LDS Mormon Jesus was not always God

[Jane_Doe]

Here are some notes concerning the evolution of Joseph Smith's theology on this point, from a talk given by Grant Palmer, which I am sure Mormons will pooh-pooh as being the lies of an "anti", since Palmer is an ex-Mormon.

Note: it is not an person's former or current religious background that makes them "anti" anything. Rather it is their present conduct and approach to material.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, but it is Palmer's approach to the material that led him out Mormonism in the first place, so that is a rather artificial division. There are indeed faithful LDS who work with this same material, but they do not get disfellowshiped as Palmer was because they tow the apologetic line, whereas he does not. If the only acceptable approach to the material is that which exonerates or lauds Joseph Smith and the Mormon religion (the 'faith-promoting' approach), and you don't do that, then there is really no difference between being "anti" and just working with sources and coming to conclusions independent of your religion's stances on the topic under investigation.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes, but it is Palmer's approach to the material that led him out Mormonism in the first place, so that is a rather artificial division. There are indeed faithful LDS who work with this same material, but they do not get disfellowshiped as Palmer was because they tow the apologetic line, whereas he does not. If the only acceptable approach to the material is that which exonerates or lauds Joseph Smith and the Mormon religion (the 'faith-promoting' approach), and you don't do that, then there is really no difference between being "anti" and just working with sources and coming to conclusions independent of your religion's stances on the topic under investigation.

*Sigh* Do you realize how biased and slanted this post sounds?

In reality, a person can be critical of Joseph Smith or other things and still be LDS in perfectly good standing. I am such an example.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course I am biased against Mormonism. I've never denied that, but what does that have to do with my post? The same would be true if we were talking about any other religion, so that's no response to what I have written.

The point is if your inquiry is limited to excusing or explaining away whatever you've found for the sake of your fidelity to your religion (any religion), then this idea that being "anti" involves the treatment of the sources takes on a new dimension, as that treatment is a priori curtailed by concerns of religious orthodoxy, which are paramount. This is why BYU will never produce anything of relevance to the wider scientific community so long as its studies are concerned with finding plausible explanations for the disproven theories of Mormon Egyptologists, archeologists, and linguists, but it is also why Young Earth Creationists who are not Mormons are not taken seriously, and Creationism is not taught in science classrooms.

 

[Rescued One]

Well--that's hard to deny!!

And regardless of those Mormons who try to say it isn't doctrine or doesn't mean what it says or that it's outdated material, parents were supposed to teach it to their children as truth, not as speculation. This quote from 1917 isn't from an "anti-Mormon" website; it is from my copy of the 1972 Family Home Evening Manual published by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Rescued One]

Here are some notes concerning the evolution of Joseph Smith's theology on this point...

Thank you for the link!

 

[dzheremi]

You're welcome. The YouTube video presentation linked on that page is also worth watching, but I thought it better this time to link to the notes for it instead, as the video is over an hour and a half long, and at some points has bad audio quality.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Of course I am biased against Mormonism. I've never denied that, but what does that have to do with my post? The same would be true if we were talking about any other religion, so that's no response to what I have written.

Yeah... my approach to religion (mine and others) is very different....

The point is if your inquiry is limited to excusing or explaining away whatever you've found for the sake of your fidelity to your religion (any religion), then this idea that being "anti" involves the treatment of the sources takes on a new dimension, as that treatment is a priori curtailed by concerns of religious orthodoxy, which are paramount.

Who said I was limited in that regard? I said the reverse actually.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Have we found those statements?

It doesn't matter to us if they did have that opinion. Right or wrong. All people have the right to their opinion. Besides if God the Father did have a sexual encounter with Mary, would you not be a Christian? Would you council God that he needed to repent, and then forgive Himself?

I believe that He did not, but what if He did?

See Phoebe Ann's posts in 211 and 212. Does not get any plainer than that... You (or any lds) may not believe it, but you cannot deny that it was/is taught.

 

[BigDaddy4]

And regardless of those Mormons who try to say it isn't doctrine or doesn't mean what it says or that it's outdated material, parents were supposed to teach it to their children as truth, not as speculation. This quote from 1917 isn't from an "anti-Mormon" website; it is from my copy of the 1972 Family Home Evening Manual published by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ouch.

