Is Pre-mortality part of "the Gospel"?

From what mormons have said....Jesus' incarnation was due to a sexual relationship between the Father and Mary.
 
Not all agree.

The Incarnation of Christ​

The Mormon doctrine of Jesus deviates from biblical teaching regarding the preincarnate life of Christ. It also deviates in its teaching on the incarnation of Jesus. Mormonism teaches that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of sexual relations between the flesh and bone Heavenly Father and Mary. Jesus is the only earthly offspring so conceived. Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie states, “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
ref

From another:
"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50, 51) ref

Then again there is Mormon theology:
Modern Mormons either take the position of, "it's possible, I don't know", or deny that it was taught, and/or deny the possibility of anything other than a genuine virgin birth. The majority of Mormons vaguely believe that Heavenly Father somehow used his physical strength to develop the unborn child, and never underwent sexual intercourse of any kind with Mary. ref

Perhaps you would now tell us about the pre-incarnate Jesus....where He came from.
 
Greetings Richard7,

I believe that "The Word" in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the wise woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in the creation. Also compare the partial personification of "word" in Psalm 33:6,9 and Isaiah 55:8-11, the "Word" reveals the plan, purpose and thoughts of the One God, and here in Isaiah 55:11 speaks of this word proceeding out of God's mouth.

Kind regards
Trevor
Interesting...
 
So, what you are saying is that the pre-incarnate Jesus....didn't come into existence after God the Father from the planet Kolob who once was a man in mortal flesh hooked up with the a celestial mother....and had offspring.

Mormons have expressed this to me. Now, if those mormons were wrong...then how did Jesus come into existence.
Kolob is a star near unto God... and Jesus has always existed...

  • “The Lord made it known to Moses (See Book of Moses Chap. 3.) and also to Abraham (Abraham Ch. 3) and it is expressed in several revelations, that man was in the beginning with God. In that day, however, man was a spirit unembodied. The beginning was when the councils met and the decision was made to create this earth that the spirits who were intended for this earth, should come here and partake of the mortal conditions and receive bodies of flesh and bones. The doctrine has prevailed that matter was created out of nothing, but the Lord declares that the elements are eternal. Matter always did and, therefore, always will exist, and the spirits of men as well as their bodies were created out of matter. We discover in this revelation that the intelligent part of man was not created, but always existed. There has been some speculation and articles have been written attempting to explain just what these ‘intelligences’ are, or this ‘intelligence’ is, but it is futile for us to speculate upon it. We do know that intelligence was not created or made and cannot be because the Lord has said it. There are some truths it is well to leave until the Lord sees fit to reveal the fulness” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:401).
 
Not all agree.

The Incarnation of Christ​

The Mormon doctrine of Jesus deviates from biblical teaching regarding the preincarnate life of Christ. It also deviates in its teaching on the incarnation of Jesus. Mormonism teaches that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of sexual relations between the flesh and bone Heavenly Father and Mary. Jesus is the only earthly offspring so conceived. Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie states, “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
ref

Not true, not taught, not doctrine... McConkie had his own opinion...
https://probe.org/mormon-doctrine-of-jesus/
From another:
"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50, 51) ref

Then again there is Mormon theology:
Modern Mormons either take the position of, "it's possible, I don't know", or deny that it was taught, and/or deny the possibility of anything other than a genuine virgin birth. The majority of Mormons vaguely believe that Heavenly Father somehow used his physical strength to develop the unborn child, and never underwent sexual intercourse of any kind with Mary. ref

Perhaps you would now tell us about the pre-incarnate Jesus....where He came from.
How do you explain Virgin Birth.... virgin birth noun1 (the Virgin Birth) the doctrine of Christ's birth from a mother, Mary, who was a virgin.
 
Kolob is a star near unto God... and Jesus has always existed...

