The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[theplains]

On 1/19/2022 at 7:48 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said before, neither the Bible nor Book of Mormon used the phrase "literal son of god," so your point is moot.  One must ask the hard question, which is:  Do the Bible and Book of Mormon differ in any respect on the nature of the conception and birth of Jesus?  To answer that question, one must assemble all the quotations from both and try to discern whether there are in fact substantive differences among them.

And you got this from where in the Book of Mormon?

Since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and later born, I do not accept the teaching
of a Celestial Sireship between Heavenly Father and Mary that the Religion 431 - Doctrines of the
Gospel Student Manual teaches. 

The LDS principle (from chapter 47 in the 1997 Gospel Principles) that Heavenly Father was once
a man who became a God is not scriptural. Add this to the scriptural teachings that God is from
everlasting to everlasting and Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father is not, and you have
a different god.  

Reference: "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn
for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God
and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined
and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so
that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938,
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

It seems Joseph Smith believed in some unknown God who was from eternity to eternity (Doctrine and
Covenants 20:17; Moroni 8:18) and a separate God (Heavenly Father of Earth) who was not from eternity
to eternity.

[MacGyver]

14 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I am totally mystified here. 

What are you mystified about?

[Orthodox Christian]

On 12/28/2021 at 3:23 PM, BRMC said:

That depends on what you're looking at.  Jesus is the firstborn spirit son of God (D&C 93) and the only begotten son of God in the flesh (JST John 1 13-14).  Adam was created from dust.   I'm comfortable not having the specifics of how Mary conceived.

The Bible states that Mary, was told by the Angel that 

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be the son of God"

That's it, there is no explanation except that the power of God will generate His Son in the Flesh. And Mary said yes, her fiat, and Christ is flesh of her flesh and blood of her blood. I suppose we have to accept that in faith, nothing is impossible to God, and the specifics are His business.

[Orthodox Christian]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

Since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and later born, I do not accept the teaching
of a Celestial Sireship between Heavenly Father and Mary that the Religion 431 - Doctrines of the
Gospel Student Manual teaches. 

The LDS principle (from chapter 47 in the 1997 Gospel Principles) that Heavenly Father was once
a man who became a God is not scriptural. Add this to the scriptural teachings that God is from
everlasting to everlasting and Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father is not, and you have
a different god.  

Reference: "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn
for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God
and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined
and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so
that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938,
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

It seems Joseph Smith believed in some unknown God who was from eternity to eternity (Doctrine and
Covenants 20:17; Moroni 8:18) and a separate God (Heavenly Father of Earth) who was not from eternity
to eternity.

This strange to me, the idea of another god is totally alien. Our faith declares that God from everlasting to everlasting, eternal, unoriginate, and uncreated.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

This strange to me, the idea of another god is totally alien. Our faith declares that God from everlasting to everlasting, eternal, unoriginate, and uncreated.

Remember that not all you read here will be from a believing standpoint, even when quoting as important context may be missing. Plains here is not a believer, for example.  Any quotes he provides would be best to be read from the source in case he unintentionally leaves something that will provide greater understanding out.  In fact, best to always read what is unfamiliar for you from the source because sometimes believers assume you know something you don’t or it doesn’t occur to us that information is missing because we live and breathe the context, so to speak (which is why it is a good idea to read our basic manual so you have the ‘big picture’ to frame the details in.

Here is a link to the actual manual:

http://www.ldslearning.org/gospel-principles-1997.pdf

 

We also believe God is eternal and from everlasting to everlasting. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/3-god-the-father?lang=eng

Quote

1. God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable (see Mormon 9:9; D&C 20:12, 17; 109:77).

Yet we also believe this:

Quote

• “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. … If the veil were rent today, … if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. …

  “… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible” (Smith, Teachings, 345–46).

• “God made man in his own image and certainly he made woman in the image of his wife-partner” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 25).

Jesus was God the Son when he walked on earth, so we are not required to believe even if God the Father was a human like us, that he was ever not God because we have Jesus’ example of being God and being a human like us (and not like us in that he was sinless and the Only Begotten).
 

