LDS How did the Mormon father god who doesn't even exist impregnate

Once again, you are not answering the actual questions posed to you, HITW. The question is: How can God the Father in Mormonism by Jesus' father, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Who is a SEPARATE GOD in Mormonism's henotheistic pantheon?

Quoting the Bible does not answer this question because this question comes directly out of Mormon theology which is not found in the Bible but by Mormon eisegesis.

He is the way said:

I believe that the spirit does have a body, shape, and form. God has a face:

(Old Testament | Exodus 33:11)

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Click to expand...

The word rendered LORD is Yahweh. Even per LDS theology this is the Son of God, not the Heavenly Father.

However, anthropomorphism of God the Father did exist in the early Church, even in circles that we considered orthodox:

"Theophilus turned on the followers of Origen after having supported them for a time. He switched his view of God from the incorporeal view of God held by Origen to the anthropomorphic view held by many local monks who were hostile to his pastoral letter of 399. He was accompanied by his nephew Cyril to Constantinople in 403 and there presided at the "Synod of the Oak" that deposed John Chrysostom. On 10 July in the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Synaxarion, there is a commemoration for the 10,000 monks slain on the orders of Pope Theophilus in his paranoid campaign against perceived Origenism and the Four Tall Brethren."

Pope Theophilus of Alexandria - Wikipedia

He is the way said:

The spirit can move:

(Old Testament | Ecclesiastes 12:7)

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Click to expand...

How do you explain this verse when it seems that spirits of unbelievers do not return to God but rather go to the Spirit Prison / Hades?

Also, what about the spirits of animals?

Ecc 3:19 For the destiny of humankind and the destiny of animals are one and the same. As one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same spirit—a human has no advantage over an animal—both are fleeting.

Andrewn said:

The word rendered LORD is Yahweh. Even per LDS theology this is the Son of God, not the Heavenly Father.

However, anthropomorphism of God the Father did exist in the early Church, even in circles that we considered orthodox:

"Theophilus turned on the followers of Origen after having supported them for a time. He switched his view of God from the incorporeal view of God held by Origen to the anthropomorphic view held by many local monks who were hostile to his pastoral letter of 399. He was accompanied by his nephew Cyril to Constantinople in 403 and there presided at the "Synod of the Oak" that deposed John Chrysostom. On 10 July in the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Synaxarion, there is a commemoration for the 10,000 monks slain on the orders of Pope Theophilus in his paranoid campaign against perceived Origenism and the Four Tall Brethren."

Pope Theophilus of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Disregarding the obvious weasel words here ("his paranoid campaign") and completely unfounded claims of wanton murder, I would not be so quick to point to the likes of HH St. Theophilos in this context, as there is more than enough evidence from within the Egyptian Church itself (by which I mean the Coptic Orthodox Church, not that of the Greeks) to dispute this characterization of the conflict, as the anthropomorphism which is fueling the conflict in this incidence does not concern the first Person of the Trinity, but the second. In brief, it is a question as to how to best reconcile the incorporeal view of God in Genesis 1:26 with the very real incarnation of the Divinity of God in the Person of Christ that both sides in this conflict most definitely held to. Or so we read in academic treatises like this one, which, though it comes from a Romanian Orthodox (EO) source, relies in part on the fifth-century Coptic Life of Abba Aphou and connections made between its theology and other, more widely-known and accepted theologians such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Epiphanius of Salamis.

So Mormonism is still wrong.

dzheremi said:

Once again, you are not answering the actual questions posed to you, HITW. The question is: How can God the Father in Mormonism by Jesus' father, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Who is a SEPARATE GOD in Mormonism's henotheistic pantheon?

Quoting the Bible does not answer this question because this question comes directly out of Mormon theology which is not found in the Bible but by Mormon eisegesis.

Click to expand...

I believe I explained it well enough. That being said I will endeavor to explain farther to help you understand. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding of the term "ONE" as it is stated in the Bible. Therefore I will list a few scriptures to help with the understanding of this word:

(Old Testament | Genesis 2:24)

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

(Old Testament | Malachi 2:14 - 15)

14 ¶ Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

(New Testament | John 10:30)

30 I and my Father are one.
(New Testament | John 17:11)

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

(New Testament | Acts 4:32)

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

(New Testament | Romans 12:5)

5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

(New Testament | 2 Corinthians 13:11)

11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

(New Testament | Galatians 3:28)

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(New Testament | Philippians 1:27)

27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

(New Testament | Philippians 2:2)

2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:8)

8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

(New Testament | 1 John 5:7)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In ALL of these scriptures "ONE" means "UNITY", it does NOT mean being of one substance. Clearly the word "ONE" has been misrepresented. Clearly the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "ONE" in unity. And as farther expressed They are one in mind, glory, and perfection. There is NOTHING stated in the Bible that They are one in substance.

