Infinite Regress of Mormon Sex

[Peter]

Mary is one of the billions of spirit children of God the Father having sex with the Goddess Mother in Mormonism if I understand correctly. And Mary bore Jesus, but two parties had to have sex: Mary and someone else since one of the 3 beings they call God as a composite God (not a monotheistic God) had to have sex since they are physical beings with blood and bone. Isn't that incestuous? How do Mormons get around this problem? After all they said Adam and Eve had sex with other family members because they think they were the only two people on earth 4000 BC so they had no choice which makes it ok. So that is incest isn't it? It is even rape since I am sure Mary would not want to be forced to have sex with her Father. The best explanation I have heard is a Mormon once said to me Jesus was a spirit being in his pre-existence so from being a spirit he was able to enter Mary without having sex with her. Do you think that is a good work around for them so that we have to drop the accusation Mary was incestuously violated? Most Mormon quotes I come across deny Jesus entered Mary as a spirit but they admit God the Father had to have sex with Mary his own daughter which they consider acceptable given the setup of things in their faith.
Bill McKeever wrote, "Troy, your conclusion is correct. Mormon leaders of the past have been very clear on the matter:

“In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten ; so was my father, and also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it ” (Heber C. Kimball, September 2, 1860, Journal of Discourses 8:211). “The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death; but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven” (Messages of the First Presidency 4:329. Citing the Box Elder News, January 28, 1915).

“Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death: but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven. ...So you see Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body ” (6th President Joseph F. Smith, Family Home Evening manual, 1972, pp. 125,126. Ellipsis mine).

“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers ” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

“And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father . There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 742).

[Peter]

Jane_Doe,

In Mormonism, correct me if I am wrong, there is the belief that there was an eternity of the past of gods creating gods.

The question then occurs to me, if there was an eternity of the past of gods creating gods, does that not indicate we had an eternity to come into being before now so we should have already happened? We could pose the same question to atheists also because they believe in infinite regress of nature too.

I am trying to think this through logically. As I understand it Mary was the mother of Jesus, but Mary was also the daughter of God the Father.
Who procreated with Mary to give birth to Jesus if it wasn't her Father?



This is a big subject, but I'm to try to keep my answer short here. If you want any elaboration, feel free to ask.
LDS believe in ONE God. This ONE God consist of multiple persons, such as the Father and Son. They are ONE God through unity: they have ONE NE perfect love, will, grace, mercy, justice, etc. The Son always acts perfectly with the will of the Father. If a person was to heed the promptings of the Spirit, they're also heeding the promptings of the Father. The mercy of the Father is the same mercy of the Son. To honor the Father is to also honor the Son-- you just physically can't honor or obey the Son without also honoring and obeying the Father. The Father, Son, and Spirit are ONE. Different persons, but ONE God.
Now, zooming in to talk about us: we are children of God. It is the Father's greatest joy to see His children grow up to be like Him, and following His ways is the deepest expression of love each of us can do. He wants us each to share in His perfect love, perfect grace, mercy, justice, etc. He wants us to be one with Him-- in fact that's the entire purpose of this earth and Christ's sacrifice, that we may be one even as the Father and Son all (see John 17). At the end of the day, this still makes ONE God as described above. Here are two links discussing this more in depth: https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-potential-to-become-like-heavenly-father

Touching on other subjects:
-In the above, I talked about our future as children of God. There is also the subject of the past before the creation of the earth. LDS have no doctrinal statements on "past gods creating gods" or anything about that past. There are a few speculative quotes on the subject though (speculation being a very different thing than scriptural doctrinal statements).
-Unlike Creedal Christians, LDS also believe that every person has always exist. Not as we are now, but you & I did have a spirit that lived before this earth was created.

Again, feel free to ask for any more elaboration.