  • “The Lord made it known to Moses (See Book of Moses Chap. 3.) and also to Abraham (Abraham Ch. 3) and it is expressed in several revelations, that man was in the beginning with God. In that day, however, man was a spirit unembodied. The beginning was when the councils met and the decision was made to create this earth that the spirits who were intended for this earth, should come here and partake of the mortal conditions and receive bodies of flesh and bones. The doctrine has prevailed that matter was created out of nothing, but the Lord declares that the elements are eternal. Matter always did and, therefore, always will exist, and the spirits of men as well as their bodies were created out of matter. We discover in this revelation that the intelligent part of man was not created, but always existed. There has been some speculation and articles have been written attempting to explain just what these ‘intelligences’ are, or this ‘intelligence’ is, but it is futile for us to speculate upon it. We do know that intelligence was not created or made and cannot be because the Lord has said it. There are some truths it is well to leave until the Lord sees fit to reveal the fulness” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:401).
So, because the claim is matter always existed.....and the spirit is made out of matter....then your spirit always existed?

Do you think you can defend that position?
 
I appreciate your perspective but I consider that this is speaking about God's foreknowledge
I've already rejected that premise because that is not the basis for my argument. The basis is about when they were called and prepared. God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with when those he called and prepared existed.

Your argument is like one about the color of a car and u decide the argument is about what a car is.

If you can show how foreknowledge has anything to do with the existence of a being then we might have something to discuss. Until then, ur just changing the point of the argument. It's called moving the goal posts.
One passage that I am interested in is the following:
Why? It's not one I provided.

The remainder of your post is pointless. I understand that you don't believe any of that stuff. I'm not here to convince u that I'm right or that u r wrong.

You asked where the Bible mentions the pre-existence and I showed you. The point of my argument is based on when God called and prepared us. Those passages suggest it was from the foundation of the world. From Job, that period was before the Earth was created.

That's my premise. Refute it u can. What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
 
That would be correct. Likewise we didn't come into existence after God the father either.
I'm trying to find a mormon who wants to discuss the pre-incarnate Christ Jesus...one who can tell me where Jesus came from.

Did Jesus hang out on Kolob with his dad?
 
John 3:16 doesn't mention baptism.
John 3:3 does.
If baptism was a requirement for salvation the Bible inspired by God the Holy Spirit would have gone into great detail explaining it.
He went much further than explaining it. He did it himself as an example to fulfill all righteousness.
The Mormons teach that in Acts 2:38 the word "for" is translated “in order to get.” Biblical scholars and translators understand the word "for" has several translations. As mentioned above when compared to what other portions of scripture teach about salvation...such as...who ever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved...it instantly becomes apparent water baptism has no part in saving you, as, just like the in Acts 2:38 they were saved when pricked to their hearts.
Verse 28 is better understood to indicate that baptism was performed “because of” or “in view of” their salvation
That's an awful lot of effort to avoid the obvious. And that seems to be what our critics like to do. As a matter of fact they twist the scripture so badly that they even have to redefine some words and give them meetings that can't be found in the English dictionary.

No one can confuse John 3:3 that if you don't get baptized you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
If you didn't do [the baptism] correctly...[then it has to be done again]
What does this mean?
Sorry, your posts are so much propaganda opportunities and/or bloviating, I have to strip it down.

It means that it has to be done correctly. It can always been done again.

We believe that the ordinances of the gospel has to be performed by someone commissioned of Christ or the ordinance is invalid, even if performed correctly in all other aspects. The person must have authority to baptize or ur just taking a bath.

I'm pretty sure you know that we believe God has all the bases covered. Baptism for the dead opens the door to anyone who did not get the chance to be baptized in life for whatever reason. Everyone will have an opportunity to receive baptism by someone who has authority. It's up to them whether they accept the baptism or not.
 
We believe that the ordinances of the gospel has to be performed by someone commissioned of Christ or the ordinance is invalid, even if performed correctly in all other aspects. The person must have authority to baptize or ur just taking a bath.
Does this include Baptist priest? How about Catholic priest?
 