He is the way said:

In ALL of these scriptures "ONE" means "UNITY", it does NOT mean being of one substance. Clearly the word "ONE" has been misrepresented. Clearly the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "ONE" in unity. And as farther expressed They are one in mind, glory, and perfection. There is NOTHING stated in the Bible that They are one in substance.

Click to expand...

What about the question you are being asked makes you think this is an answer to it?

I'm at a loss for how to continue when you apparently don't even recognize the question you are actually being asked.

If anyone else wants to take a crack at explaining the question to HITW, be my guest. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

dzheremi said:

What about the question you are being asked makes you think this is an answer to it?

I'm at a loss for how to continue when you apparently don't even recognize the question you are actually being asked.

If anyone else wants to take a crack at explaining the question to HITW, be my guest. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

Click to expand...

LOL. I remember someone posting a missionary training directive to not answer the questions they are asked, but answer the questions that should be asked, or something along those lines. Seems HITW is following that guidance spectacularly.

Andrewn said:

The word rendered LORD is Yahweh. Even per LDS theology this is the Son of God, not the Heavenly Father.

However, anthropomorphism of God the Father did exist in the early Church, even in circles that we considered orthodox:

"Theophilus turned on the followers of Origen after having supported them for a time. He switched his view of God from the incorporeal view of God held by Origen to the anthropomorphic view held by many local monks who were hostile to his pastoral letter of 399. He was accompanied by his nephew Cyril to Constantinople in 403 and there presided at the "Synod of the Oak" that deposed John Chrysostom. On 10 July in the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Synaxarion, there is a commemoration for the 10,000 monks slain on the orders of Pope Theophilus in his paranoid campaign against perceived Origenism and the Four Tall Brethren."

Pope Theophilus of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

The scripture I quoted was before the birth of Jesus Christ, so are you okay with Jesus having a face before He was born?

Andrewn said:

How do you explain this verse when it seems that spirits of unbelievers do not return to God but rather go to the Spirit Prison / Hades?

Also, what about the spirits of animals?

Ecc 3:19 For the destiny of humankind and the destiny of animals are one and the same. As one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same spirit—a human has no advantage over an animal—both are fleeting.

Click to expand...

Spirits may go to God for a preliminary judgment of their works before going to spirit prison or it could mean the final judgement when they will return to God. I believe that animals do indeed have spirits.

dzheremi said:

What about the question you are being asked makes you think this is an answer to it?

I'm at a loss for how to continue when you apparently don't even recognize the question you are actually being asked.

If anyone else wants to take a crack at explaining the question to HITW, be my guest. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

Click to expand...

Have I not shown how the Holy Ghost is indeed a separate God just as you and I are separate people? Jesus is the Son of God the Father. Do you not recognize the answer? While God the Father is our God and Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are also Gods in their own right in unity with the Father.

He is the way said:

Have I not shown how the Holy Ghost is indeed a separate God just as you and I are separate people? Jesus is the Son of God the Father. Do you not recognize the answer? While God the Father is our God and Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are also Gods in their own right in unity with the Father.

Click to expand...

You yourself in post #29 in this thread already quoted Alma 7:10, which I will assume is holy scripture to you (it certainly isn't to the rest of us), which states that it was by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT that St. Mary conceived. The question is how God 'the Father' in Mormonism can be the actual father of Jesus when Mormon theology says that the three gods of the Mormon trinity are separate gods, not sharing the same ousia, when the BOM says that it is the Holy Spirit's doing.

Does that make the question more clear to you? It is not a question of how the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son are three separate gods as per Mormonism, but rather if we acknowledge that they are (again, as per Mormonism), how can it be that this Holy Spirit that you have is responsible for Mary's impregnation (as per the BOM), and yet God 'the father' is responsible for it (as well? instead? somehow?)? Since the two are physically separate and distinct gods, not sharing of the same ousia/essence/substance, then this introduces a strange situation whereby either God the father is taking credit for the Holy Spirit's work, or the Mormon God the Father and the Mormon Holy Spirit are one and the same God (which violates Mormon theology), or Alma 7:10 is incorrect.

Explain that, not any of this other stuff.

dzheremi said:

Once again, you are not answering the actual questions posed to you, HITW. The question is: How can God the Father in Mormonism by Jesus' father, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Who is a SEPARATE GOD in Mormonism's henotheistic pantheon?

