God was a man?

[Markk]

Please explain to me why sexual relations between husband and wife and their conceiving a child is considered evil or wicked or unholy or not godlike? It is not the proper and lawful use of these powers of procreation that are unholy, but the perversion and or unlawful use of it that is an abomination. Please show one verse in the standard works or the writings of the prophets or apostles that condemns the lawful use of this creative power by those who are lawfully wedded? I know some of the leaders of some of the other Churches of Christendom may, but I am talking about those in the LDS Church. I also think there is great impropriety with those Anti-Mormon "shock mongers " who defile both God and His Gospel with such comments about God's sexuality that make LDS retreat into a position where we must rationalize some "artificial means" of God's procreation. It is disgusting and is like someone trying to talk about their earthly parent's sexuality in public. How so-called Christians could bring up such a subject is astonishing, but they play the "mud slinger" to the very hilt and to them nothing is sacred, so why should I be surprised? It seems to be some sort of fetish with these emissaries of the evil one, but I do believe that such discussions are forbidden on this board, so I will for forbear from further comment on the subject but will only add this quote:Not a hint of sin connected with marriage or marital relations there. So when God said "Multiply and replenish the earth" I do not think He had "cloning" in mind.

Hi Lightbearer,

I think your missing to point...which is that whether of not this is a LDS teaching, you do, other members here don't? Before we can debate it on it's own merits, we need to know whether or not it is a teaching?

Mark

[Markk]

Once again Markk is here to tell us what is and what is not LDS doctrine. I am so glad that you can tell me what flies in the face of LDS doctrine. Whew.

Hi mola,

Who is "us", do you speak for all Mormons?

Tell me what you believe on this subject Mola, your MO is to just say Markk this or Markk that, and I understand that kind of defense, but do me a favor, dig deep, and give your understanding of what continuation of seeds mean in LDS theology.

Take care

Mark

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi mola,

Who is "us", do you speak for all Mormons?

Tell me what you believe on this subject Mola, you MO is to just say Markk this or Markk that, and I understand that kind of defense, but do me a favor, dig deep, and give your understanding of what continuation of seeds mean in LDS theology.

Take care

Mark

I don't speak for all Mormons. But you seem to think that you do. I would rather debate a wall than to talk to you. We went on and on for pages about what you thought JFS was talking about in "Doctrines of Salvation". It was pointless, you clearly do not understand LDS doctrine and your presume to preach to us about it. I undersand what "Continuation of seeds" means just fine. I don't need you to teach me or challange me about it.

[Doctor Steuss]

I can't speak for Moses, if you believe that God is a man then I would say fine, that's certainly your choice, but I would argue from a LDS perspective that your interpretation flies in the face of LDS teachings and the eternal law of progression.

[...]

Hi Markk,

So, you're saying that from an LDS perspective, individuals become androgynous as they progress (and the titles of

[Markk]

So, you're saying that from an LDS perspective, individuals become androgynous as they progress (and the titles of

[Markk]

I don't speak for all Mormons. But you seem to think that you do. I would rather debate a wall than to talk to you. We went on and on for pages about what you thought JFS was talking about in "Doctrines of Salvation". It was pointless, you clearly do not understand LDS doctrine and your presume to preach to us about it. I undersand what "Continuation of seeds" means just fine. I don't need you to teach me or challange me about it.

I would rather debate a wall than to talk to you.

http://www.tdiconstruction.com/resources/brick_wall.jpg

Knock yourself out.

You really need to lighten up Mola, maybe your wound I little to tight for these types of boards.

Take care

Mark

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.tdiconstruction.com/resources/brick_wall.jpg

Knock yourself out.

You really need to lighten up Mola, maybe your wound I little to tight for these types of boards.

Take care

Mark

I don't take my religion lightly, and I don't take mis-represenations of my religion lightly either. Now if we were on a joke board and it was all fun in games, yeah your words might carry more wieght.

[Pahoran]

The Poster said that the LDS Book of Moses says that God is a man, I said I can't respond to that but if it was indeed true, in contradicts the LDS concept that man becomes god... if he does certain things, while those that don't qualify of godhood remain men.

What "LDS concept" is that?