So you change the 3 Persons (Persons as supernatural terminology, not in human terms) in Christianity, the Triune Godhead, into 3 persons. You change God the uncreated Creator who is One Being into 3 beings. Not only did these 3 beings always exist but so did every other human being as some spirit entities or intelligences. My issue with that is I feel no humility in claiming I always existed. But I sense the reverence in my spirit towards a God who created me whence there was nothing but God alone and no gods before him, after him, or beside him.

In Christianity the Trinity creates the big bang 13.8 billion years ago. Do you hold the same view at least in terms of the 3 persons creating the big bang 13.8 billion years ago?

God the Father gives birth to Jesus by accessing Jesus' spirit intelligence or entity or whatever you call it. Is that really giving birth though if you are accessing some spirit matter to produce Jesus? The physical birth of mortal men means they never existed before in any form.

“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers ” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547). If so then their spirits could not always have existed.

Wouldn't it be better to receive atonement on the cross from the sole uncreated Creator for nothing can be greater and we don't ad hoc add in other beings that always existed also.

[Peter]

One cannot know of something infinite, only the finite. The real question is- is there not a connection with us and all others before us? Yes, one can count back to that connection for each and everyone. And so too it is in eternity going forward- there never will be a time when there isnt a direct countable connection with all that will come after us. ?
Why can't there be the uncreated Creator who brings time, space and matter into existence?

The way I reason it out is this. If there was an alleged infinite regress of nature of cause and effects, by that definition we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so; therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

[Peter]

Starting with the big picture and then working small:
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the Father is the Father of all. He is the Father of my spirit, your spirit, Mother Teresa's spirit, Hilter's spirit, Mary's spirit, Christ's spirit, etc. Everyone.
I also have a biological father that is the father of my body. As do you, Mother Teresa, Hitler, Mary, and everyone else besides Jesus. Jesus alone was born of a virgin. How this miracle occurred we don't understand (as we don't understand most miracles). What's written in the book of Luke is all we know. The Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures & revelations also confirm Mary's virgin status and praise her. Here's a bunch of references on that subject: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/mary-mother-of-jesus?lang=eng

Now, addressing anti-Mormon junk: one thing to know about the LDS faith (or any other faith for that matter) is that things can be misunderstood, either innocently or by people deliberately giving out falsely spun "information". There are MANY websites out there devoted to giving out false/skewed information about LDS beliefs (an extremely unchristian and unethical thing to do). This is one such subject they will downright give false information on. If you have had the unfortunate fate encountering such lying poison, I can talk about it. If not, I'm very happy to instead just rejoice in Truth.
Jane_Doe,

The Father God in Mormonism would not be the father of all since there is his own father who was the father of all, and his father who is the father of all so on and on.

“And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father . There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 742).

I am getting conflicting stories between you and McConkie. I am not comfortable with God the Father impregnating his own daughter. I don't know how to resolves this problem simply by saying it was a miracle. It would never be a miracle for a father to give birth to a son through his own daughter.

This is how Mormons get rid of God. It is Satanic.

It's ok to have Mary as the mother of Jesus and Jesus as the only begotten Son of God the Father if the Father, Son and Spirit are One Being with each Person distinct but not separate, because that is not physical sex. But it is not ok to have another being impregnate Mary in physical procreation to produce Jesus because that is sexual relations.

[Peter]

They teach an infinite regress of physical births and claim nobody creates time for time always existed they say. So they take a being who attains God status who once was a sinner, and he gives birth to spirit babies from pre-existent matter or intelligences or whatever the hell it is. One of those babies progressed to be God the Father of all his babies he pulled out as spirit material to birth also.

To me their idol is time itself they exalt over God.

They are high on themselves because they believe they are just adhering to the evidence; the evidence to them is that they can only count births going backward, they can't do more than that. So they think they are being humble by rejecting the unproven timeless uncreated Creator who creates time.