A child of the 70's who was taught this is now an adult who most likely has kids and should be teaching them this perpetual lie. Jesus warned against such teachers.

 

[Peter1000]

But what does that mean, Peter? What does any of this mean?

The Christian Church submits that this is a miracle. Miracles are by their very nature outside of recourse to natural law or science. If you're going to say that it was otherwise, as we see via this stiff concerning "natural law" and "a higher manifestation thereof", you should have some sort of reason why that you can articulate to other people, not this "it could mean this, it could mean that" business.

I can show with no hesitation what my own Church teaches concerning the Theotokos St. Mary and her birth-giving to our God and Savior Jesus Christ by showing what we pray and proclaim, which includes both how she became pregnant (a retelling of the Biblical narrative, as in the first hymn below) and what it means, in a Biblical sense, by reference to the many OT prophecies fulfilled by Christ our Lord's coming.

Shorter version: "The Burning Bush" hymn for the Coptic month of Kiahk (popularly, "St. Mary's month"):

Longer version (more allusions/typologies): "O Mary" hymn for Kiahk:

Where is anything in your religion that says what you actually mean?

These were truly wonderful songs of Mary, although I think they almost make Mary an object of worship.
The ones I listened to said this:
The flame of the bush did not touch it. The same with Mary, the fire within her did not destroy her virginity. The Lord would dwell within her womb. The HS came upon you and took from you the humanity. A true human you did carry.

Again, very beautiful, but how much infomation was given? Did it follow the bible narative? Somewhat, but it missed one important fact.

Gabriel said, "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.

Now compare the words in the OO hymn and these words. Quite different. The one glaring difference is there are 2 entities in this scene. 1) the HS and
2) the power of the Highest. Your hymn did not mention the power of the Highest overshadowed her. Interesting, don't you think? That is such a powerful part of the annoucement.

So this is how we see it. The HS did come upon her, just like the HS fell upon Jesus at the baptism. Then while Mary was full of the HS, the power of the Highest, or IOW God the Father (who coincidently is the real Father of Jesus) overshadowed her.

You do understand the concept of 'overshadow'? Let me refresh your memory. 'Overshadow' means that somebody that is not see-through got between Mary and the source of light in the room and caused a shadow to fall upon her.
That someone was 'the power of the Highest, (God the Father).

What did God the Father do when He overshadowed her. Don't worry, I won't say it, but there are a couple of options. One is not sexual intercourse, I know this because Mary was still a virgin after she was impregnated.

Therefore a miracle proceeded forth from God the Father and in His special way, with the assistance of the HS, Mary became pregnant with the Son of God.
Mary is not the mother of the uncreated God the Father, but she is the mother of God the Father's only begotten Son, Jesus.

This is what it means.

 

[dzheremi]

Third verse: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you; the Most High will overshadow you; and you shall bare the Son of God"

In what way did it miss this fact...? I'm afraid I don't understand your point, since it's very much there where you say it isn't. All of the rest is pretty weird, too. We both agree that "the power of the Most High" is referring to God, but then your Mormon theology obliges you to say that this means that "somebody that is not see-through got between Mary and the source of light in the room and caused a shadow to fall upon her." I don't know what the light-reflecting properties of this 'somebody' have to do with anything, as it's not clear to me what you are talking about when you say "got between Mary and the source of light in the room". What sort of temporal sequence are you giving to this? Do you assume the annunciation itself to be some kind of play-by-play in real time of an act by which she becomes pregnant? (Ughhh...Lord have mercy that I should even have to write such a thing, but I really don't know what you're getting at here.)

 

[Peter1000]

Third verse: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you; the Most High will overshadow you; and you shall bare the Son of God"

In what way did it miss this fact...? I'm afraid I don't understand your point, since it's very much there where you say it isn't. All of the rest is pretty weird, too. We both agree that "the power of the Most High" is referring to God, but then your Mormon theology obliges you to say that this means that

"somebody that is not see-through got between Mary and the source of light in the room and caused a shadow to fall upon her."

I don't know what the light-reflecting properties of this 'somebody' have to do with anything, as it's not clear to me what you are talking about when you say "got between Mary and the source of light in the room". What sort of temporal sequence are you giving to this? Do you assume the annunciation itself to be some kind of play-by-play in real time of an act by which she becomes pregnant? (Ughhh...Lord have mercy that I should even have to write such a thing, but I really don't know what you're getting at here.)

