[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] What does the LDS church teach about God's nature?

[Jane_Doe]

I must apologise to Jane_Doe and Ironhold a bit. I knew they claimed God had a body of flesh but I didn't realise "D&C130:4.." was where they claimed it was written and there it is down the bottom, verse 22

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

So as the amature Mormon expert I can explain, their Godhead.

It appears God was a spirit in 1830 and 1835. Since there appeares to be no differentiation between the canonisation of the D&C and the Lectures, which explain that God was a spirit and the Holy Gost the mind of Jesus and God. However by 1843 God had changed himself to having a body of flesh. We have Gods word on both these statements.

I don't presume to speak on behalf on Mormons but I hope this explains the LDS teachings on God's nature to the readers here. If I have got anything wrong please let me know, and why I am wrong.

Moleowner,

May I offer a word of advice? When trying to understand another person's faith, it is best to look through that person's eyes, and not your own. To understand that person, you need to follow how they think and see the world, even if it at points involves suspension of your own disbelief. For example, when I was studying Catholicism (just to be a friendly neighbor), in order to understand them I had to suspend my disbelief of the Eucharist literally being the Blood and Body of Christ. In doing so, I wasn't changing my own beliefs or what I think is true, but allowing myself to see things as Catholics see them and understand Catholic people better.

I know you don't understand why Mormons do not consider the Lectures are not cannon, but if you want to better understand Mormons, it might be a good idea to look at things through Mormon eyes and go with the "it's not cannon explanation", even if the reasoning behind it doesn't make sense to you. Truthfully, by involving the non-cannon Lectures I think you're confusing yourself more than helping (your previous post is pretty off base).

 

[moleowner]

I know you don't understand why Mormons do not consider the Lectures are not cannon, but if you want to better understand Mormons, it might be a good idea to look at things through Mormon eyes and go with the "it's not cannon explanation", even if the reasoning behind it doesn't make sense to you.

Yes but I can't even find out what the reasoning is!
Can you tell us?
The other readers and the O.P. who are trying to find out about Gods nature from you are probably also struggling to understand God's nature especially around the year 1835, sometime afterwards by 1843 he seems to have completely changed his nature.

Also even if you don't accept the Lectures of Faith as being God's word and I can't get a good reason why you won't accept Gods word as told to you in the lectures, the Book of Mormon also backs up the Lectures claim that God is a spirit.

 

[moleowner]

I was not mistaken.

We will get on fabulously, it looks like we both have the same nature.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes but I can't even find out what the reasoning is!
Can you tell us?

Somethings I am not very good at explaining. Maybe one of the other Mormons on the board or other places can help you out.

The other readers and the O.P. who are trying to find out about Gods nature from you are probably also struggling to understand God's nature especially around the year 1835, sometime afterwards by 1843 he seems to have completely changed his nature.

In regards to the Lectures, I'll refer you back to post 61.

the Book of Mormon also backs up the Lectures claim that God is a spirit.

Short answer: It does not.

Long answer: It does not. And before you go quoting Book of Mormon, Alma 18, I suggest you read the whole chapter (hint the chapter is not a discussion on God's nature).

 

[fatboys]

Yes but I can't even find out what the reasoning is!
Can you tell us?
The other readers and the O.P. who are trying to find out about Gods nature from you are probably also struggling to understand God's nature especially around the year 1835, sometime afterwards by 1843 he seems to have completely changed his nature.

Also even if you don't accept the Lectures of Faith as being God's word and I can't get a good reason why you won't accept Gods word as told to you in the lectures, the Book of Mormon also backs up the Lectures claim that God is a spirit.

The lectures on faith were not considered the same as the rest of the Doctrine And Covenants. Sydney Rigdon authored most of the lectures although Joseph Smith also was involved but unclear as to how much. At the time there were so many new revelations and lost truths being revealed that Joseph Smith held back revealing truths that had been giving to him. Many were not important to our salvation. So JS gave the saints the milk of the gospel and not the meat. Joseph Smith said that if he revealed all God had revealed to him that the saints themselves would kill him.

 

[moleowner]

the Book of Mormon also backs up the Lectures claim that God is a spirit.
Short answer: It does not.

Long answer: It does not. And before you go quoting Book of Mormon, Alma 18, I suggest you read the whole chapter (hint the chapter is not a discussion on God's nature).

Thanks for the heads up on Alma. I'm a bit short of time at the moment but I read Alma differently to you. I will let the reader decide. And they can check on the context if they want to.
Alma 18:26-28
"
26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
27 And he said, Yea.
28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?
"

Note verse 16 says
"16 And it came to pass that Ammon, being filled with the Spirit of God, therefore he perceived the thoughts of the king."