I can prove this infinite regress crap by simply saying if there was an alleged infinite regress of cause and effects then by that definition we would have had an eternity to come into being before now so we should have already happened. Furthermore, they put themselves on status with God even though they are sinners because they claim they always existed alongside everyone and everything else.

There can be no first God in Mormonism because they only believe in an infinite regress of cause and effects in an eternity of the past of time.

[Peter]

First, a clarification. Mormons don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. Mary had two mortal parents, and she was conceived and born as any other human would be.
Now, on this business of God “procreating” with Mary: Let’s just cut to the chase here, @Parture. The Mormon church does not state that God had sex with Mary. Yes, in Mormonism’s 180-year history there have been a handful of Mormon apostles (out of over a hundred) who hinted as much. Those opinions do not bind the church as a whole. Mormon scripture (including, but not limited to, the Bible) reader to Mary as a “virgin”, as @Jane_Doe showed you above.
Other than the “sex” angle, the notion of an omnipotent God inviting any puny mortal woman to carry and give birth to His own Son; creates power-imbalance/consent questions that are potentially troubling whether you take a mainline Christian or a Mormon view of Christ’s conception.
Just_A_Guy,

Christians don't believe in immaculate conception either. That which was born of the flesh is flesh. Flesh is defined as sin of the body and selfishness of the soul.
Mary was a virgin in both Christianity and Mormonism, but in order to birth Jesus there was two different methods. in Christianity it the Holy Spirit who is the 3rd Person of the Trinity that overshadowed Mary. The 3rd Person existed before time and space. In Mormonism a human being had to have sex with the virgin Mary and that being was God the Father, none else. The Father had sex with his own daughter. Sincerely, I don't see how you get around this.

What questions are potentially troubling that Jesus entered His creation through Mary? Is He not to grow up as a child? That would be weird if Jesus was magically born in a manger without conception over 9 months. Jesus is fully human and fully God. If He is not born through Mary then He can't be fully human for us to receive the atonement and emulate.

[Peter]

1. *We* didn’t change anything. It was other Christian sects who had to explain why a Son of God who was also a God didn’t violate the Jewish shema, leading them to invent non-Biblical fancy-schmancy words like “triune”.
2. Partly right. Mormon is pretty adamant that God created the spirits of every living person, then created the world on which we live and made it possible for those spirits to be joined to bodies and come to this world. What is a little fuzzier doctrinally—but generally accepted—is the idea that God did not create the spirits ex nihilo, but refined them from some pre-existing material called “intelligence” whose characteristics, qualities, and potential individuality are largely a matter of speculation.
3. Not really applicable to Mormonism; because in Mormonism it was God who shaped us from that earlier primitive state of “intelligence” into spiritual beings; and then made it possible for us to obtain physical bodies as well. Your approach seems rather like saying that since both you and your mom are mortals, there is no room for you to honor and respect your mom. But I daresay that you don’t love, reverence, or obey your mom any less just because you know you have a grandparent somewhere out there.
4. First, a point of order: “Christianity” says nothing of a Big Bang.
As for your actual question: Mormonism doesn’t even weigh in on whether the “Big Bang” theory is scientifically accurate. I think most Mormons who subscribe to the theory would agree that God was behind it, though I’m not aware of any Mormon theologians who have really engaged with the idea of where exactly God existsd before the universe was created. Mormons will often colloquially speak of the possibility that there exist (or, can be created) an infinite number of universes, each run by a divine being; and but that our “universe”—everything we do and can know—falls under the exclusive dominion of God.
5. You’re somewhat misunderstanding Mormon teaching. Mormonism does *not* teach that physical birth is the same as spiritual creation. The spirit was created first, eons ago. Physical birth merely represents the emergence of an ancient spirit, now newly clothed with a physical body. I am away from my copy of Mormon Doctrine at the moment, but I’d stake pretty good money* on the fact that when McConkie refers to Jesus as the Only Begotten he’s referring to Jesus’ physical birth (via Mary). God created all spirits, but physically only Jesus was His son. Or, to put it another way, only one person who ever lived got 23 of their 46 chromosomes from God Himself; and that was Jesus Christ.
*Or I would bet, if McConkie didn’t take such a dim view of gambling.
6. Why?
Do I love my dad because he’s the toughest, richest, most powerful guy in the room? Or do I love him because he’s my dad, and he loved me first?
1. If the Lord is not One Being then how better would you need for the Bible to say in the Shema "the Lord is One" (Deut. 6.4)? Talk to those in Judaism and ask them if they ever worshiped more than One God? God said there are no gods before Him, after Him, or beside Him. The Son of God said many things like before Abraham, "I AM" and I am the Lord your God when Thomas put his hand in His side. He said He is equal with the Father. You can only be equal if you have the same identity. Hence the Trinity is most apt. Christians would say Mormons changed things by changing God into beings. The earliest church fathers were all Monotheists. 18 centuries later you want to change that? Christians are saved because we received reconciliation with the uncreated Creator who brought time and space into existence. This is the only way. Multiplying gods can never achieve that. Mormonism may compete with Hinduism over who has the most gods, but there really is only One God.