I really thought you would have figured it out by now, Markk. Just because your EV preacher tells you some story in his Sunday evening "lessons" about Marminz, you ought not to assume that that represents "reel" LDS teaching.

Keep that in mind, and you won't paint such a large and inviting target on yourself every time you post.

Regards

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi DS,

The Poster said that the LDS Book of Moses says that God is a man, I said I can't respond to that but if it was indeed true, in contradicts the LDS concept that man becomes god... if he does certain things, while those that don't qualify of godhood remain men.

I think I see what you were saying.

Your reference to

[cjcampbell]

Well, I think 90% of the Saints believe that God was once a man. I believe it. Lorenzo Snow believed it. Joseph Smith believed it. Brigham Young believed it. Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith both believed it. If Gordon B. Hinckley did not believe it, then among the prophets he was pretty much a minority of one. If anyone needs to explain what he meant by what he said, then he does. No one else. Unfortunately, he is dead. So all the endless speculation about what he meant is pretty worthless in the face of the great weight of evidence of what every other prophet has taught.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Over my head, I'll google it and see what that means, do you have a link?

Mark

In digging (beyond my sloppy brain), looks like I may have mispoke.

If the Enochic tradition was rooted in a royal cult, a great deal of the picture of Jesus begins to fit together very well. He was hailed as a king and a miracle worker, and remembered as a magician with extraordinary powers. The Son of Man figure also occurs in the Christian tradition but is not necassirly directly related to, or derived from, the Similitues in the Book of Enoch...Enoch himself sees the secrets of heaven, how the kingdoms are divdided and the actions of men weighed. The spirit of wisdom is in the Elect One who stads in the presence of God. A component of this wisdom is the name of the Son of Man, which we have assumed to be the revelation of his identity. It could as easily be read as the revelation of a name, in the magical sense of a power-giving invocation...as the key to the cosmic oath A name in this sense fits well into a context of heavenly secrets and judgement, and the sense of the passages would then be that this name of the Son of Man was a powerful tool in the process of judging evil...The oath is the means of creating order; the sea and the depths are made fast, the sun and moon keep their courses, the winds and weathers obey and all Glorify the Lord of Spirits. This great oath can only be understood in the light of the magical tradition which it most closely resembles, where the oath is the means of binding the fallen spirits who operate through natural phenomenena, in order to make them serve a higher purpose. To be initiated into the oath gives great power; knowing the angelic names enables the initiate to summon and bind the spirtis in his service, by means of the even greater name whose authority he uses.

(Margaret Barker, Older Testament -- Don't have page number, IronDukeSteve gave me this quote long ago)

[Markk]

I don't take my religion lightly, and I don't take mis-represenations of my religion lightly either. Now if we were on a joke board and it was all fun in games, yeah your words might carry more wieght.

Nor do I Mola, but you have to understand that this is a discussion board. I believe that right or wrong, a case can be made of what I believe and why I believe it, you can ask me any question and, right or wrong, I'll give you my belief, even if it is a simple "I don't know". On the other hand in all our discussions I don't have a clue on where you stand other than in your opinion I'm a idiot. I see that your faith (theology) is one of reaction, meaning it shifts from question to question, maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I see.

Again. this is a discussion board...we can discuss our beliefs, or make personal jabs at each other, your choice.

Take care

Mark

[Markk]

What "LDS concept" is that?

I really thought you would have figured it out by now, Markk. Just because your EV preacher tells you some story in his Sunday evening "lessons" about Marminz, you ought not to assume that that represents "reel" LDS teaching.

Keep that in mind, and you won't paint such a large and inviting target on yourself every time you post.

Regards

Pahoran

What "LDS concept" is that?

The Eternal Law of Progression, if you like you can exchange 'concept' for 'teaching or belief'.

[Markk]

Your reference to

[SeattleGhostWriter]

What does continuation of seeds mean. If you become a God, how will your children come into existence? Are simply going to fashion them, or will they have a heavenly Mother?

I don't believe Pratts theory was rejected in a general sense, but in his adding his math skills to the teaching.

Mark

John 1:12

Then how do you explain the Gospel of Luke where Mary says to the Angel "How shall I conceive since I know no man?" It does not take a rocket scientist to think in a First Century Setting.

