The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[iam1me]

Just to be clear, I find Jehovah's Witnesses do Not believe God engaged in any intercourse.
- www.jw.org and www.jwbroadcasting

Yes - I was thinking of Mormonism, my bad

 

[Katzpur]

Also, I'm not a JW. I've never said or insinuated that God engaged in physical intercourse (God doesn't have a physical body). Don't go around accusing people of such obviously false doctrines.

These two sentences aren't related. JW's do not believe such nonsense!

You know what, I was thinking of Mormons - my bad.

Speaking of "going around accusing people of obviously false doctrines," Mormons do not believe God engaged in intercourse with Mary. We believe Mary was a virgin, both when she conceived and gave birth to her Son, Jesus Christ. That would have been quite impossible had she had intercourse with anyone -- including God.

 

[Clear]

Speaking of "going around accusing people of obviously false doctrines," Mormons do not believe God engaged in intercourse with Mary. We believe Mary was a virgin, both when she conceived and gave birth to her Son, Jesus Christ. That would have been quite impossible had she had intercourse with anyone -- including God.

I agree with @Katzpur ;

There were some early discussions about the "metaphysical" nature of Jesus's body where individuals wondered how it could be that Jesus had a "truly human" body if a God was his Father. The discussions I've read were opinions offered indicating that there were no breaking of physical laws in the type of body Jesus was born into.

That is, though Mary remained virgin and there was no physical sexual act involved in the creation of Jesus' Body, the actual fertilized egg was a physical egg, not a fertilized egg "brought down from heaven", or was acted upon by some other "metaphysical process" that went beyond physical law. While the elements fertilizing Mary's Egg may have been acted upon by a metaphysical action, just as in the creation of the worlds where matter was acted upon by an external force, the fertilization and subsequent creation of the infant Jesus' body, broke no physical laws was the point of the opinions I have read.

This was the gist of the opinions I have read, though, taken out of their original context and placed into a context laced with sexual innuendo, they have been made to appear as though they are describing that Mary had sex with God. THAT, is not an LDS/Mormon doctrine.

Clear
ειεισιτωσεω

 

[iam1me]

Speaking of "going around accusing people of obviously false doctrines," Mormons do not believe God engaged in intercourse with Mary. We believe Mary was a virgin, both when she conceived and gave birth to her Son, Jesus Christ. That would have been quite impossible had she had intercourse with anyone -- including God.

Mormons do believe that God has a physical, glorified body and goes around having sex with the "Heavenly Mother" - producing "spirit children". Jesus is believed to be God's firstborn son, and the brother of Satan. These spirit children then descend to earth to gain a physical body of their own (with the exception of Jesus who is alone begotten in the flesh according to the below):

After Smith's death, the doctrine of premortal existence was elaborated by some other leaders within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Although the mind and intelligence of humanity were still considered to be co-eternal with God, and not created, Brigham Young introduced the idea that the spirit, which he distinguished from the mind or intelligence, was indeed created and not co-eternal with God. Young postulated that we each had a pre-spirit intelligence that later became part of a spirit body, which then eventually entered a physical body and was born on earth. In 1857, Young stated that every person was "a son or a daughter of [the Father]. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here."[10][11]

In the LDS Church the idea of spirit birth was described in its modern doctrinal form in 1909, when the church's First Presidency issued the following statement:[12]

Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.

Pre-existence - Wikipedia
​

So Mary may still have been a virgin when she concieved in Mormonism, but Jesus was in fact the product of God having sex.

However, even this is contestable. There is not insubstantial evidence for the idea in Mormonism that the Father had sex with Mary - even if not an explicit doctrine.

Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex

Was the LDS Jesus born of the virgin Mary? | CARM.org

​

In any case, Jesus was begotten of God the Father prior to his earthly existence via the "Heavenly Mother." You are free to interpret the quotes in the above links as you will.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I find Jesus was ' first born ' of all creation according to Colossians 1:15. - (1 Corinthians 8:6)
Yes, that's correct. But which creation. Paul says there's two.......... Adam was the first. Jesus was the second. A new covenant, a new creation. Etc.....
God was never born but from everlasting as per Psalms 90:2
Yes, that's also correct. I think that's what I was saying......
So, pre-human Jesus was Not 'before' the beginning as his God was 'before' the beginning.
Pre-human Jesus????? lol Wow, when did that come into play......
John penned about Jesus at Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 B that pre-human Jesus was in the beginning.
Rev 1v5 has nothing to do with pre-existing. Same with 3v14. And what does this term "pre-human" mean. Is there a verse that says that Jesus is a pre-human being? If not, then why bring in words that arent in the bible.
John never wrote that Jesus was before the beginning.
But I thought that is what you were implying.........
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12; 3:21
Yes. That's exactly what I believe in too. Not really sure what your saying here...... You keep on flipping.

I see you have given the ^ above ^ much thought.
I agree Adam was the first creation (on Earth) whereas fleshly Jesus came along in the first century.
Spirit heavenly Jesus is the second part of the word 'us' found at Genesis 1:26.
Because God sent heavenly Jesus to Earth for us is where the pre-human heavenly Jesus comes from.
Right the word 'pre-human ' is Not in the Bible but because Jesus existed in the heavens before his God sent Jesus to Earth for us to be born as a human on Earth, then in the heavens before Earth Jesus was pre-human or a spirit person in Heaven.
Since we both believe that the resurrected Jesus still believes he has a God over him, to me that shows that when God resurrected dead Jesus He resurrected Jesus back to his heavenly spirit body which he had before his God sent the heavenly Jesus to Earth for us as the 'second' Adam (Romans 5:12-15; Romans 5:17, 19)
Any thoughts about 1 Corinthians 15:45-47_____________________

 

[Jane.Doe]

Mormons do believe that God has a physical, glorified body and goes around having sex with the "Heavenly Mother" - producing "spirit children". Jesus is believed to be God's firstborn son, and the brother of Satan. These spirit children then descend to earth to gain a physical body of their own (with the exception of Jesus who is alone begotten in the flesh according to the below):

After Smith's death, the doctrine of premortal existence was elaborated by some other leaders within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Although the mind and intelligence of humanity were still considered to be co-eternal with God, and not created, Brigham Young introduced the idea that the spirit, which he distinguished from the mind or intelligence, was indeed created and not co-eternal with God. Young postulated that we each had a pre-spirit intelligence that later became part of a spirit body, which then eventually entered a physical body and was born on earth. In 1857, Young stated that every person was "a son or a daughter of [the Father]. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here."[10][11]

In the LDS Church the idea of spirit birth was described in its modern doctrinal form in 1909, when the church's First Presidency issued the following statement:[12]

Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.

Pre-existence - Wikipedia
​

So Mary may still have been a virgin when she concieved in Mormonism, but Jesus was in fact the product of God having sex.

However, even this is contestable. There is not insubstantial evidence for the idea in Mormonism that the Father had sex with Mary - even if not an explicit doctrine.

Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex

Was the LDS Jesus born of the virgin Mary? | CARM.org

​

In any case, Jesus was begotten of God the Father prior to his earthly existence via the "Heavenly Mother." You are free to interpret the quotes in the above links as you will.

Again: members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not believe that the Father and Mary had sex.

I am now the third life-long LDS Christian telling you this. If you want to listen and get things clarified, we can do that--- like the LDS beliefs of the pre-existence doesn't have anything to do with sexual intercourse. Myself, Katz, and Daniad have literally addressed these misconceptions for decades.
Or you can choose to just continue to try to argue with an active person in their fatih about what they themselves believe.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Nothing in scripture claims that Jesus is uncreated (to the contrary, it asserts he is begotten). There are hints at the idea of pre-existing (firstborn of creation), but that's not the same thing.
Also, Jesus was accused of blasphemy because the Jews were without understanding. They accused him of claiming to be God, while he merely asserted to be God's Son - and he further defended himself by pointing out that the scriptures call them all gods. Indeed, not once in scripture does Jesus claim to be God - but always God's Son.