2. The problem with creating out of alleged pre-existing material or intelligences is that pre-existing material supersedes the spirits created. Therefore, material becomes an idol exalted above God; but if God is uncreated bringing time and space into existence then God doesn't produce out of pre-existing material in an infinite past (not sure how that works anyway), but creates out of Himself.

3. I reverence the highest above all. Who is greater? Time or the uncreated Creator who brings time into existence? Suffice it to say the gods of Mormonism can't do this what the God of Christianity is. So when you claim an infinite regress this becomes your idol over God, thus, producing a distorted Jesus.

4. Christianity teaches the big bang. Does Mormonism? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1.1) It does need to state 13.8 billion years to agree with 13.8 billion years. The problem then follows for Mormonism if there is this infinite regress of gods creating spirits from pre-existing materials it would go further back into the past than 13.8 billion years. I can't get Mormonism, therefore, to agree with science. The universe is adamantly 13.8 billion years old.

5. We can only go with statements made by your leaders since you don't have anything else to go on. They have said “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it ” (Heber C. Kimball, September 2, 1860, Journal of Discourses 8:211). While you would like to spiritualize sexual relations it seems ad hoc and arbitrary to do so for just Jesus only. But if the Creator before time and space has true authority then He easily can do so without procreating like men.

6. Why would it be better to receive atonement from the uncreated Creator rather than a created being who was a sinner? Obviously, because the former always trumps the latter as God never sinned. Praise God! Don't bring God down to men's level so your analogy falls apart. You always want the best to pay for sins because He created all things after all only the best is qualified to do so. Anything less than that ability could never suffice. Don't compare your flawed physical father with the Trinity. Your physical father could never muster the love the uncreated Creator has.

[Peter]

1. I know Protestants don’t, yeah; but I didn’t know whether you were coming at it from a Catholic perspective. Your talking of Mary as being the daughter of God gave me pause, so I wanted to clarify.
2. My wife has a cousin who is pregnant right now, without having had sex (she’s serving as a surrogate mother). So let’s move past the centuries-old trope about how pregnancy must mean sex. We don’t need to know how God sired Jesus to know that it’s very possible for Him to have done so quite quite chastely.
3. I agree with you. I was pointing out that if there’s no sex involved in Jesus’ conception, then the only possible ethical questions entail whether Mary’s subordinate status to God made it practically impossible for her to decline His offer/command; and those are questions that would apply to mainline Christians just as much as to Mormons.
(Other interesting tangents would include whether pregnancy and child-bearing was really more invasive to Mary than sex itself would have been; and the question of whether folks who get so worked up about this kind of thing are secretly afraid that God might have enjoyed it and what that says about their conceptions/fears of what God is really like. Fascinating Freudian implications abound; but alas, they aren’t really germane to this discussion.)

