mary

[bodhigirlsmiles]

will you please tell me what the church's position is on mary?

[Heavenguard]

This is NOT an LDS POV, but a Protestant one:

(I know you're asking for LDS pov, being that this is an LDS forum, but I think it's always helpful to know more :) )

Mary was a righteous woman, deemed worthy to be the mother of Jesus. She gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. The protestant idea of this virgin birth means that she did not have ANY sex with ANY man (God or otherwise), but that Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit. After his birth, she did not remain a virgin, and had (arguably half) siblings to Jesus with Joseph. Mary was the mother of Jesus, and raised and loved him. She holds no special authority or seat in Heaven, and does not hold any particularly special places in the hearts of Protestants any more than other righteous people in the bible, such as Elijah, Esther, Peter, Paul, etc.

The Catholic view of Mary:

(Although I'm not Catholic, I was raised in the Catholic School system for 14 years. I don't think I'm wrong, but I'm open to correction if I am.)

Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit. She remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. She is a very important person in Heaven: being the Mother of Jesus, she is, in a way, also the Mother of God, as professed in the Hail Mary. Because of her close relationship to God, prayers are offered to Mary. NOT that Mary may grant the prayers, but that she may petition or intercede with God on our behalf. (That is also why saints are prayed to.) Mary has appeared to devout believers in different ways throughout history, because she has a loving and caring heart for the people. The one I personally find most interesting is associated with the Brown Scapular (mostly because I have one: Wikipedia link), which speaks also of the authority that she has in Heaven. She holds a very special place in the hearts of many (most? I can't blanket statement "all") believers.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Heavenguard
URL

[skalenfehl]

To the LDS, she was blessed to be the mother of Jesus Christ and witness his ministry and death. She and Joseph had more children, at least according to my understanding of the Bible.

Matthew 13:55

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Matthew 27:56

"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

Mark 3:31

"There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."

Mark 6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

According to Bruce R. McConkie, a former apostle of our church:

We encounter Mary first in Nazareth of Galilee, perhaps sixteen years of age, being visited by Gabriel, the angelicministrant who is second only to Michael in the heavenly hierarchy. Gabriel announces to her: “Thou shalt have a son. His name shall be called Jesus. He shall be the Son of the Highest. He shall reign on the throne of his father David forever. You will be overshadowed by the power of the Holy Ghost. You will be the mother of the Son of God.” (See Luke 1:30–35.)

In my judgment, Mary is one of the greatest women who has ever lived on earth; the spirit daughter of God our Father. She was chosen to provide a body for his son, who was to be born after the manner of the flesh.

We see Mary travel from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea to be at the place where the Son of God is destined to be born. We see her large with child, and after a long journey, arriving late at a wayside caravanserai, which consists of a central court in which animals are kept and of surrounding rooms to be occupied by travelers. The rooms in this oriental inn are all filled. We see her, with Joseph, bed down where the animals are tethered; and that night God sends his son into the world, angelic choirs attend, and angels’ voices are heard.

We see her through a long period of difficulty and testing and turmoil in life; she travels with Joseph into Egypt and no doubt stays with relatives or Jewish friends in that land. We see her back in Nazareth as the mother who influences the young and growing years of God’s son, who teaches him to crawl and to walk and to speak and to learn the Shema and the various other Jewish religious requirements which then prevailed. We see her at Cana of Galilee, having some control and influence at a wedding feast, inviting her son to do something that commenced his public ministry of miracles.

We see her, finally, standing before a cross when her son says to John, his beloved disciple, “Behold thy mother,” and to her, “Behold thy son.” (John 19:26, 27.) And John from that hour took her into his own home.

I think we see in Mary a pattern of piety and submission to the will of the Lord which is the perfect example for all women.

Here is a very good article on LDS.org about Mary:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Magnifying the Lord: Mary's Example for Us

Edited December 14, 2008 by skalenfehl

[KristofferUmfrey]

This is NOT an LDS POV, but a Protestant one:

(I know you're asking for LDS pov, being that this is an LDS forum, but I think it's always helpful to know more :) )

Mary was a righteous woman, deemed worthy to be the mother of Jesus. She gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. The protestant idea of this virgin birth means that she did not have ANY sex with ANY man (God or otherwise), but that Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit. After his birth, she did not remain a virgin, and had (arguably half) siblings to Jesus with Joseph. Mary was the mother of Jesus, and raised and loved him. She holds no special authority or seat in Heaven, and does not hold any particularly special places in the hearts of Protestants any more than other righteous people in the bible, such as Elijah, Esther, Peter, Paul, etc.

The Catholic view of Mary:

(Although I'm not Catholic, I was raised in the Catholic School system for 14 years. I don't think I'm wrong, but I'm open to correction if I am.)

Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit. She remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. She is a very important person in Heaven: being the Mother of Jesus, she is, in a way, also the Mother of God, as professed in the Hail Mary. Because of her close relationship to God, prayers are offered to Mary. NOT that Mary may grant the prayers, but that she may petition or intercede with God on our behalf. (That is also why saints are prayed to.) Mary has appeared to devout believers in different ways throughout history, because she has a loving and caring heart for the people. The one I personally find most interesting is associated with the Brown Scapular (mostly because I have one: Wikipedia link), which speaks also of the authority that she has in Heaven. She holds a very special place in the hearts of many (most? I can't blanket statement "all") believers.

Mary was a righteous woman, deemed worthy to be the mother of Jesus. She gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. The protestant idea of this virgin birth means that she did not have ANY sex with ANY man (God or otherwise), but that Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit. After his birth, she did not remain a virgin, and had (arguably half) siblings to Jesus with Joseph. Mary was the mother of Jesus, and raised and loved him. She holds no special authority or seat in Heaven, and does not hold any particularly special places in the hearts of Protestants any more than other righteous people in the bible, such as Elijah, Esther, Peter, Paul, etc.

Sounds just like the LDS POV.

[Heavenguard]

Sounds just like the LDS POV.

I was led to believe that the unofficial (that is, not written as doctrine, but authoritatively taught) belief is that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but that God (the Father) came to Mary as a physical man and had union with Mary in order to conceive Jesus. (And thus, making her no longer a virgin at the time of bearing Jesus.) That is why I explicitly stated that Mary did not have any union with any man, God or otherwise, and that her pregnancy was by the Holy Spirit in Protestant and Catholic belief.

Ezra Taft Benson:

The body in which He (Jesus) performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.

Heber Kimball:

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. Journal of Discourses, Volume 8

(The context is that we, as people, can know of God's business because we are his children, and children know much of a father's business because of that relationship.)

The former President's words run contrary to the Protestant and Catholic beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Kimball's words alludes strongly to the idea that God is the literal father of Jesus' earthly body.

I know that this idea is outdated for a lot of people, but I'm not aware of an official rescinding of those teachings.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Heavenguard
URL title

[KristofferUmfrey]

I was led to believe that the unofficial (that is, not written as doctrine, but authoritatively taught) belief is that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but that God (the Father) came to Mary as a physical man and had union with Mary in order to conceive Jesus. (And thus, making her no longer a virgin at the time of bearing Jesus.) That is why I explicitly stated that Mary did not have any union with any man, God or otherwise, and that her pregnancy was by the Holy Spirit in Protestant and Catholic belief.

Ezra Taft Benson:

The body in which He (Jesus) performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.

Heber Kimball:

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. Journal of Discourses, Volume 8

(The context is that we, as people, can know of God's business because we are his children, and children know much of a father's business because of that relationship.)

The former President's words run contrary to the Protestant and Catholic beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Kimball's words alludes strongly to the idea that God is the literal father of Jesus' earthly body.

I know that this idea is outdated for a lot of people, but I'm not aware of an official rescinding of those teachings.

I realize what was taught, but that is not the understanding of 99% of Mormons these days.

[skalenfehl]

The LDS belief is different than that of others. Here is a good explanation:

Was Mary a virgin?

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf

[Justice]

Clearly, man has always adapted truths to fit their understanding. If a person believes being a virgin is one thing, they will apply that same meaning to God. It is plain as day to me that if God were to parent offspring it would be very different than when it is done by man. This difference is where the gap is bridged between our view of "virgin" and His. If God has a Son and claims the mother a virgin, who are we to say, "no it can't be."

This type of thinking has brought about many distortions of scriptural truths over the years. One such truth, for an example, is that God created all things out of nothing. The scriptures say "God created the heaven and the earth." Heaven and Earth does not constitute "all things." But, since man cannot understand how things came into being, they project their understanding onto the words of God and come up with something totally different.

The truth is that God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ's mortal body, AND that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Savior. If WE have difficulty fitting these two beliefs into our way of thinking, then WE must change our views to fit God's words in to what we believe, not vice vera. So, if a mortal woman and an immortal, glorified, perfected Man have offspring, the mother remains a virgin.

Why overcomplicate it? And, why push our understanding on God's words only to bend what is being said? Doing so only reduces our understand of God to our level, making it even more difficlut to understand His true nature.

[Justice]

I realize what was taught, but that is not the understanding of 99% of Mormons these days.

Truth will never be determined by popular vote or majority opinion.

Truth, as revealed by God, is eternal, unchangeable, and absolute.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Truth will never be determined by popular vote or majority opinion.

Truth, as revealed by God, is eternal, unchangeable, and absolute.

