertion that the Heavenly Father has a physical body, and told that was not official doctrine.

Okay, here is the natural consequence to that: If I don't see a quote from the KJV, the BoM, D&C, or PoGP, I will pretend I didn't see it.

 

[athanasius]

I’m going to go out on a limb and try to answer some difficult questions. I’m only speaking for myself and giving my opinions. In the course of this post, I will address the issues of Heavenly Father being married, intimate relationships in heaven, the conception of Jesus, and the relationship of the Father to the Virgin Mary.

The LDS Church has an official declaration entitled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”. Here’s a quote from this declaration:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

We can safely extract some firm doctrine from these statements. We have heavenly parents. This means a Father and a Mother. That is doctrine. There is no other doctrine that says that Heavenly Father has such a relationship with any other person. We know nothing doctrinally concerning mother, except that she exists. We don’t know how our heavenly parents “begat” us as their spirit children before the creation of the world. Some LDS speculate that a holy and intimate physical union played a part in the process. I don’t consider this to be doctrine. Logically, I can’t see how a union of physical beings would produce spirit (non-physical) offspring.

Another doctrine from the quotation above concerns gender. We had gender as spirit children of God, before the world was created. We have the same gender now and will have the same gender in the resurrection. Those who are exalted to the highest heaven will have the privilege of living in a married state forever. They will be able to enjoy the blessing of eternal progression and spiritual offspring. We came to earth, in part, to obtain a physical body to be like our Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father has a glorified, perfect, and celestial physical body that imposes no limitations on his omnipotence.

I hesitate to even discuss these issues because some enemies of my church (and I’m not talking about my friends on RF) distort our doctrine of gender and marriage for eternity, to make it sound lascivious and carnal or as if we degrade God. Whatever the answers are to the questions of spirit children, it is sacred to LDS and I don’t like it to be mocked. Discussing it raises that risk.

I believe that the more God reveals to mankind, the more questions are raised. The fact that we know that God is physical and spiritual, that there is gender in heaven, that we are begotten spirit children of heavenly parents, and that we can live in a married state in eternity raises many more questions. The problem is, the revelation pretty much ends there. The rest is speculation.

What is the relationship between God the Father and the Virgin Mary? The following is what at least some LDS believe:

God the Father condescended from Heaven to physically (intimately) unite with the Virgin Mary to cause her to naturally conceive the physical body of Jesus. The Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary to protect her from being consumed by the glory of God. Even though Mary had physical contact with the Father, the conception is still considered virgin and miraculous because Mary “knew no mortal man” and the condescension of God was miraculous. Thus, Jesus, who was already the Firstborn spirit child of the Father before the creation of the world, became the “Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh”. Mary was married (sealed) to the Father before this act occurred. Mary will therefore be sealed to the Father forever. Because of this, Mary married Joseph for “time” only, but not for eternity.

I heard these ideas many years ago from friends in the church. I can’t remember for certain, but they probably quoted people like Orson Pratt to make their case. However, this description of the conception of Jesus is not doctrine and I do not believe it occurred that way. I also don’t believe that the Father married Mary. It’s just not doctrine. I believe the rest is true. Some LDS may ask why in the world I bring up such a notion if it is not doctrine and why would I put it our there. I did not put it out there. Other members of the church did over the years and the question comes up over and over in this forum. Let me say in defense of the non-Mormons who bring it up, that they are not pulling these ideas out of thin air. After defending the non-Mormons, I would ask them to try to understand what we really believe. We know what is taught day in and day out at church. We do know what is important to our faith.

If he came down physically and naturally impregnated her would she not really be the "Virgin" Mary? What are LDS beliefs on the virgin birth?

 

[Francine]

Whether a statement constitutes official doctrine and whether it's a statement of truth are two different matters entirely.

Here is the difference: I've been spanked so many times for pulling up Brigham Young quotes or Quorum of the Twelve quotes that even if they are truth so bright I gotta wear shades, from here on out I'm only talking about official Mormon doctrine.

 

[nutshell]

[/size][/font]
Now I am completely confused. There is absolutely no reference to Heavenly Mother in the King James Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price. But you say it is official doctrine.

It's not offical doctrine. However, many might consider it doctrine due to their belief that The Family: Proclamation to the World will one day be canonized and placed in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Here is a link to the text: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

 

[Katzpur]

Some LDS may ask why in the world I bring up such a notion if it is not doctrine and why would I put it our there. I did not put it out there. Other members of the church did over the years and the question comes up over and over in this forum. Let me say in defense of the non-Mormons who bring it up, that they are not pulling these ideas out of thin air. After defending the non-Mormons, I would ask them to try to understand what we really believe. We know what is taught day in and day out at church. We do know what is important to our faith.

Scott, I understand that your intention here is to be forthright and honest in covering this topic. While I admire your integrity, I believe that on a forum of this sort, your candor is almost certain to backfire. I'm afraid I am more cynical towards the non-Mormons who are raising these questions than you are. I will agree with you that they are not, as you said, "pulling these ideas out of thin air." What they are doing, is getting them from sources designed to misprepresent our doctrines. They didn't come up with these ideas by reading our Standard Works or works by our First Presidency and Apostles. They didn't come up with these ideas by attending an LDS worship service or listening to General Conference. If they were looking for accurate information on what we as members of the Church believe, they would not be looking for it on the websites owned by those whose goal it is to undercut everything we stand for. If their intention was to learn what we really believe, they would not continue to belabor the point after a half-dozen practicing Latter-day Saints have said, "We don't believe that."

Raising the point that some Latter-day Saints may believe some of these things, even though they are not doctrinal in nature does not, in my opinion, serve any really useful purpose. Consider the following statements, and maybe you will see why I believe as I do:

Harold B. Lee: All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. … We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.

Joseph F. McConkie: In presenting a lesson there are many ways for the undisciplined teacher to stray from the path that leads to his objective. One of the most common temptations is to speculate on matters about which the Lord has said very little. The disciplined teacher has the courage to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and leave it at that. As President Joseph F. Smith said, ‘It is no discredit to our intelligence or to our integrity to say frankly in the face of a hundred speculative questions, “I don’t know” ’

J. Reuben Clark Jr.: Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church”. We should not teach our private interpretation of gospel principles or the scriptures.

Elder Spencer W. Kimball: There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy.”

Wilford Woodruff: I wish to say that in my acquaintance in this Church, I have seen men, from time to time rise up and try to be servants of God. They try to explain things they know nothing about, to make themselves appear clever. There is a great deal of this kind of thing in this age. There was one of the leading Elders of the Church who went before the people and undertook to preach certain principles. Joseph heard of it and desired him to present the doctrine to him in writing. He wrote it, and when he completed it read it to the Prophet. He asked Joseph what he thought of it. “Why,” said Joseph, “it is a beautiful system, I have but one fault to find with it—” “What is that, Brother Joseph?” Joseph said—“It is not true.” So I say, every little while someone, thinking he is smart, tries to teach something that is not in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church works, and which is not true. … Do not speculate on things you know nothing about, for it will benefit no one.

 

[Scott C.]

If he came down physically and naturally impregnated her would she not really be the "Virgin" Mary? What are LDS beliefs on the virgin birth?

Like I said, I don't believe there was a physical impregnation. I hope I was clear on that point. I believe in the vigin birth.