And while all mankind are his children, there is a part of us that is uncreated which he clothed in spirit somehow, which was then placed under his direction in our mortal bodies, which he provided so that we may have eternal life and one day becoming like God and abiding in oneness with him through the blessings of the Atonement.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

You might want to read this too given the last quote about “his wife-partner”:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

But exactly how this all (what was the beginning, if there was any; how were our spirits created; how will we be able to be one with someone so far above and beyond us?) works out is unknown and there is a range of speculation, including from Joseph Smith about it. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938,
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

Plains, the link doesn’t work. If you could stop copy/pasting without attribution or update your material and doublecheck your links, it would be better. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

This strange to me, the idea of another god is totally alien. Our faith declares that God from everlasting to everlasting, eternal, unoriginate, and uncreated.

We take the Father and the Son titles as an actual description of their relationship not just similar, to the relationships of fathers and sons on earth, but the same.  Family of God is the family of God  

And we see them both as God along with the Spirit, so three Gods right there…who are one in unified purpose. 
 

It feels very simple and straightforward to me, but it may be way too many details for you if first exposure.  
 

It is hard for many raised in the faith Latter-day Saints to figure out how other Christians can believe God the Father is spirit when the Father says “let us make man in our image” since image generally is used to describe a physical appearance. 
 

And one Being in three Persons…unless “being” is being used to describe a social unit like a family, that is an alien concept to us. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

On 1/21/2022 at 1:18 PM, theplains said:

How do you believe the Book of Mormon is far clearer than the Bible in teaching the divinity of Christ?

Well, it's pretty hard to get any clearer than Jesus himself declaring to be the "God of Israel" in no uncertain terms in the Book of Mormon:

"Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." (3 Nephi 11:14)

There is no ambiguity there.

Or even what Nephi said:  

"And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;" (2 Nephi 26:12)

Or what the title page says:

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations"

There's no ambiguity in any of those verses in declaring that Jesus is God.  There's no way to say those verses aren't talking about Jesus Christ.

On 1/21/2022 at 1:18 PM, theplains said:

Regarding #1.  Literal Son of God to me means God literally becoming a man in human flesh via
a miraculous birth to Mary.

So God literally becoming man, but not really his son.  Can you explain how that makes him a "literal Son of God"?   And how is that different than becoming "sons of God" (figuratively speaking), like it is described for believers in Jesus Christ, in John 1:12?

On 1/21/2022 at 1:18 PM, theplains said:

Regarding #2 - I do not know, but it seems he was meaning something
different than how the Bible describes it as he was saying the phrase "literal Son of God" has been
misinterpreted or misunderstood.

From the quote I posted in my last post, he was clearly saying the Book of Mormon is a "second" witness to the Bible.  His point is that it's harder to explain away the statements in the Bible when there is a second witness to the same things.   He said, "[t]hese unique features are taught in the Bible", but they've been misinterpreted and misunderstood.  The Book of Mormon provides a second witness to what the Bible is saying.

By "literal Son of God", I understand him to be using the same definition as on this BYU Speeches web site:

"Jesus Christ was miraculously born of Mary, a virgin, in Bethlehem of Judea. He is the literal Son of God. Though we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father, Christ was the firstborn in the spirit and the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh. As such, He was uniquely qualified to be the Savior of mankind—a role He was called to fulfill even before the earth’s creation. "

 

[CV75]

On 1/21/2022 at 3:47 PM, theplains said:

Since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and later born, I do not accept the teaching
of a Celestial Sireship between Heavenly Father and Mary that the Religion 431 - Doctrines of the
Gospel Student Manual teaches. 

The LDS principle (from chapter 47 in the 1997 Gospel Principles) that Heavenly Father was once
a man who became a God is not scriptural. Add this to the scriptural teachings that God is from
everlasting to everlasting and Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father is not, and you have
a different god.  

Reference: "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn
for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God
and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined
and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so
that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938,
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

It seems Joseph Smith believed in some unknown God who was from eternity to eternity (Doctrine and
Covenants 20:17; Moroni 8:18) and a separate God (Heavenly Father of Earth) who was not from eternity
to eternity.

How is the following concept from Religion 431** different from Luke 1:31-35*, or from yours?:

* "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS... 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."

** “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’”

Also: Section 20 was given in 1829, and the King Follet Sermon was given in 1844. The latter teaching does not replace the former, but the two teachings shed light on each other, demonstrating that scripture is only the beginning of our education – the gift of the Holy Ghost advances and eventually completes it with sanctification. This is 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 in action, and why the fulness of the principle is revealed in D&C 68:4.