Essentially, Mary very well asked "How will I bring forth a Child since I have not yet had any sexual relationship with any man to conceive a child?

And, what was the Angel's Response? "The Power of the Holy Spirit will overcome you and the Most High will come upon you."

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin

[Markk]

Then how do you explain the Gospel of Luke where Mary says to the Angel "How shall I conceive since I know no man?" It does not take a rocket scientist to think in a First Century Setting.

Essentially, Mary very well asked "How will I bring forth a Child since I have not yet had any sexual relationship with any man to conceive a child?

And, what was the Angel's Response? "The Power of the Holy Spirit will overcome you and the Most High will come upon you."

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin

[SeattleGhostWriter]

I don't have time to read the cf you gave right now, but are you saying that you believe that Luke is saying that God had sexual relations with Mary?

I'll comment tonight on the context, but let me know what you believe this is, I believe it was by the power of God that Mary was "found" with child. I do not believe God hasrelationships of that kins with His creation or children, which either view you hold to. If you dod then I guess you take the position of BY.

Mark

I hate to burst your Anti-Mormon Laden influenced mindset. However, with the relevant understanding of science today, any woman can conceive without physical sexual intercourse.

History lesson for you.

When was the first successful in vitro done?

Milestones in the History of Human Artificial Insemination

1790

[Balzer]

Awesome thread! Can someone please remind me how the LDS church reconciles this stuff with the "I am the one and only God, there is no other god but Me" stuff?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Markk]

I hate to burst your Anti-Mormon Laden influenced mindset. However, with the relevant understanding of science today, any woman can conceive without physical sexual intercourse.

History lesson for you.

When was the first successful in vitro done?

Now, did Brigham Young have this information available to him? The burden of proof lies upon you.

Now, thinking in the context of BY and Mary - there was really no serious discussion or thought of Artificial Insemination.

However, if you do some serious scholarly research, the science started to develop about how humanity developed in the womb. The purpose as to the egg and the sperm fertilizing the egg.

So, even in the Mid 1700's when this "new scientific theories" of how humanity develops in the womb were discussed and argued in the scientific community (refer to The Ovary of Eve - Egg and Sperm and Preformation Clara Pinto-Correia published by the University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London).

Again, just because this was discussed, one has to understand that this science ideology was fairly new of its time. And, my research as not proved anything as to Brigham Young having any understanding here.

Therefore, when Brigham Young did speak about Heavenly Father coming down and having "sexual relations" with Mary, one has to view this statement in the context of its time. Not in a 21st century mindset and thinking. Here is your problem, and the many problems of those who gain money from their fraudulent and illogical argumentation.

Yes, did Brigham Young teach it? Of course, I will not say he did not, but he taught it from what he understood and was able to compare to in his time and knowledge.

Do I prescribe to this and say it is right? No, because, like I said, God fashioned the intelligences into spiritual form. These spiritual forms took on mortal life while in the womb.

In fact, it is very interesting that when you read the Pseudapigripha of Adam and Eve, you will find that when Eve gave birth, the Arch Angel Michael was there with Twelve others and 2 "virtues":

This, of course, is translated from the Latin version of the Book of Adam and Eve.

So, what is my position on this? Heavenly Father did perform a miracle in the womb of Eve. She was overcome by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High overshadowed her and she conceived. This conception may very well have been a heavenly Artificial Insemination. The only problem is that we really do not know exactly what happened.

If God did have physical sexual relations with Mary, then it would not be the first time Ancient texts recorded Heavenly Beings copulating with mortal beings. This is evident in the Watchers of the Coptic Version of Enoch, as well as many other various mythologies and religions. So, Brigham Young is not the first person to teach that a Divine Heavenly Being came down and copulated with a mortal woman. This is evident in Greek Mythology, Apocryphal works, and all of major religions of the Ancient Near East.

WoW, that's a mouth full.

So according to your opinion, god artificially inseminated Mary? Or he had sexual relations with her? Or you really just do not know? I just want to get this straight.

So, Brigham Young is not the first person to teach that a Divine Heavenly Being came down and copulated with a mortal woman. This is evident in Greek Mythology, Apocryphal works, and all of major religions of the Ancient Near East.