And the intro(non canonical) to the chapter says
"Ammon teaches the king about the Creation, God’s dealings with men, and the redemption that comes through Christ"

I did have another pericope in mind but Alma 18: will do for a start.

 

[Ironhold]

Thanks for the heads up on Alma. I'm a bit short of time at the moment but I read Alma differently to you. I will let the reader decide. And they can check on the context if they want to.
Alma 18:26-28
"
26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
27 And he said, Yea.
28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?
"

Note verse 16 says
"16 And it came to pass that Ammon, being filled with the Spirit of God, therefore he perceived the thoughts of the king."

And the intro(non canonical) to the chapter says
"Ammon teaches the king about the Creation, God’s dealings with men, and the redemption that comes through Christ"

I did have another pericope in mind but Alma 18: will do for a start.

Alma 18:5 -

Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants;

Ammon was using Lamoni's own terminology to explain God to him, much like what Paul did at Mars Hill.

In that sense, Alma 18 shouldn't be seen as having any bearing on the church's theology concerning whether or not God has a body.

 

[moleowner]

Alma 18:5 -

Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit.

Yes but this doesn't mean the tradition was false, just as you have a tradition of wanting democracy in your country.
It seems Lamoni correctly devined that there was a spirit in the sky he just didn't have the details correct. Nothing Alma says even hints the Lamoni was wrong about God being a spirit.

I advise anyone who wants to know if Mormons should believe God is a spirit to read Alma 18:1-30

I will get onto my verse in the B.o.M. about God being a spirit, tonight ,as I'm at work now.
Thanks Jane_Doe for the Alma reference.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes but this doesn't mean the tradition was false, just as you have a tradition of wanting democracy in your country.
It seems Lamoni correctly devined that there was a spirit in the sky he just didn't have the details correct. Nothing Alma says even hints the Lamoni was wrong about God being a spirit.

I advise anyone who wants to know if Mormons should believe God is a spirit to read Alma 18:1-30

I will get onto my verse in the B.o.M. about God being a spirit, tonight as I'm at work now.
Thanks Jane_Doe for the Alma reference.

Alma 18 is NOT a discussion on God's nature. Did you read the chapter?

Like Ironhold said, its a missionary explaining the very basics of the Gospel to a pagan king. Since the king does not even understand what "God" means, the missionary then uses his pagan belief of a "Great Spirit" as a starting point to converse with him (cause you got to start somewhere). It's a very basic, yet eloquent conversation.

And if you're going to try to argue "oh the pagan said it so it must be right", I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.

 

[moleowner]

Look don't get upset. I invited others to read Alma 18. Perhaps they will agree with you, and not the way I look at it.

While they are looking they may also want to ponder Mosiah 15:1-5. The syntax is a bit tortuous, and it takes a bit of effort to see what nouns and pronouns relate to what verbs and adjectives, but have go. I have highlighted what I think is significant.

"
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

 

[fatboys]

Look don't get upset. I invited others to read Alma 18. Perhaps they will agree with you, and not the way I look at it.

While they are looking they may also want to ponder Mosiah 15:1-5. The syntax is a bit tortuous, and it takes a bit of effort to see what nouns and pronouns relate to what verbs and adjectives, but have go. I have highlighted what I think is significant.

"
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Because of the redemption Jesus Christ becomes our Father.

 

[fatboys]

Yes but this doesn't mean the tradition was false, just as you have a tradition of wanting democracy in your country.
It seems Lamoni correctly devined that there was a spirit in the sky he just didn't have the details correct. Nothing Alma says even hints the Lamoni was wrong about God being a spirit.

I advise anyone who wants to know if Mormons should believe God is a spirit to read Alma 18:1-30

I will get onto my verse in the B.o.M. about God being a spirit, tonight ,as I'm at work now.
Thanks Jane_Doe for the Alma reference.

As iron the man said Ammon was using this as a teaching moment. God is a spirit that is housed within a physical body. Lamoni didn't even believe in God. Ammon gave him milk so that king could understand. That there is a God. Lamoni called what he had been taught a great spirit. Ammon wanted to confirm that God was real. By the way the questions you are posing are found on critics websites which have been answered billions of times. I would think that since the belief that God has a physical perfected body which was revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith that he would have changed the wording in the Book of Mormon if he thought it taught something contrary to the truth. You know I answered this yesterday while I was waiting to unload grain at the mill which was similar to what iron hold stated. But got distracted which is quite easy. I can never win an argument with my wife because she always changes the subject. Good to know great minds think alike.

