As @deadrat mentioned in the comment, what you were told is nonsense. The linked is a list of stative verbs that I found on the internet. The reason to classify those verbs as a stative verb is to emphasize the fact that those verbs are not (generally or usually) used in continuous (progressive) tenses as the link shows.
I have a bodyguard in order to protect myself.
It is not grammatically incorrect. The purpose of having a bodyguard is to protect myself. It is just not as idiomatic as "I have a bodyguard to protect myself" because using in order could be considered redundant.
Let's compare the sentence with the most well-known stative verb to be:
I am on a diet (in order) to lose weight.
If what you were told is right, you can't use the above sentence as to be is a stative verb. It is not diet which is to lose weight.
Using stative verb with to infinitive which indicates purpose is fine. But some of them may not be idiomatic. It doesn't necessarily mean you can't use to infinitive with a stative verb. You have to learn how those stative verbs are used idiomatically on a case-by-case basis.
Edit: To have is not always a stative verb. The most notable case is when it is used to mean to eat or as a causative verb, it is not a stative verb.
Let's consider the following sentences:
I have never felt any need to have a bodyguard (in order to protect myself).
But sine the ISIS attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, I have just
decided to hire one. Now, I have a bodyguard (following me wherever I go 24/7) in order to protect
I don't think to have in the above sentence is a stative verb.