I find at Psalms 82 is speaking about the appointed ' human judges ' at that time.
Those judges were to use God's judgement as to judge the basis of what was right or what was wrong.
Those human judges were acting in place of God, but using God's judgement rules in which to make decisions.
Because of using God's judgement is why Moses was a god to his brother Aaron - Exodus 4:16 B
And why Moses was also ' god ' to Pharaoh as per Exodus 7:1

Also, King James omitted the letter ' a ' at John 10:33, but added the letter ' a ' at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B.
So, the ' ye are gods ' (John 10:34) is about those human Judges of Psalms 82.
The Jews said Jesus blasphemed because Jesus said, " I am the Son of God " at John 10:36
Even the demons knew who Jesus was according to Luke 4:41_________________________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Of course he does. "In the beginning was the Word..."
So “In the beginning” the Word was already there.
“Beginning” (arche) here simply means “source” or “origin” and not “first in a series of created things”. So Jesus is the source of creation but is not created himself.

Yes, the Word ( aka pre-human Jesus ) was in the beginning, but Not ' before ' the beginning of creation......
Jesus is part of the ' us ' of Genesis 1:26
Before the 'us' there was One and Only, the God of Psalms 90:2
God's first creation was His heavenly only-begotten spirit Son (Jesus), all the rest comes through created Jesus.

 

[iam1me]

Again: members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not believe that the Father and Mary had sex.

I am now the third life-long LDS Christian telling you this. If you want to listen and get things clarified, we can do that--- like the LDS beliefs of the pre-existence doesn't have anything to do with sexual intercourse. Myself, Katz, and Daniad have literally addressed these misconceptions for decades.
Or you can choose to just continue to try to argue with an active person in their fatih about what they themselves believe.

First off, I really wasn't planning on diving into Mormon theology in this thread. Not my intent to rile you all up.

Secondly, you are contesting one small point in a much larger error. You aren't denying that the Father has a physical body, that he begat Jesus via sex with the "Heavenly Mother"/Goddess. Next to this, the question of how Jesus' physical form was begotten is a much smaller issue. So even if I concede this smaller point, the large error remains and I am perfectly correct about it.

Thirdly, in my post to which you are replying, I left the question open with regards to Mary. I supplied links with very relevant quotes from significant figures and documents in Mormonism - people can check them out and make their own decisions about what is actually being said, like these:

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

"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, . . . Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
​

Also, as a side note, the common view of people in a given faith rarely matches with the underlying teachings of that faith. The general populace is ignorant even of things they claim to hold dear.

 

[iam1me]

I find at Psalms 82 is speaking about the appointed ' human judges ' at that time.
Those judges were to use God's judgement as to judge the basis of what was right or what was wrong.
Those human judges were acting in place of God, but using God's judgement rules in which to make decisions.
Because of using God's judgement is why Moses was a god to his brother Aaron - Exodus 4:16 B
And why Moses was also ' god ' to Pharaoh as per Exodus 7:1

Also, King James omitted the letter ' a ' at John 10:33, but added the letter ' a ' at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B.
So, the ' ye are gods ' (John 10:34) is about those human Judges of Psalms 82.
The Jews said Jesus blasphemed because Jesus said, " I am the Son of God " at John 10:36
Even the demons knew who Jesus was according to Luke 4:41_________________________

Jesus interpreted Psalms 82 as speaking about those who have received the Word of God:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)
​

But in either case, we can agree that the scriptures are calling men gods here

 

[Jane.Doe]

First off, I really wasn't planning on diving into Mormon theology in this thread. Not my intent to rile you all up.

Regardless of original intent, going into things is what you're going. I'm just a very factual person and strive to have things clarified to be accurate. Doesn't mean that there has to be any agreement about who's beliefs are wrong or with, but it's good to be accurate as to what those beliefs are.

You aren't denying that the Father has a physical body, that he begat Jesus via sex with the "Heavenly Mother"/Goddess.

I very much deny this as would Katz and Clear.

LDS Christians do believe that the Father is like the Son and has a glorified body. This does differ from Creedal Christians whom believe that the Father is like the Spirit.

But there's no belief here relating directly to sexual intercourse, as I explained in post #586. Furthermore, LDS Christians believe that Christ has always existed.

Thirdly, in my post to which you are replying, I left the question open with regards to Mary. I supplied links with very relevant quotes from significant figures and documents in Mormonism - people can check them out and make their own decisions about what is actually being said, like these:

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

"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, . . . Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
.​

​

Despite the horrible misnomer of a name "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce McConkie isn't actually a LDS Christian doctrinal source. Rather it's a non-canonical book that's had major problems regarding accuracy and a bunch of things from the beginning. And again, nothing here is about sexual intercourse.