[theplains]

On 1/23/2022 at 6:28 PM, CV75 said:

How is the following concept from Religion 431** different from Luke 1:31-35*, or from yours?:

* "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS... 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."

** “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’”

I don't believe Jesus was sired by Heavenly Father.

[theplains]

On 1/23/2022 at 6:03 PM, InCognitus said:

"Jesus Christ was miraculously born of Mary, a virgin, in Bethlehem of Judea. He is the literal Son of God. Though we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father, Christ was the firstborn in the spirit and the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh. As such, He was uniquely qualified to be the Savior of mankind—a role He was called to fulfill even before the earth’s creation. "

If Jesus was born in a physical relationship between an immortal Father and mortal mother, would
that be a miracle?

[theplains]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:23 AM, Calm said:

Plains, the link doesn’t work. If you could stop copy/pasting without attribution or update your material and doublecheck your links, it would be better. 

Works for me

https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, theplains said:

I don't believe Jesus was sired by Heavenly Father.

I don't understand. Did not Heavenly Father cause the conception and subsequent birth of Jesus, and is this not miraculous?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If Jesus was born in a physical relationship between an immortal Father and mortal mother, would
that be a miracle?

Except it wasn't a physical relationship, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.  So how is that not "miraculous"? 

You didn't answer these two questions (quoted below, blue font color) :

On 1/23/2022 at 4:03 PM, InCognitus said:

On 1/21/2022 at 1:18 PM, theplains said:

Regarding #1.  Literal Son of God to me means God literally becoming a man in human flesh via
a miraculous birth to Mary.

So God literally becoming man, but not really his son.  Can you explain how that makes him a "literal Son of God"?   And how is that different than becoming "sons of God" (figuratively speaking), like it is described for believers in Jesus Christ, in John 1:12?

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by InCognitus

[James 1 5]

On 1/21/2022 at 12:47 PM, theplains said:

Since Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and later born, I do not accept the teaching
of a Celestial Sireship between Heavenly Father and Mary that the Religion 431 - Doctrines of the
Gospel Student Manual teaches. 

The LDS principle (from chapter 47 in the 1997 Gospel Principles) that Heavenly Father was once
a man who became a God is not scriptural. Add this to the scriptural teachings that God is from
everlasting to everlasting and Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father is not, and you have
a different god.  

Reference: "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn
for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God
and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined
and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so
that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938,
https://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf).

It seems Joseph Smith believed in some unknown God who was from eternity to eternity (Doctrine and
Covenants 20:17; Moroni 8:18) and a separate God (Heavenly Father of Earth) who was not from eternity
to eternity.

In the past I often felt sad that some doctrinal issues were not stated clearly, but I have since repented from having those thoughts.  God is fully capable of helping us understand every doctrinal issue even when some people are not perfect with words.

The issue here is about knowing what a father is, and what a son is.  A son in some sense is his father because that father reproduced himself when creating his son. But people always think of the reproduction process that way.  Even though it is true.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

If Jesus was born in a physical relationship between an immortal Father and mortal mother, would
that be a miracle?

Well, it certainly doesn't happen every day, nor did it happen in mortality since she was taken away in the spirit.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Except it wasn't a physical relationship, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. 

That's an assumption.  Virgin isn't always literal in scripture.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't believe Jesus was sired by Heavenly Father.

Most of Christendom doesn't.  Which makes Heavenly Father calling Jesus his only begotten son either a lie or poetry.

[James 1 5]

2 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

In the past I often felt sad that some doctrinal issues were not stated clearly, but I have since repented from having those thoughts.  God is fully capable of helping us understand every doctrinal issue even when some people are not perfect with words.

The issue here is about knowing what a father is, and what a son is.  A son in some sense is his father because that father reproduced himself when creating his son. But people always think of the reproduction process that way.  Even though it is true.

I meant to say people don't always think of the reproduction process that way.  And while I am adding this post I will also say this:

What a lot of "non LDS Christians" don't believe, apparently, is that our Father in heaven and his son Jesus Christ are 2 distinct personages.  And I think one of the big reasons they don't believe it is because they believe there is only one God.  Which is true if you define God as a particular kind of being.  There is only one kind of being we refer to as God.  We know that.  But we also know that God exists as distinct personages.  Otherwise referred to as distinct persons.  They are not the same person or personage.