1. Actually it is Mormons who teach Mary was a physical daughter of God the Father through sexual relations with the Goddess Mother. Remember, I am questioning this idea, not espousing it.

2. A surrogate mother is still receiving human seed in your idea. Whereas the virgin birth was not from human seed of a father, for in Christianity the Father is not human at all.

3. For Christians there is no issue of Mary being subordinate as you say to justify impregnating from a human creator whom you claim is God. Why? Because God the Father is not human, not human at all, and He himself does not engage in sexual relations with a Goddess Mother. Practically Mary should be able to reject any human imposition on her especially when that person is her own father. For the Holy Spirit of the Trinity to overshadow Mary is a great blessing. She did not refuse, but a Mary should refuse both sex and seed from her own father in her. I find the immoral implications most disturbing. Would you be willing to put your own seed in your own daughter?

[Peter]

If you, as a Christian believe that Jesus is God the Son, then whose son is he if not the Father.? And, if not the Father, then why is He called God the Father?
Or, better yet, I will ask you the same question that Jesus asked the Pharisees in Mt. 22:42-45:
You asked by quoting a passage whose son Jesus was? The Father. He was born of the Holy Spirit and existed before time and space. The essential point you are missing is the Triune God in the 3 Persons of the Godhead that in order to save sinners the 2nd Person would atone for sins and show us perfect obedience unto the Father who is the First Person, and the 3rd Person as the Holy Spirit would indwell believers to guide them. If you want to replace the word "Person" which is a spiritual term to mean "Part" I am ok with that. The important point is we see the divinity of the One God in His 3 expressions in Scripture.

"The LORD (God the Father) said to my Lord (God the Son)..."

[Mat 22:42-46 NLT] 42 "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They replied, "He is the son of David." 43 Jesus responded, "Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah 'my Lord'? For David said, 44 'The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.' 45 Since David called the Messiah 'my Lord,' how can the Messiah be his son?" 46 No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.

In the Trinity it is important to define Him in a way in which you can't quite fathom to absolute determination. If you define Him as 3 beings that's nothing special at all.

[Peter]