Again, you already know the answer. None of them have been commissioned by Christ. There is only one church on the earth today that has beebn.

And here appears another admittance....unless you are baptized by a mormon recognized priest....your baptism doesn't count. As said by another mormon here...you're simply taking a bath.
 
So, because the claim is matter always existed.....and the spirit is made out of matter....then your spirit always existed?

Do you think you can defend that position?
No more then you can explain Ex Nihilo.

One non-LDS scholar's conclusion is apt:


Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.

The Old Testament makes no direct statement of ex-nihilo creation​

The Old Testament makes no direct statement of ex-nihilo creation, and so the creation account is scrutinized for clues. Much of the debate over ex-nihilo creation stems from the first few verses of Genesis. And the controversy starts with the very first word: bereshit. The interpretation of Genesis 1:1 faces two questions. 1) Is Genesis 1:1 an independent sentence or a dependent clause, introducing the first sentence? And 2) What is the relationship of verse 1 to verse 2 (and even the remainder of the creation narrative in Genesis chapter 1)?

The Hebrew word roshit occurs some 50 times in the Old Testament. The vowels in the word indicate that is a construct form - that it means "beginning of" and not just "beginning". Of the other 50 occurrences, 49 of them follow this pattern. The exact same construction with the prefix be- occurs in four other places (Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34), and in each instance is generally translated as "In the beginning of the reign of ..." The other instances of roshit follow this construct pattern except for one in Isaiah 46:10, where we read: "I am God ... declaring the end from the beginning." Here there can be little doubt that the word cannot be read as a construct. And this one occurrence is often used to justify reading bereshit in Genesis 1:1 as an absolute and not a construct. To which we respond, is a grammatical error in one location reason to justify an adoption of a similar reading here? Why should we adopt the reading favored by one example over the dozens of alternatives?

If beroshit is a construct state, then verse 1 and verse 2 are both subordinate clauses describing the state of everything at the moment which God begins to create, and the beginning of verse 3 becomes the main clause for the first sentence of the Bible. Read this way, the beginning of the Bible reads:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth (the earth being without form and void, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the surface of the waters), God said, "Let there be light".
The first act of creation then is the command for light to exist. And all the rest - the earth as a desert and a wasteland (terms that imply an absence of both plant and animal life), the darkness, the deep, and so on, all exist prior to that first act of creation - and by definition are pre-existent.

Apart from this passage, there is often discussion over the meaning of the word bara - "to create". The Hebrew term bara itself is rather indifferent to the question of ex-nihilo creation. Often the claim is made that the word is used exclusively of God, but this clearly isn't the case (see for example Ezekiel 21:19). The meaning of bara here is dependent entirely on how we read the rest of the first line of the Old Testament.

In the absence of any Old Testament expressions of ex-nihilo creation, it seems preferable to follow the view that Israelite religion had not developed this theology. Joseph Smith resolved the interpretive crux in Genesis 1:1 in a rather unique fashion. In the Book of Moses, rather than defining creation in absolute terms (either from nothing or from something), he limits the description of creation in Genesis to a particular place and time. Creation is no longer universal:

And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak. ... Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest. (Moses 2:1,3)
 
I don't believe Mary had sex with God. I'm happy to hear you have turned from the false mormon theology that stated she did.
I believe there is only one definition for a virgin.... Why in the Bible is it stated she was a virgin? hmm

noun1 a person who has never had sexual intercourse. • (the Virgin) the mother of Jesus; the Virgin Mary.
 
And here appears another admittance....unless you are baptized by a mormon recognized priest....your baptism doesn't count. As said by another mormon here...you're simply taking a bath.
Ditto and back at you.... what authority do your pastors, priest, etc call upon? AT least we lay claim to authorized Priesthood authority... on top of that no other christian church I know of claims its essential...
 
Back
Top