Again, my gaol here is simple accuracy.

 

[Oeste]

Christ was born, he did not pre-exist. The "Word" in John one is not talking about Jesus yet, it is talking about the word God. The LOGOS, God's plan and purpose, which Jesus is a part of. The translators put the capital W in that word. Jesus is in verse 14.

The English bible was originally translated in capital letters, which of course includes the word “Logos” as “WORD”. The translators added small letters to our bible, but that wasn’t until later.

Jesus is the Word , was the Word and will always be the Word. How you came up with two different Words, one in verse 1 and a second in verse 14 is beyond me. I don’t see an exegetical foundation for it.

Is this your private interpretation or are you reflecting the shared belief of a community of Christian believers?

No, Psalms 90 which you were looking at has nothing to do with Jesus.

@URAVIP2ME seems to believe this shows Jesus was created even though she later claims it was Jesus who created the world.

Jesus was in the beginning only in God's plan and purpose. He was in God's mind, just like us.

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.” Job 38:4​

The answer to this is not “We were there, occupying space in your mind”

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons do believe that God has a physical, glorified body and goes around having sex with the "Heavenly Mother" - producing "spirit children". Jesus is believed to be God's firstborn son, and the brother of Satan. These spirit children then descend to earth to gain a physical body of their own (with the exception of Jesus who is alone begotten in the flesh according to the below):

After Smith's death, the doctrine of premortal existence was elaborated by some other leaders within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Although the mind and intelligence of humanity were still considered to be co-eternal with God, and not created, Brigham Young introduced the idea that the spirit, which he distinguished from the mind or intelligence, was indeed created and not co-eternal with God. Young postulated that we each had a pre-spirit intelligence that later became part of a spirit body, which then eventually entered a physical body and was born on earth. In 1857, Young stated that every person was "a son or a daughter of [the Father]. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here."[10][11]

In the LDS Church the idea of spirit birth was described in its modern doctrinal form in 1909, when the church's First Presidency issued the following statement:[12]

Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.

Pre-existence - Wikipedia
​

So Mary may still have been a virgin when she concieved in Mormonism, but Jesus was in fact the product of God having sex.

However, even this is contestable. There is not insubstantial evidence for the idea in Mormonism that the Father had sex with Mary - even if not an explicit doctrine.

Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex

Was the LDS Jesus born of the virgin Mary? | CARM.org

​

In any case, Jesus was begotten of God the Father prior to his earthly existence via the "Heavenly Mother." You are free to interpret the quotes in the above links as you will.

No, you are free to interpret them as you will, and you can even pretend that you know more about Mormon doctrine than I do, having spent my entire lifetime (71 years) as a Mormon. Clearly, you trust CARM to tell you "the truth about what Mormonism really teaches" more than you trust members of the Church themselves, people like me who have spent literally tens of thousands of hours actually worshiping as Latter-day Saints. The paragraph you quoted from Wikipedia is an accurate description of what we believe about our pre-mortal life. The rest of what you have posted is a combination of pure nonsense and a fantastical caricature of our doctrine. Should you ever care to actually take the time to get your facts straight, I'd be happy to accept your apology for grossly misrepresenting our beliefs. We could then engage in what could actually be a civil and productive dialogue. On the other hand, if you would prefer to remain intentionally ignorant, I'm okay with that, too.

 

[Oeste]

I find it does Not say 'before' the beginning was the Word.

Of course it doesn’t. There is no “before” prior to the beginning. There is only God..

I do find at Psalms 90:2 that God was before the beginning.

He was before the formation of the mountains and our world, so of course God was there. So wasn’t Jesus. Even the angels rejoiced when our world was formed.

Thus Jesus was Not before the beginning as his God was before the beginning.

Psalm 90:2 is talking about mountains and the formation of the world. Since Christ would have to be around prior to this in order to create “all things” I’m not following your train of thought here.

This is why Colossians 1:15 lets us know Jesus is ' first born '......

Here is what Colossians 1:15 states:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

Are you claiming Jesus is created because he’s the “firstborn” of “every creature”? Firstborn here does not mean the “first created” of “every creature”! That would make no sense.