You epically missed the point. Jews scorned early Christians because their scripture—geared towards calling Iron-Age idol-worshippers to repentance—spoke of One God; and the introduction of Jesus as a Son of God clearly made two deities; leading Jews to roll their eyes at this apparently obvious violation of the Shema and leaving Christians to squabble over a resolution for few centuries and bouncing between moralism, adoptionism, Arianism, binitarianism, and a cat’s cradle of other -isms; before coming up with a magical creed that basically said “Three. But really one. But three! And one! But there are three, but they are one, but not two and not four and not really three or one; but still three. And one. And Anathema on anyone who questions this!!!”
2. Sophistry. The material wasn’t good for anything until God came along and did something with it. I can worship a God who manipulates pre-existing material, just as I can enjoy a tomato without idolizing the dirt from which the tomato grew.
3. Time is my god? This keeps getting weirder and weirder. And I reiterate my point 6 above. It is not my worship, but yours, that gets distorted; because you’re nakedly admitting that you only follow God because you perceive Him to be powerful. There seems to be little room for love or faith in your theology.
4. I am sorry to say it so impolitely, but . . . This is a lie. Everyone here knows it is a lie. Do you really think we are unaware of the myriads of self-proclaimed Christians who subscribe to young-earth creationism and deny the big bang? I actually agree with you that the big bang, and ancient earth theories are probably scientifically sound given our current knowledge; but to tie them up with Christianity is thoroughly dishonest.
As for the idea that infinite regress of gods in Mormonism would be limited by the age of the universe (whatever it may be)—you assume that all divine beings must exist solely within this particular universe. Mormonism makes no such claim.
5. This seems like a bait-and-switch—we were talking about the creation of spirits and then you whip out the old “but you say Jesus was physically conceived through SEXXXXXXXXX” saw that is entirely unrelated to this thread!
But, since you went there, I’ll bite: as I said in the other thread, your allegation is a position embraced by a handful of Mormonism’s over one-hundred past and present apostles. Just doing a cursory search of recent LDS Conference sermons I see that the virgin birth of Christ was defended or affirmed by, inter alia, Neil Anderson (April 2013), Russell Nelson (April 1988), Howard Hunter (Oct 1968), Mark Peterson (October 1965 and again in 1979), Sterling W. Sill (April 1966), Theodore Burton (October 1964), J. Reuben Clark (October 1956), and Bruce McConkie himself (April 1977 and again in 1982). It is also taught in Church instructional manuals (“Gospel Principles” chapter 11, “Old Testament Student Manial” chapter 13, “Jesus Christ: Son of God” (unnumbered; e-pamphlet accessible via Gospel Library app), “Jesus the Christ” chapter 7, and “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith” chapter 1. And this is by no means a comprehensive list.
Another misrepresentation you make: I have not “spiritualized” sexual relations; I have simply pointed out that sex is not biologically necessary for the creation of a human being. Since God only ever begat the physical body of one human being during the entire history of the earth, there was no precedent requiring He must do it in a particular way. It seems to be you, not I, who are now demanding that God “bring [Himself] down to man’s level” so that your own argument doesn’t fall apart.
6. First, you keep bringing in new and false interpolations of LDS teaching. Mormonism does not teach that either Jesus or God the Father ever sinned.
Second, this fetish with identifying and worshiping the ultimate creator really reduces to so much sophistry. Your logic would suggest that I ought never to eat a meal prepared by a cook who did not himself grow the potatoes, create the dirt from which the potatoes grew, and lay the egg that hatched the chicken he puts in the oven. It is, frankly, silly.
Finally, the thrust of my analogy wasn’t God’s love for man; it assessed man’s (specifically, your) love for God. It is unfortunate that you did not engage with it; because your philosophy really seems to suggest that religious devotion should be rooted in fear and/or ambition rather than love. Perhaps we can explore that tomorrow.
1. There were Jews who were looking for the Messiah Jesus and there were Jews who were looking for something else. Don't mingle them together. Or blame the fault of one on the other. These squabbles of a distorted Christs was not among Christians, but in defense of Christianity against false teachers. Nothing was lost for 18 centuries.

2. I am glad you noticed your pre-existing self "wasn't good for anything" to show your view is false. God creates man in His image so man was never in a state of good for nothing. Your analogy breaks down because God created the dirt and the fruit that you idolize ahead of God. Dirt did not always exist. God created it. Your god did not create it but is limited by dirt. My God is transcendent.

3. God is loving and omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, what Mormonism is sorely lacking. Since your god lacks these qualities, God of the Bible trumps your gods.

4. I am not aware of any Christian who denies the big bang, or accepts young earth. I know someone who believes in flat earth with all his heart and soul, but that very thing expresses the fact that he is not a Christian. Gen. 1.1 fits perfectly with the big bang. And the 6 days sum up the period of restoration after God caused earth to become desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2 due to the sin of the inhabitants of earth's earliest ages.

5. That which is born of the flesh, the Bible says, is flesh. There is no other way so there is not some sex-fest going up in their with God the Father and Goddess mother. Take sex off your brain. Since the Bible disallows any other kind of procreation, you have distorted Jesus as being conceived by sex, as you admit many leaders of Mormonism attested to. That is raping his own daughter to conceive Jesus.

6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. No human being ever existed who did not sin and that includes your Jesus and Father. Mormon leaders attest to this as well. Many LDS sects I am sure fight over this. As Joseph Smith said as man is God once was and as God is man may become. Your idol is the dirt, the placing of your existence from the beginning, which debases and restricts God to the dirt. Whereas in Christianity God created all things. It is quite strenuous to accept Jesus said He created all things then try to get out of that claim.