I think this is probably one of the biggest doctrinal issues that divides all of so-called Christianity.  The issue of whether there is only one God, or more than one God.  I say only one God with many persons who are that one God. Many people do not agree.

[InCognitus]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Except it wasn't a physical relationship, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. 

That's an assumption.  Virgin isn't always literal in scripture.

It's more of an assumption to suggest that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born, isn't it?  The scriptural descriptions of the conception tell us that it was miraculous, and "conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost".  No need to infer any "physical relationship" interpretation.

[Navidad]

32 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

What a lot of "non LDS Christians" don't believe, apparently, is that our Father in heaven and his son Jesus Christ are 2 distinct personages. 

Let me assure you that you are mistaken. Virtually all non-LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) are one God in three persons.

[James 1 5]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't believe Jesus was sired by Heavenly Father.

I understand that to mean you believe Jesus and his Father are the same personage.  That one did not father the other.  That you don't believe Jesus is literally a son of his Father.  You think the terms father and son are only figurative, not literal, expressions.

[James 1 5]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Let me assure you that you are mistaken. Virtually all non-LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) are one God in three persons.

I have had many personal conversations with other non LDS Christians to know we don't think the same way on this issue.  If you personally DO believe as we do on this  issue, then I would be glad to know you believe it.

[James 1 5]

14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

It's more of an assumption to suggest that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born, isn't it?  The scriptural descriptions of the conception tell us that it was miraculous, and "conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost".  No need to infer any "physical relationship" interpretation.

I think the term virgin back then referred to her being a YW, young woman.  We're also told she had not been with any man before she became pregnant with Jesus, which makes 2 things we know about her.  She was young, and pure (untouched by sexual relations with man).  From the Book of Mormon we are also told she was fair (referring to her skin tone, appearance), white (meaning pure), and beautiful (a wonderful person to behold both physically and spiritually).

I think the "physical relationship" component was more scientific than emotionally intimate, but for what needed to happen to happen something physical from our Father was needed to fertilize one of Mary's eggs, otherwise she would not be his physical Mother and our Father in heaven not his physical Father.  The term only begotten son of our Father negates the latter interpretation. All of us are spirit sons or daughters of our Father who is in in heaven, but only Jesus was physically begotten by Mary and our Father.

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

It's more of an assumption to suggest that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born, isn't it?  The scriptural descriptions of the conception tell us that it was miraculous, and "conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost".  No need to infer any "physical relationship" interpretation.

The only reason we believe she was a virgin is because she stated it.
Since she was in the presence of the Father and transfigured by the power of the Holy Ghost there are many reasons to suggest otherwise.
Not the least of which is basic genetics.  Or perhaps the veil of forgetfulness?  Or the fact that our prophet Brigham Young taught otherwise. Or...
 

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The only reason we believe she was a virgin is because she stated it.

Or that the conception took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost"?  Why not that?

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Since she was in the presence of the Father and transfigured by the power of the Holy Ghost there are many reasons to suggest otherwise.
Not the least of which is basic genetics.  Or perhaps the veil of forgetfulness? Or the fact that our prophet Brigham Young taught otherwise. Or...

The genetic aspect can be explained just fine without the need for a "physical" interaction that would result in the loss of her virginity.  We can even do this with modern science (but it would be considered "miraculous" in ancient times). 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

I have had many personal conversations with other non LDS Christians to know we don't think the same way on this issue.  If you personally DO believe as we do on this  issue, then I would be glad to know you believe it.

They do not understand “one God” in the same way, but unless they believe in modalism (and this is most likely a misunderstanding of their own faith’s teaching), they believe in 3 persons as we do as far as I can tell.

——

For our nonLDS Christians on this board, do you see the below as a useful analysis of thoughts on the Trinity and if so, would you identify which theory best describes the Trinity in your view, please. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/

——

There is a massive difference in we believe in both the Father and the Son are physical and spiritual persons and how we believe the Son’s physical body was begotten (in some fashion that allowed physical DNA to be combined as happens in all conceptions, whether the usual way or artificial, in vitro, or something we are not aware of (which is what I vote for).

Edited January 26, 2022 by Calm