 

[Katzpur]

First off, I really wasn't planning on diving into Mormon theology in this thread. Not my intent to rile you all up.

Of course it wasn't. You figured you could just post a bunch of BS about our beliefs and that everyone here would just believe you. You didn't count on people who actually know better to be looking over your shoulder, ready to set the record straight. Sorry, but that's what we do, and we'll do it every time.

​

Also, as a side note, the common view of people in a given faith rarely matches with the underlying teachings of that faith. The general populace is ignorant even of things they claim to hold dear.

And two side notes for you:

(1) The common view of people outside of a faith they love to criticize is so flawed it's not even funny -- particularly when they get their information from CARM.

(2) As you noted, the common [Christian] populace claims to hold the teachings of Jesus Christ dear. And what does He say about being judgmental of others? Stooping to the level of lying about denominations other than their own is so "un-Christian" that I hardly think Jesus Christ would even recognize such people as His followers.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course it doesn’t. There is no “before” prior to the beginning. There is only God.

I'm sorry, but how exactly do you know that there was nothing "before" the beginning. If God existed -- as He presumably did prior to the creation of our universe -- it is entirely possible that He was doing something! "In the beginning" refers to the period of time from the creation forward. The Bible is not intended to be an account of the time prior to the creation. All it actually tells us about Jesus existence is that He (i.e. "the Word") existed "in the beginning."

 

[iam1me]

Regardless of original intent, going into things is what you're going. I'm just a very factual person and strive to have things clarified to be accurate. Doesn't mean that there has to be any agreement about who's beliefs are wrong or with, but it's good to be accurate as to what those beliefs are.

Fair enough

I very much deny this as would Katz and Clear.

Let's take a step back and verify this first then: is it valid to assert that the Father and "Heavenly Mother" beget spirit children, the firstborn being Jesus' spirit?

But there's no belief here relating directly to sexual intercourse, as I explained in post #586.

Yet there is plenty of evidence that, at the very least, early Mormons believed just that.

Furthermore, LDS Christians believe that Christ has always existed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they believe in one sense everyone has always existed - but differentiate this pre-existent "intelligence" from both the soul and the body? The soul being begotten by the Father, and subsequently being joined to a body.

Despite the horrible misnomer of a name "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce McConkie isn't actually a LDS Christian doctrinal source. Rather it's a non-canonical book that's had major problems regarding accuracy and a bunch of things from the beginning. And again, nothing here is about sexual intercourse.

Again, my gaol here is simple accuracy.

Yes, it is a non-canonical book - but is a valid attempt by a fellow Mormon Elder to lay out Mormon beliefs. There were various errors, and complaints about the overall tone with regards Catholicism and such - but the 1966 version is the 2nd version which was published with approval of the church after making necessary revisions. The leaders of the Mormon church at the time did not flag such statements as those I quoted as being in error or in need of revision.

Furthermore, we need not rely on this book alone - the links I provide site many source making similar statements. For example, Brigham Young (2nd prophet & president of the LDS Church) stated things like:

"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, v. 8, p. 115).​

Bruce McConkie's statements thus can't be thrown away as simply non-canonical - there were good reasons for he, a fellow Mormon, to put forth such statements of faith in his book attempting to lay out Mormon doctrine. Namely, this is exactly what the prophets of the church have said.

 

[iam1me]

No, you are free to interpret them as you will, and you can even pretend that you know more about Mormon doctrine than I do, having spent my entire lifetime (71 years) as a Mormon. Clearly, you trust CARM to tell you "the truth about what Mormonism really teaches" more than you trust members of the Church themselves, people like me who have spent literally tens of thousands of hours actually worshiping as Latter-day Saints. The paragraph you quoted from Wikipedia is an accurate description of what we believe about our pre-mortal life. The rest of what you have posted is a combination of pure nonsense and a fantastical caricature of our doctrine. Should you ever care to actually take the time to get your facts straight, I'd be happy to accept your apology for grossly misrepresenting our beliefs. We could then engage in what could actually be a civil and productive dialogue. On the other hand, if you would prefer to remain intentionally ignorant, I'm okay with that, too.