 

[moleowner]

Well that more or less completes my contribution to informing people what the LDS teaches about God's nature. I hope I have helped out.

Previously Post #71 Ironhold said in reference to D&C 130

As far as the Civil War prophecy goes -

If you'll look at military history, you'll see that since the 1860s there's been armed conflict somewhere in the world at any given time; the world hasn't known peace since the Confederates fired those first shots. In that sense, the prophecy did come true in that it predicted a constant state of warfare, rather than "the civil war spilling out internationally".

This is a spirited little defense of the American Civil War prophecy. Would you like to discuss it more in another thread maybe? I'm sure with your insights and mine the thread could be illuminating for readers here.

 

[Ironhold]

Well that more or less completes my contribution to informing people what the LDS teaches about God's nature. I hope I have helped out.

All you did was ignore and nay-say what people quite clearly told you on the matter.

 

[RestoredGospelEvidences]

I'm afraid your link doesn't work, at least for me it doesn't.

Sorry I didn't get back with you earlier. Try: Also: The Internet Archives: What Are Official Mormon Doctrines? What Probably Are Not!

 

[Rocmonkey]

Such theories are incorrect and officially disavowed by the church.

Unfortunately, the reason they had to be officially disavowed in the first place was because some members did once hold such beliefs and used them to justify the institutional racism of the time. They were wrong.

Excuse me for asking but... you do know that the Mormon church 'did' teach, even to some degree in the BoM, that black skin is a curse from God, right? Also, early church members would not have believed something if the church leaders had not taught it. Hindsight is always 20/20. But it can also be quite embarrassing... and revealing. But the truth must be told regardless of how it affects others or what they say about it. Calling non-Mormons names (like Mormon haters, Mormon bashers and anti-Mormon and the names mentioned in the opening OP are an attempt to squash truth and is wrong) will not make the Mormon church look better or be more true. It only serves to hurt and stop discussion and the truth from being expressed.

I have fully investigated the Mormon church's early doctrines and a good bit of its history (something very few LDS ever do, I've noticed) in that I was looking to join the church not knowing anything about it having moved from Kentucky (by way of Savannah, Georgia) to Price, Utah and then to St. George, Utah where we lived for nearly 30 years- still own a home there.

 

[smaneck]

Excuse me for asking but... you do know that the Mormon church 'did' teach, even to some degree in the BoM, that black skin is a curse from God, right?

I don't think there is any doubt that they once taught this, but nowadays Mormons don't take the passages that refer to people's skin being darkened (in this case Native Americans) literally.

Also, early church members would not have believed something if the church leaders had not taught it.

Yeah, but keep in mind that the Pope and other mainline Christian leaders also believed in and taught slavery. And it was commonly believed in the mainline churches that black people bore the mark of Cain. At least Mormons opposed slavery from the start. The issue for Mormons would be did their church leaders teach racism because they received revelations to that effect or were they just expressing their personal opinions. I think it is kind of the Mormon equivalent of Catholics debating whether some ruling of the Pope was made from the "chair of Peter."

Calling non-Mormons names (like Mormon haters, Mormon bashers and anti-Mormon and the names mentioned in the opening OP are an attempt to squash truth and is wrong) will not make the Mormon church look better or be more true.

I started this thread and I am not a Mormon and have no wish to squash the truth. If you've been following some of the other threads you will see that I have been quite critical in some respects. But I was sick and tired of people here attacking the Mormons, not allowing them to speak for themselves, and not according them the same respect which according to the list rules should be accorded to all religions.

It only serves to hurt and stop discussion and the truth from being expressed.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the World Religion Forum is to allow Christians and non-Christians to fellowship with one another and seek to understand other's religions. It is not to do exposes on them.

 

[Rocmonkey]

While I am not a member of the LDS/Mormon church I have studied, in depth, much of its teachings. And bcuz of that I can offer some info on what the church teaches about God's nature. These include (and they come straight from LDs printed and published works/sources):
He (lds god) was once a man like the rest of us.
He had a dad- who had a dad who had a dad who had a dad who...
He lives on the planet/star kolob
He is the 'only' wise and true God
He is part of a 'Godhead'- Father, Son and Holy Spirit
He is one of two personages (God and Jesus) that constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme, power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, whether visible of invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. The two are the Father and the Son. The Father is a personage of spirit, glory and power and the Son is a personage of tabernacle or flesh. Both have the same mind which is the Holy Spirit. And these three constitute the Godhead and are one.
He is also flesh and blood ((notwithstanding the comment above that he is a spirit).

