-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ye are gods! Heresy or truth?
- Thread starter Katzpur
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If you cannot be convinced of the actual sexual intercourse from post #63":jonny said:I'm still waiting for the quote that says that our spirits were created through "sexual intercourse." You are inferring something from these statements that has not been stated and telling me that our church teaches something that you cannot prove and that I believe something that I have denied.
I never denied that I believe we have a Mother in Heaven - what I denied is that the creation process that God uses is anything that could be comprehended by me or you. You seem to think that you can comprehend it, so go ahead and keep on thinking what you want to think, but the minute you start spreading lies around about Mormonism to people, I hope you will remember this scripture:
I did compare the quotes and I was right. Was your previous source the same anti-Mormon book where you got this sexual intercourse nonsense? Why don't you site it if it is the basis of your entire argument? "Another source" really sounds like you are hiding something. I did a quick search on Google for your quote and it didn't come up a single time. You'd think that anti-Mormons would have jumped on that one and spread it all over by now! RF will be the first site to list it. You should be commended for bringing this statement to the light of the world.
Thank you for refraining from teaching me what I believe.
Under the entry "GOD THE FATHER" on page 549 I quote,
"The Father, Elohim, is called Father because he is the literal father of the spirits of mortals (Heb. 12:9). This paternity is not allegorical. All individual human spirits were begotten (not created from nothing or made) by the Father in a pre-mortal state, where they lived and were nurtured by Heavenly Parents. These spirit children of the Father come to earth to receive mortal bodies; there is a literal family relationship among humankind. Joseph Smith taught, "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves" (TPJS, p. 343). Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are different stages of progress. This doctrine is stated consisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be."
If the paternity were allegorical, it would not require sexual intercourse. Literal father means literal sex. I don't see how they could be more clear.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Better have a heart to heart with Jonny on this one. He's a tenth generation Mormon who is having a hard time with it.Aqualung said:
SoyLeche
meh...
From the Gospel according to SoyLeche:angellous_evangellous said:
God has a body, but it is an exhalted, immortal body. That means that his body doesn't require food or any type of nourishment. I wouldn't think that he needs to breath, sleep, or do any of the other things that we do in order to keep our bodies in shape. So, I don't understand why you think that in order to 'beget' children, he has to follow the same procedure that we do.
God is, in fact, our Father. How we were begotten, however is unknown. It may have involved some sort of intercourse. So what? I don't quite understand how that is such a bad, or blasphemous thing. Do you think any less of your parents here on Earth because of the way they got you here?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I will address this question in another thread. I will start it ASAP.SoyLeche said:
You could have saved yourself the time of looking that up because I'm pretty sure I had already posted it in the thread I created to discuss this subject.angellous_evangellous said:
The question I have is why do you care about this so much. The only thing I care about is you spreading lies about Mormons to those who trust you to teach them truth. Do you really think that you are going to convince me to believe something that I don't believe? I really don't think it is important to know how our spirits were created. If they were created through sex, great. Heaven will be a lot more interesting. If they weren't, who cares?
Also, I think you need a lesson between the differences in doctrine and beliefs/speculation.
Whenever new doctrines are to be introduced, they are first presented by the President to his counselors and then to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting of the council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. If unanimously approved, they are then presented to the membership of the Church at a general conference for a sustaining vote.
This is why I am free to believe what I want to on this subject. It is not in the scriptures and the doctrine has never been put before the church for a sustaining vote.
Sorry Katzpur. I tried to start another thread on this, but I think yours has been officially hijacked.
Let me also add these comments:
From B.H. Roberts
I do not think the world should require such perfection of us as to insist that our religious teachers always deliver the inerrant word of God! In any event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said in times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that were not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not possess the value of scripture, or anything like it; and it was not revelation. Moreover, no revelation even becomes the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it is accepted by that Church by formal action; it must be accepted by official vote of the Church before it becomes the law of the Church."
From Joseph F. Smith
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every mans doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted
From Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl Of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by the same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
From B.H. Roberts
I do not think the world should require such perfection of us as to insist that our religious teachers always deliver the inerrant word of God! In any event it must be allowed by us that many unwise things were said in times past, even by prominent elders of the Church; things that were not in harmony with the doctrines of the Church; and that did not possess the value of scripture, or anything like it; and it was not revelation. Moreover, no revelation even becomes the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it is accepted by that Church by formal action; it must be accepted by official vote of the Church before it becomes the law of the Church."
From Joseph F. Smith
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every mans doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted
From Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl Of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by the same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Wrong again, angellous. Was Mary Jesus' literal mother? Was she, in reality, pregnant with Him? Did she, in fact, give birth to Him? Or was she merely His "allegorical" mother?angellous_evangellous said:
If Mary was Jesus' literal mother and conceived while remaining a virgin, it is entirely possible for God to have been His literal father without having had intercourse with her.
ALifetimeToWaitFor...
Member
God is everything and nothing, as is everything.
Nehustan
Well-Known Member
I would have to say a resounding no on this one. My faith states that 'had there been other god's would they not have worshiped The God, Eloah/Allah?'
This said tho' from a biblical perspective there is an understandable reason for the posting of this question.
'The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?' John 10:33-35
'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High' Psalms 82:5
This said tho' from a biblical perspective there is an understandable reason for the posting of this question.
'The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?' John 10:33-35
'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High' Psalms 82:5