[Peter]

1. You may be a little confused, in that there are Mormons who buy into a folk belief in Mormonism that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother create spirits (not physical bodies) through sexual intercourse. But this, again, is not endorsed by the collective body of LDS leadership; and at any rate, it has nothing to do with how physical bodies are created. 2. So, having been defeated in your assertion that Mormons believe God and Mary had sex; you now shift to an argument that Mormons believe God is essentially human. Now, if I were feeling pedantic I might re-word that to suggest that Mormons believe humans are essentially embryonic gods; but if you insist on using your own verbiage then all I can say is: guilty! 3. Your statement here is interesting in that it seems to confirm what I suggested earlier: that you’re worried that a god might take sexual pleasure in impregnating a mortal. As for the power imbalances: I resolve the issue, not by saying that God as a non-human creator has a right to unilaterally impose any burdens He wants on his creations (including unplanned, unsolicited pregnancy and child-rearing) and that they are duty-bound to hail the imposition as a blessing; but by concluding that Mary knew and trusted and loved God enough to submit to His will in spite of any short-term costs; and that she did so freely and voluntarily. On your question about placing seed in one’s own daughter: as I outline earlier in this post, Mary is not physically God’s daughter; so the analogy is a non-starter. In Mormonism Mary’s relationship to God is most closely analogous to that of creature to creator, not of daughter to father; and Mormons have no more reason to find the incident disturbing than Protestants do.

1. If the Goddess mother is not having sex to produce spirit beings and is not how physical beings are created then what is she doing? As you know in Christianity there is no Goddess mother. The idea is ridiculous, considering after all the Bible says there is no marriage in heaven.

2. God of Mormonism would have to have sex with Mary since the God of Mormonism is a man. A man always remains a man.

3. You're looking forward to the sexual pleasure of having sex with mortals after you become a God?

4. I still think it is wrong for God to have sex with his own daughter.

5. Mary is physically God the Father's daughter in Mormonism since she was created by him. It's wrong to have sex with your own daughter. This whole problem arises because you make people gods. This problem doesn't occur for the uncreated Creator who created time and space. Big difference!

[Peter]

A big picture thing here is that LDS believe that Truth comes from God, via revelation. We do not believe that Truth comes from men and men's reasoning. Hence scripture is praised, and the Creeds are rejected.
I know that @Just_A_Guy already addressed these initial questions, but I feel its' best if I re-address them rather than the tangent..
LDS believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in ONE God, via unity.
Creedal Christians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in ONE God, via a shared substance. Scripture does not teach this, in fact it makes no mention of God's substance at all. Rather this is a teaching of the post-Bibilcial Creeds.
I respect that you may very well agree with the above statement. I/we respect your view and right to disagree with it. But as you asked us to explain LDS views, which is the above, regardless of what any thinks about it.
That's not why you should feel humility to God.Rather, scripture teaches you should feel humble towards God because you (natively) are a prisoner of sin in desperate need of His saving. I can't speak as to what your sinners are, so I'll speak to mine: I am natively prideful, petty, and vindictive. Left to my own devises I do many things which are wrong and turn against God. I cannot overcome this by myself by any stretch of the imagination. I desperately need a Savior to wash away my past sins, and raise me up today to over come my habitual sinful ways. Christ is my Savior-- and everyone else's. There is no other and no other way towards God.
Since ancient Israel was monotheistic, redefining the term God will not work.

Your sin is so great you have exalted yourself alongside God claiming you always existed.

Your sin is so great you don't want redemption other than through a distorted Christ. This distorted Christ did not create all things; whereas Jesus did. He said so along with the Father and the Spirit.

The only one qualified to atone for sins is God, not a redefined God, but the Triune God who brought time and space and matter into existence.

Atheists also reject the uncreated Creator. They believe in an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

I don't know how to distinguish Mormonism from Atheism.