So, you are going against current LDS thinking which says that the Father did NOT have physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus?

In all seriousness I am confused now... When someone like Heavenguard brings up the early quotes about the Father having physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus LDS go apoplectic, and now when I say though it was taught, but is not the current thinking, I get disagreed with by a LDS?

Seems, and this is just my reactionary thinking, you would like the ability to have it both ways and say, "Look we were right." no matter what the truth finally ends up being.

[FlaviusHambonius]

I knew the question about sex with Mary would come up on this topic--so i thought I would provide a couple of snippets from a previous Born-Again-Christian Board I used to frequent, which no longer exists.

These comments are from an LDS gentleman who I always admired his comments:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gerry,

Shawn taught God had sex with Mary, and claimed it was LDS doctrine. It is not.

In fact, I have written a brochure called, not surprisingly, "GOD DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH MARY". The only church leader who ever explicitly taught he did was Orson Pratt in his personal publication: "The Seer". He made many extraordinary, unofficial claims about LDS doctrines, and as a result he was nearly disfellowshipped. Moreover, his work was officially DENOUNCED by the LDS 1st Presidency and 12 Apostles, INCLUDING Orson Pratt. In their denunciation they stated they did not want to leave any chance that future readers may think Elder Pratt's statements were the doctrine of the Church. The most recent statement by an Apostle to clearly and explicitly address the issue of sexual relations was written by Elder Harold B. Lee, then an apostle. He wrote, speaking on behalf of the Church:

Quote

Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, 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."

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (1/2/69)

I am occasionally confronted by folks like Bill McKeever showing a Family Home Evening Manual from 1972 with a picture of two parents and a baby, and an explanation that Jesus' birth was similar. It also contains a quote from Joseph F. Smith describing Jesus' coming into the world as a natural event. Since the manual was published during the presidency of Harold B. Lee, I think you can safely assume that since these statements do not REQUIRE sexual relations to have occurred, and we have the above explicit statement by Elder Lee on how he feels about those who are guessing it was a sexual relationship, that he is simply having the manual affirm that Jesus had two parents and he was fully human. Remember, a family home evening manual was written for families with young children in mind, and is designed to teach the big principles and not be a replacement for the scriptures.

Previous to this, James Talmage wrote in his book, "Jesus the Christ", that the conception of Jesus was "unprecedented" (page 77), and was done via a virgin. It goes without saying that sexual intercourse is hardly an unprecedented event at any time in human history, and the fact Elder Talmage notes it was a virgin conceiving further bolsters the explicit LDS teaching that it was not a sexual event, though the conception of Jesus was a natural occurrence, i.e., he had his origin from the normal genetic material of all humans, the same number of chromosomes, etc. How the genetic materials came into contact with each other is the mystery. So even though God begat Jesus, it did not require a sexual act.

I hope this thoroughly explains my position. In a world where in vitro fertilization happens every day, I believe the Bible when it teaches "Behold, a virgin will conceive." God is greater, smarter and more capable than we are. To say he had sex with Mary is the equivalent of a Radio Shock Jock trying to get attention. It is not the doctrine of the LDS Church. As Elder Lee said, we would do well to stick to the revealed word on this subject.

Peace

[FlaviusHambonius]

Here's another one by the same LDS Gentleman:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is such a weird topic. Harold B. Lee said it: We don't know how the conception was physically accomplished. But Br. Brigham is not saying it was a sexual act which produced Jesus. He is saying that Jesus' body was not made by mortal men. Jesus was not a mortal who became the son of god by a spiritual event, as was one of the early Christian heresies.

In 1840 no one could have imagined in vitro fertilization, let alone in 1 AD. It was inconceivable, pun intended . Br. Brigham does not say there was sex, but rather that Jesus is the literal son of the Father. How that was accomplished, he does not say, and only the fact some want to think those Mormons believe it was through sex is it even discussed.

Again, we have an absolute, explicit statement by Harold B. Lee who says it is inappropriate to say it was the result of sexual intercourse by which Jesus' body was created. Other than Orson Pratt there is no one else in an official position who explicitly taught it was sexual. But God can provide the chromosomes to make his own son in ways as unimaginable to us as in vitro fertilization would have been to a shepherd in Galilee 2000 years ago.

I have provided you an explicit statement saying that is not what we believe, by a modern Apostle specifically talking about the subject of sexual intercourse between God and Mary being outside the doctrine of the LDS Church. Every statement by Jeremy or others requires us to read into their statements something not explicitly there. Fine. You think they meant God had sex with Mary, keep that point of view. But at least have the courtesy to acknowledge it is not the doctrine of the current LDS Church, it was just your interpretation of what their personal opinions seemed to say. I can't change your mind when you see sex because you absolutely want to see sex. It reminds me of the joke about the inkblot test.