Sorry, is it possible that the version I saw did not have that line in it? It is possible I just missed it. But I watched several versions. I enjoyed listening to them. Thank you.

"somebody that is not see-through got between Mary and the source of light in the room and caused a shadow to fall upon her."

Isn't that exactly what we are talking about? If God the Father was overshadowing Mary, by definition, He must have stepped in between Mary and the candle that was giving light to the room. When He did that His shadow fell upon Mary.

Go into your house tonight and ask your wife to sit down in the chair and then stand so close to her that you block the light on the ceiling and your shadow will fall upon her.

That's what it means that 'God the Father will overshadow Mary'. This is a temporal sequence. It is a physical event. This also means that God the Father is not just a see-through essence, but has the capacity to block light and allow a shadow to be cast.

I know, your God can't act this way, but the God in the Gabriel announced scripture does.

 

[Peter1000]

See Phoebe Ann's posts in 211 and 212. Does not get any plainer than that... You (or any lds) may not believe it, but you cannot deny that it was/is taught.

Is that 211 and 212 on this thread?

 

[mmksparbud]

What Mormons fail to admit is the Jesus that was born to Mary, is the exact same Jesus that was in heaven with the Father.---It was not a different creation by the Father. His power took this same heavenly Jesus and through that power Jesus became an embryo in Mary's womb becoming mixed with human DNA---nothing remotely "natural" about it. To say that somehow God Himself impregnated her would be to make another Jesus, and there is only ONE--He was transformed.

 

[Jane_Doe]

What Mormons fail to admit is the Jesus that was born to Mary, is the exact same Jesus that was in heaven with the Father.---It was not a different creation by the Father. His power took this same heavenly Jesus and through that power Jesus became an embryo in Mary's womb becoming mixed with human DNA---nothing remotely "natural" about it. To say that somehow God Himself impregnated her would be to make another Jesus, and there is only ONE--He was transformed.

Huh?

 

[Rescued One]

What Mormons fail to admit is the Jesus that was born to Mary, is the exact same Jesus that was in heaven with the Father.---It was not a different creation by the Father. His power took this same heavenly Jesus and through that power Jesus became an embryo in Mary's womb becoming mixed with human DNA---nothing remotely "natural" about it. To say that somehow God Himself impregnated her would be to make another Jesus, and there is only ONE--He was transformed.

Mormons won't understand what you're saying because Mormons teach that the Spirit of Christ grew to manhood in the pre-mortality(heaven) and then that Spirit came to earth to take on flesh, and the body he received was from a union of mortal Mary and the exalted father-god. Are you familiar with their teachings about pre-existence?

 

[mmksparbud]

Mormons won't understand what you're saying because Mormons teach that the Spirit of Christ grew to manhood in the pre-mortality(heaven) and then that Spirit came to earth to take on flesh, and the body he received was from a union of mortal Mary and the exalted father-god. Are you familiar with their teachings about pre-existence?

Oh, Yah---they can't seem to understand that it was the same Jesus, not another one that God made with Mary---they refuse to comprehend because that in itself shows that JS and all their prophets are wrong.

 

[Rescued One]

Oh, Yah---they can't seem to understand that it was the same Jesus, not another one that God made with Mary---they refuse to comprehend because that in itself shows that JS and all their prophets are wrong.

No, I think you misunderstand. They do believe it is their Jesus that took on flesh. They believe it is their Jesus one and the same in heaven and on earth. How can I explain it? Is one of us not understanding what the other is saying?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Oh, Yah---they can't seem to understand that it was the same Jesus, not another one that God made with Mary---they refuse to comprehend because that in itself shows that JS and all their prophets are wrong.

I'm not sure at what you're getting at, but a big thing about LDS theology to set straight:
LDS believe that Jesus Christ whom was born to Mary was the same Jehovah that created the Earth, spoke with Moses, the great I Am. He was born to the virgin Mary, lived a righteous life, was willingly sacrificed for the sins of the world, rose again on the third day, ascended into Heaven, and will return to Earth again. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Son of God, Savior of the World, the Lamb that was slain, and the only name by whom anyone is saved.