[Peter]

1. Ah, the beloved “no true Scotsman” approach.
2. All analogies break down if strained in ways they were never intended to be used. The point, of course, was that enjoying or adoring the product does not entail either idolatry towards or superiority of the raw material.
I don’t see what you’re getting at with your citing my statement about intelligence not being good for much until God converts it into something better. Sounds like you’re trying to play “gotcha” on a point about which we ultimately agree—that it is God who gives meaning to all.
3. A god with ALL those traits would be fascinating; but the problem of theodicy tells us that of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence—you can pick two of any three traits, but won’t get the third. And I have yet to meet a mainline Christian who could really articulate just what “omnipresent”’ is supposed to mean.
And I reiterate: Your entire argument to now has been that man’s emotional attachment to God derives, not from God’s original love, but from His original power.
4. You are either a) stupendously sheltered, b) trotting out your “no true Scotsman” fallacy again, or c) not telling the truth.
5. This is amusing. You bring up the idea that Jesus was conceived sexually; you perseverate on it even after I point out that it was neither scientifically nor theologically necessary; you bring up the idea of goddess-sex; but I’m the one with sex on my brain?
And there is nothing either in scripture or science saying that human reproduction can only occur through intercourse. Perhaps you are suggesting that in-vitro fertilization is a scientific hoax?
Also, re Jesus’ conception—I did not say “many”; I said “some”. The number of LDS apostles I cited who disageeed with it outnumbered the number of apostles you could find agreeing with it, on the order of seven or eight to one.
6. Where to start on this one?
Mormonism is crystal-clear that Jesus committed no sin whatsoever. You insist that notwithstanding this, Mormonism requires Jesus to have been sinful because He was human, conceived by a mortal mother and by some physical seed from an immortal Father. You imply that the Bible says no human, ever, can live a sinless life. In fact, the Bible never states this as an absolute of the human condition (the author of Ecclesiastes says there is no sinless man, at a time when Jesus hasn’t been born yet; and Paul cites Ecclesiastes to liken it to the state of the specific audience to whom he was writing and which audience did not include Jesus). Moreover, your grounds for denying Jesus’ humanity—in spite of a human and mortal mother, in spite of His repeated self-references as the “Son of Man”, in spite of His body, in spite of His ability to ingest food and to breathe and to bleed and His need for sleep, in spite of His sufferings and in spite of His death—are pretty darned artificial.
As for who our idols supposedly are—first off, the supposedly primordial material isn’t dirt, it’s intelligence; which Mormons often defined as “light and truth”. So let me ask you something:
If your god were a god of darkness and lies, but was still the mightiest being in the universe—would you still worship it?
Tell me, Parture. You’ve told a lot of lies about Mormon teaching in these two discussions in which we have been participating. Do you think Jesus cares?
1. Who can deny there are Jews who believed in the Messiah unless you are anti-Semetic?

2. An idol is placing something before God. You have certainly done that with your infinite regress, pre-existence, material, intelligences all concoctions to not submit yourself to the uncreated Creator.

3. Your God is not omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, righteous, holy, and love. There is no love having sex with your own daughter. There is no righteousness getting someone else to die for sins; whereas the creator Jesus did die for sins.

4. No Christian believes in young earth or denies the big bang. Christians believe in science.

5. Mormons believe in a Goddess Mother not Christians. There is no Goddess mother to be found in Scriptures. What's up with that? You see the sex between God the Father and God the Mother as some eternal sex-fest. Jesus was conceived not through sex-fest so your conception of God is wrong. Alarm bells should go off when you refer to Jesus as the brother of the Devil the Antichrist. Jesus had no brothers or sisters in 3rd heaven.

6. All men sin, for all men are born of the flesh. Therefore the Mormon Jesus sinned. In Christianity Jesus is the Creator of the universe, time and space so Jesus could be conceived by the Holy Spirit and does not require a Father impregnating his own daughter.