Quoting the Bible does not answer this question because this question comes directly out of Mormon theology which is not found in the Bible but by Mormon eisegesis.

Click to expand...

Luke 1:35 King James Version (KJV)
35 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.

Remember the angel said there would be 2 people in the room with Mary:
1) the Holy Ghost which fell upon Mary,
2) the power of the Highest would overshadow Mary.

This scripture proves 2 things about the Trinity:
1) the Holy Ghost and the Highest are 2 separate beings. In this scripture, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and has fallen on Mary, and is throughout Mary protecting her from the tremendous power of the Highest.
The Highest is standing over Mary.
So one inside of Mary, and one standing by Mary.

2) The Holy Ghost is a spirit, being throughout Mary. And the Highest must have a body with mass, because as He is standing by Mary, He is blocking the light source in the room, thus "overshadowing her".
So one is a spirit, the other has a body (we say of flesh and bone).

So the Holy Ghost was involved to protect Mary from the Highest, but it was the Highest that did His work on her. And His work was not of a sexual nature because if it had been she would not have been a virgin at the birth of Jesus, which she was.

So if someone says that Mary was with child from the Holy Ghost, well, we understand, and accept it, because we know the full story found in this excellent scripture.

Jesus was the only begotten Son of God the Father.

dzheremi said:

You yourself in post #29 in this thread already quoted Alma 7:10, which I will assume is holy scripture to you (it certainly isn't to the rest of us), which states that it was by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT that St. Mary conceived. The question is how God 'the Father' in Mormonism can be the actual father of Jesus when Mormon theology says that the three gods of the Mormon trinity are separate gods, not sharing the same ousia, when the BOM says that it is the Holy Spirit's doing.

Does that make the question more clear to you? It is not a question of how the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son are three separate gods as per Mormonism, but rather if we acknowledge that they are (again, as per Mormonism), how can it be that this Holy Spirit that you have is responsible for Mary's impregnation (as per the BOM), and yet God 'the father' is responsible for it (as well? instead? somehow?)? Since the two are physically separate and distinct gods, not sharing of the same ousia/essence/substance, then this introduces a strange situation whereby either God the father is taking credit for the Holy Spirit's work, or the Mormon God the Father and the Mormon Holy Spirit are one and the same God (which violates Mormon theology), or Alma 7:10 is incorrect.

Explain that, not any of this other stuff.

Click to expand...

The scripture states:
(Book of Mormon | Alma 7:10)

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

The key word here is POWER. She was overshowed by the Father Here are related scriptures:

(New Testament | Mark 9:7)

7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

(New Testament | Luke 1:35)

35 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.

I therefore believe that Jesus was conceived by the Father through the power of the Holy Ghost.

dzheremi said:

Disregarding the obvious weasel words here ("his paranoid campaign") and completely unfounded claims of wanton murder, I would not be so quick to point to the likes of HH St. Theophilos in this context, as there is more than enough evidence from within the Egyptian Church itself (by which I mean the Coptic Orthodox Church, not that of the Greeks) to dispute this characterization of the conflict, as the anthropomorphism which is fueling the conflict in this incidence does not concern the first Person of the Trinity, but the second. In brief, it is a question as to how to best reconcile the incorporeal view of God in Genesis 1:26 with the very real incarnation of the Divinity of God in the Person of Christ that both sides in this conflict most definitely held to. Or so we read in academic treatises like this one, which, though it comes from a Romanian Orthodox (EO) source, relies in part on the fifth-century Coptic Life of Abba Aphou and connections made between its theology and other, more widely-known and accepted theologians such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Epiphanius of Salamis.

So Mormonism is still wrong.

Click to expand...

If, as you say, the Son Jesus, and God the Father are one (homoousios) and we know that the Son Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) is anthropomorphic, then by definition God the Father(the first person of the Trinity) has to be anthropomorphic too.

dzheremi said:

Disregarding the obvious weasel words here ("his paranoid campaign") and completely unfounded claims of wanton murder, I would not be so quick to point to the likes of HH St. Theophilos in this context, as there is more than enough evidence from within the Egyptian Church itself (by which I mean the Coptic Orthodox Church, not that of the Greeks) to dispute this characterization of the conflict, as the anthropomorphism which is fueling the conflict in this incidence does not concern the first Person of the Trinity, but the second. In brief, it is a question as to how to best reconcile the incorporeal view of God in Genesis 1:26 with the very real incarnation of the Divinity of God in the Person of Christ that both sides in this conflict most definitely held to. Or so we read in academic treatises like this one, which, though it comes from a Romanian Orthodox (EO) source, relies in part on the fifth-century Coptic Life of Abba Aphou and connections made between its theology and other, more widely-known and accepted theologians such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Epiphanius of Salamis.