I agree

God fashioned the intelligences into spiritual form

Please define "fashioned" for me, so I understand you completely?

mark

[ToGo]

Concepts attached to that principle that God was a sinner, or that there are generations of Gods fall more into untaught and more mystery-based doctrines.

The God-was-once-mortal doctrine is neither core or clearly articulated as official creedal doctrine. Acceptance of this priniciple is not asked or required in the baptismal interview, is not included in any temple recommend interview, and is not often discussed or taught. I can perfectly accept that some members of the Church do not believe this concept. It has no bearing on their acceptance in full fellowship in the Church.

I do believe that as a non-central (nearly borderline doctrinal mystery) doctrine, it is not commonly taught or emphasized in the Church.

That seems to be throwing Joseph Smith under the bus; according to the Church, "Joseph Smith taught, 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God...He was once a man like us; ...God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did." P. 279 of the 2010 Gospel Essentials Manual.

[Pahoran]

That seems to be throwing Joseph Smith under the bus; according to the Church, "Joseph Smith taught, 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God...He was once a man like us; ...God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did." P. 279 of the 2010 Gospel Essentials Manual.

So, in your view, anything that disagrees with your interpretation of your selection of Joseph's words -- including the ellipses -- "seems to be throwing Joseph Smith under the bus." Is that it?

Because if it is, then you are simply wrong.

This is a very simple fact, but it seems extraordinarily difficult for critics to grasp.

You <> Joseph.

Your interpretations <> his statements.

Got it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[hordak]

Awesome thread! Can someone please remind me how the LDS church reconciles this stuff with the "I am the one and only God, there is no other god but Me" stuff?

Respectfully,

Balzer

God is a title not a name. If it's like telling your kids, I am your only father, will always be your father, you had no father before me. All true but doesn't discount the fact that other fathers exist, you yourself have a father and that your kids may grow up to be fathers.

[ToGo]

So, in your view, anything that disagrees with your interpretation of your selection of Joseph's words -- including the ellipses -- "seems to be throwing Joseph Smith under the bus." Is that it?

Because if it is, then you are simply wrong.

This is a very simple fact, but it seems extraordinarily difficult for critics to grasp.

You <> Joseph.

Your interpretations <> his statements.

Got it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Let's see.

Pahoran must = Joseph

Pahoran's interpretations must = Joseph's statements.

Got it.

Real objective, Pahoran, real objective. Did you happen to see the word "seems" in my statement?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Awesome thread! Can someone please remind me how the LDS church reconciles this stuff with the "I am the one and only God, there is no other god but Me" stuff?

Respectfully,

Balzer

I would answer your question if it was asked in good faith. I know it is not a question asked in good faith as we have discussed this several times with you. Apparently we LDS just cant reconcile this stuff thankfully you and Markk are here to help us out of mormonism.

[Lightbearer]

Hi Lightbearer,

I think your missing to point...which is that whether of not this is a LDS teaching, you do, other members here don't? Before we can debate it on it's own merits, we need to know whether or not it is a teaching?

Mark

Actually you are the one missing the point, it is obvious from your sex obsessed posts that you are trying to accuse the LDS of such teachings. My point is SO WHAT? Jesus was the literal Son of God in the flesh, we are the literal sons and daughters of heavenly parents who procreated and produced our spirit bodies. You are trying to make something filthy out of these teachings. What I am saying is what makes it wrong? Is the sex act itself a sin? If you believe that then you condemn God for providing such a means for us to be born into the world. I do not fear your accusations, while I have no proof that my interpretation is absolute and if there is not some form of "spontaneous conception" going on, I do not believe the natural birth process is anything to be ashamed of. That notion is an apostate teaching inherited from philosophers and mystics that came up with the false idea that the body is in itself evil. I reject such a notion and believe that Celestial bodies are just as capable of reproduction as mortal bodies. We are not children here, there is no "celestial stork" or "cabbage patch children of God." I also understand that such ideas may be offensive to some. What offends me is someone who insists on bringing up such "straw-men" ideas in the first place just so he can try to embarrass of shame someone into surrendering the argument.