These are a only few of the nature/characteristics of the LDS God.
He also married his spirit daughter, Mary, in order to birth his son, Jesus, even though she was already married to Joseph. However, in those days (according to LDS teachings- again, everything above comes from LDS sources) he wasn't called God (though that is who he was) he was called Adam. So in Mormon think (early Mormon think, at least) Adam becomes the husband of Mary and the physical and literal dad and God of Jesus (again- according to LDS books/sources).

If you were unaware of these LDS teachings/doctrines then I am more than willing to post references to show they were taught as God's word to the LDS church.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Thanks for replying.

I don't think there is any doubt that they once taught this, but nowadays Mormons don't take the passages that refer to people's skin being darkened (in this case Native Americans) literally.

True, indeed, but you have to remember that all of the LDS doctrines started with God, not man. Therefore, either the LDS god changed (something the Lds say can't happen- ever) or the doctrines are still the same. Or, I reckon, someone is changing God's word to man- that is near kin to blasphemy.

Yeah, but keep in mind that the Pope and other mainline Christian leaders also believed in and taught slavery.

The Bible teaches slavery- just not like the world (men).

And it was commonly believed in the mainline churches that black people bore the mark of Cain.

I did not know that. really?

At least Mormons opposed slavery from the start.

Actually, JS said he didn't want the slaves to be free.

The issue for Mormons would be did their church leaders teach racism because they received revelations to that effect or were they just expressing their personal opinions. I think it is kind of the Mormon equivalent of Catholics debating whether some ruling of the Pope was made from the "chair of Peter."

Not quite like the Pope in that all Mormons, leaders and lay, believe that God speaks directly to the leaders. That God directly leads the church. If it was taught then it came from God in Mormonism, so the church says/teaches.

I started this thread and I am not a Mormon and have no wish to squash the truth. If you've been following some of the other threads you will see that I have been quite critical in some respects. But I was sick and tired of people here attacking the Mormons, not allowing them to speak for themselves, and not according them the same respect which according to the list rules should be accorded to all religions.

Thanks (truth bit). So many LDS are quick to toss out name-calling but have no idea that many of us know their churches early teachings and are only repeating what the LDS leaders taught. In essence, they are unknowingly ('cuz they don't know their own churches teachings) trashing their own leaders, not us- bcuz we are only repeating their leaders/church's teachings.
Yes, I agree that no one should bash anyone. But, when does telling the truth (backed up with clear references) become slander and name-calling? If it is true and can be shown to have been taught why do they, and often the Mods (some other Forums), take such issue with them? Double edged sword, huh? I say if it was taught then it should be allowed (if it is in such a discussion) no matter what it says or which religion/church it is about. After all, truth is absolute and (as the LDS church teaches) immutable.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the World Religion Forum is to allow Christians and non-Christians to fellowship with one another and seek to understand other's religions. It is not to do exposes on them.

Again, thank you. I am simply asking questions or answering (with truth) the questions I find here. I do not want to hurt, offend or insult anyone from any religion. But giving answers and asking questions (in such a Thread/discussion) can be twisted easily and way out of proportion if the truth is not allowed. Right? How, then, does one answer or ask w/o offense when the answer/question is deemed offensive by someone unwilling to see/learn the truth? Quite the dilemma, it seems.

 

[Ironhold]

Excuse me for asking but... you do know that the Mormon church 'did' teach, even to some degree in the BoM, that black skin is a curse from God, right?

The BoM represents a worst-case scenario involving a specific group of people in North America; it wasn't meant to refer to people in Africa.

Also, early church members would not have believed something if the church leaders had not taught it.

You'd be surprised what I've seen people come up with all on their own.

Calling non-Mormons names (like Mormon haters, Mormon bashers and anti-Mormon and the names mentioned in the opening OP are an attempt to squash truth and is wrong) will not make the Mormon church look better or be more true. It only serves to hurt and stop discussion and the truth from being expressed.

Go to just about any LDS congregation and you'll hear stories of "good Christians" using physical violence, intimidation, threats, and whatnot in order to try and silence us. I myself have been threatened in the past, and have known people who did suffer physical intimidation and even violence.

It's an alarmingly common practice for members of various mainline Christian groups to barge into LDS services for the sake of disrupting the meetings by shouting, being rude, and generally making fools of themselves.

What you're seeing is us venting spleen about being treated as sub-human by folks who simultaneously proclaim themselves "God's chosen".

I have fully investigated the Mormon church's early doctrines and a good bit of its history

Define "fully".

I have to ask this as an alarming number of critics of the church will gleefully lie to people if it means turning them away from the church.