One thing that has become abundantly clear to me over the years of studying and debating theology is that the people who try to cite how long they've been in the church as an argument often do so because they don't have anything substantial to defend their position. I'll agree that your positions are probably common among your fellow congregants in the LDS Church, but that doesn't do anything to erase well recorded historical statements made by Mormon Elders & Prophets.

Also, to be clear, I be no means claim to be an expert on Mormonism - I'm merely going by the evidence. Address the evidence if you will, and I will certainly take heed of a well formed argument. However, if you fallback to "believe me because I'm old" then your views aren't worthy of respect.

 

[Katzpur]

Let's take a step back and verify this first then: is it valid to assert that the Father and "Heavenly Mother" beget spirit children, the firstborn being Jesus' spirit?

Yes, that would be an accurate statement. But there is no early reason to believe that creating a spirit involves "having sex." Obviously, intercourse is necessary for the physical conception of a human being. And that human being has to grow in utero for nine months before it is capable of existing on its own. Common sense tells us that this isn't necessary for a spirit. (I am assuming you do believe that God is the father of our spirits.)

Yet there is plenty of evidence that, at the very least, early Mormons believed just that.

No there isn't. There is zero evidence that any Mormon who has ever lived believes that God has ever "gone around having sex with the Heavenly Mother."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they believe in one sense everyone has always existed - but differentiate this pre-existent "intelligence" from both the soul and the body? The soul being begotten by the Father, and subsequently being joined to a body.

We do believe that the highly refined matter from which God created our spirits is co-eternal with God, but that we did not exist, even as spirit beings, until He created us from this matter.

Yes, it is a non-canonical book - but is a valid attempt by a fellow Mormon Elder to lay out Mormon beliefs. There were various errors, and complaints about the overall tone with regards Catholicism and such - but the 1966 version is the 2nd version which was published with approval of the church after making necessary revisions. The leaders of the Mormon church at the time did not flag such statements as those I quoted as being in error or in need of revision.

Furthermore, we need not rely on this book alone - the links I provide site many source making similar statements. For example, Brigham Young (2nd prophet & president of the LDS Church) stated things like:

"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, v. 8, p. 115).​

Bruce McConkie's statements thus can't be thrown away as simply non-canonical - there were good reasons for he, a fellow Mormon, to put forth such statements of faith in his book attempting to lay out Mormon doctrine. Namely, this is exactly what the prophets of the church have said.

LDS leaders have been writing books ever since the Church was first established. They are free to express their opinions, and some, unfortunately, have expressed them as if they were fact, when they weren't. Mormons do believe that God the Father was the literal father of Jesus Christ, just as Mary was His literal mother. In other words, we believe their Father/Son relationship was real. When Jesus referred to Him as "Father," He was referring to His actual Father. If medical science today has devised ways of impregnating a woman without her having had intercourse, don't you believe God could have figured it out first? You can quote all of the non-canonical sources you want, but you will not find a single canonical source to support your claim. Furthermore, you seem to think we're clueless about all of these criticisms, that we haven't heard them a million times already. Honestly, we know far more about our theology than you can begin to imagine.

 

[Katzpur]

One thing that has become abundantly clear to me over the years of studying and debating theology is that the people who try to cite how long they've been in the church as an argument often do so because they don't have anything substantial to defend their position. I'll agree that your positions are probably common among your fellow congregants in the LDS Church, but that doesn't do anything to erase well recorded historical statements made by Mormon Elders & Prophets.

Also, to be clear, I be no means claim to be an expert on Mormonism - I'm merely going by the evidence. Address the evidence if you will, and I will certainly take heed of a well formed argument. However, if you fallback to "believe me because I'm old" then your views aren't worthy of respect.

It's not because "I'm old" that you should believe me. It's because I know what I'm talking about from 71 years of experience. We don't need to "erase well-recorded historical statements by Mormon Elders & Prophets" because we know what is actually taught Sunday after Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. If somebody said something 150 years ago that was never canonized, so what? You can say, "Well, so and so said it, so that means it's what Mormons believe," but that simply isn't the case. Why claim that we believe something one person taught when a hundred people who followed him have taught something else?

Here are some basic guidelines from an official Church statement entitled, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine."

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.