So Mormonism is still wrong.

Click to expand...

Did HH St. Theophilos kill any of the 10,000 monks?

chad kincham said:

God the Father dwells in unapproachable light.

When His presence is around people, He conceals Himself in a cloud to shield them.

At night, His light is visible within the cloud - this is why scripture says He appeared to the Israelites as a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire at night.

Click to expand...

Luke 1:35 King James Version (KJV)
35 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.

Here is the Highest (has to be God the Father) is in the same room as Mary and no cloud mentioned. What do you think?

Andrewn said:

Joh 4:24 refers to our Heavenly Father. He does not have a body. The Son of God does.

Click to expand...

If the Son has a body, then you can bet the Father has one too.

Peter1000 said:

If, as you say, the Son Jesus, and God the Father are one (homoousios) and we know that the Son Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) is anthropomorphic, then by definition God the Father(the first person of the Trinity) has to be anthropomorphic too.

Click to expand...

That is not the case. And I've spent literally hundreds of hours explaining this term (homoousios) to you, so I'm not going to spend any more time doing that. Re-read our old conversations, if you must. Or maybe someone else will explain it to you.

He is the way said:

The scripture I quoted was before the birth of Jesus Christ, so are you okay with Jesus having a face before He was born?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do. The Son of God appeared to so many people in the OT that either He already had a body or assumed a human body in these appearances.

Peter1000 said:

If the Son has a body, then you can bet the Father has one too.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It's not a necessary conclusion.

He is the way said:

Spirits may go to God for a preliminary judgment of their works before going to spirit prison or it could mean the final judgement when they will return to God. I believe that animals do indeed have spirits.

Click to expand...

This makes sense.

Peter1000 said:

Did HH St. Theophilos kill any of the 10,000 monks?

Click to expand...

No. It is important to keep in mind when reading the synaxaria (whether that of the Greeks, or ours, or the Ethiopians', etc.) that they are first and foremost hagiographies, meaning that their entries are meant to lionize and sacralize the people and events that they describe, not necessarily to tell impartial, fact-based histories the way we think that history is to be done in the modern era. The Maronite Catholics (an Arabized Syriac Catholic people in Lebanon, Syria, and the wider Middle East) have a very similar entry concerning the martyrdom of some 450 monks they claim as their coreligionists at the direction of HH St. Severus of Antioch, the Syriac Orthodox patriarch of Antioch from 512 to 538. Generally these sorts of entries should prompt a few questions, like: under what power (political, military, etc.) would a patriarch be able to marshal forces to go on a killing spree on his behalf, especially in such large numbers (10,000 or 450 or whatever)? What was the confessional or other point of conflict between the two communities or camps under consideration? (e.g., the Origenist controversy in the case of HH St. Theophilos, or the Chacledonian controversy in the case of the Maronites.) How can the claimed actions be situated within the larger pattern of less fantastic events in the patriarch's life and times? (i.e., if HH St. Theophilos couldn't control the actions of one guy -- Origen -- then how likely is it that he was suddenly able to control the actions of many, so as to orchestrate the murder of 10,000 people for their connection to the followers of that one guy? We don't even see such actions in the treatment of Nestorius or the Nestorians more widely in the wake of Ephesus, for instance, and that is something over which Alexandria and Constantinople had no disagreement. Nestorius was left to die off on his own in exile in the desert, rather than being hunted down and murdered or whatever, and the Nestorians went on to enjoy the largest geographical spread of any Christian confession in the centuries after Ephesus up until about the 12th century, including having strongholds in several highly anti-Nestorian sees in the west, such as in Alexandria itself and on the island of Cyprus.)

I'm not going to lie and say that no Alexandrians ever mistreated any of their foes, up to and including murder (we need only look at the fates of Hypatia or Proterius to dispel any notions like that), but this idea of massive campaigns resulting in hundreds or thousands of deaths is pretty unbelievable. I think it's much more likely in the case of fights between entire communities (of which pagan vs. Christian fights were much more likely to flare up in Egypt for at least a century or two after HH St. Theophilos; recall here that paganism was not really gone from Egyptian public life until the time of Justinian in the 6th century, as that marked the official closing of the last of the pagan temples with the shuttering of that dedicated to Isis at Philae), but even then a lot of what has come down to us today is highly colored by subsequent events that shape our understandings of the communities and personalities involved.