A doctor shows three ink blots to a guy, and every time the guy says it represents people engaging in sexual acts. The doctor asked him if he thought it unusual for a person to be as obsessed with sex as the man apparently was. The man replied: "Don't blame me, you're the one with all the dirty pictures."

So see what you like in the statements. I prefer to stick with what they said, not what you conclude their statements must have meant.

[FlaviusHambonius]

One more:

Billy Boy,

Beget means to Father or Sire.

Quote

1 : to procreate as the father : SIRE

Merrian-Wester online

Sire means:

Quote

1. to Father...3 : the male parent of an animal and especially of a domestic animal

And as a transitive verb:

Quote

1 : BEGET -- used especially of male domestic animals

The natural course of this means to create an offspring. But taking the meaning of sire, in particular of large animal breeding, it absolutely does not have to mean sexual intercourse. You continue to confuse the results and the words around the result. Jesus was born of a virgin. She was a virgin. Try to keep that in mind. In the LDS belief system, God is the literal father of the body of Jesus Christ, just as any father on earth contributes to the creation of the physical body of their offspring. But, let me say it again lest I be accused of spinning, the LDS scriptures and leaders who have spoken directly on the issue of sexual intercourse, say Mary was still a Virgin after the natural contribution of genetic material happens.

Maybe you could look up the word Virgin. Maybe that will help.

Quote

2 a : an absolutely chaste young woman b : an unmarried girl or woman

3 capitalized : VIRGIN MARY

4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse

Now, just for those in Rio Linda who may have trouble grasping the LDS teaching on the subject:

Quote

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. 1 Ne 11:15

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. 1 Ne 11:18

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. Alma 7:10

Some recent teachings:

Quote

"Under the direction of His Father, He created this world and many others. He came to this earth as the Son of God, the Eternal Father, and the mortal virgin Mary." Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, Christians in Belief and Action, Ensign (CR), November 1996, p.70

"This power was inherently his by virtue of his being born of the virgin Mary (a mortal), and being the Son of God (an immortal, celestialized being)." President Marion G. Romney, The Resurrection of Jesus, Ensign (CR), May 1982, p.6

"It was he then who came to this earth, in the meridian of time, born of the virgin Mary. He was the literal Son of God the Father, "the Only Begotten Son." Elder Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1968, Afternoon Meeting, p.43

"What can we do if we cannot accept such irrefutable evidence? To me their testimonies mean but one thing, and that is that Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary..." Elder David O. Mckay, Conference Report, April 1926, Afternoon Session, p.38

I have no doubt that many members of the Church, including leaders at various times, have expressed beliefs which lend support to the idea God had sex with Mary. I am not concerned with their opinions any more than I am concerned about your opinion. The scriptures, which are the highest measure of doctrine in the LDS Church, state Mary was a virgin, both before and after her interaction with the Highest. And, for those who apparently don't want to understand the plain meaning of words, a Virgin is a person who has not had sexual intercourse. So though Christ was created in a natural way, that way according to LDS scripture, did not include sex. Once again, check Harold B. Lee. And what you call "back peddling" by Bruce R. McConkie can equally be spoken of as refining his expression to remove doubt about the meaning.

I do not argue against God providing the material for Jesus' human body just as any father does. I do argue that loose or careless statements about how that was accomplished are trumped by the LDS scriptures. And those scriptures state Mary was a Virgin. Until and unless the Prophet, with a sustaining vote by all General Authorities and upon submission to the General Church membership of a revelation on the subject transpires, then the speculation around this subject is just distracting chatter, and is completely unimportant to the LDS presentation of who Jesus Christ is.

It's always hard to convince people of things they know so much better than me. Especially when they are not true. As I always say, I am not spinning, I am sticking to LDS doctrine as taught in the LDS scriptures and endorsed by the 1st presidency and twelve apostles. No other opinions matter. Which includes apostates from the Church who never understood how to identify doctrine and separate it from opinion. Which I know includes several people on this board who have bragged about their ignorance of how to identify authoritative LDS doctrine and separate it from the opinions of even leaders of the Church. The real impact of such doctrinal ignorance is perfectly illustrated in the tenacious clinging to this doctrine in particular, despite clear statements by LDS scriptures and leaders, and even clarifying statements by previously cited sources, which if it were concerning a matter of something like an automotive repair would be beyond debate. But some folks just hate to get their hobbies crushed.

So either produce official statements of the Church telling us Mary was not really a Virgin, or just admit you are fixated by the idea of God having sex with a human being, and it is that prurient interest or some other irrational drive which makes you unwilling to accept the official and stated position of the Church as authoritative. I honestly don't know what else to say, since the issue is so blatantly obvious and easy to identify as to what is the LDS position on the subject. Remember, the word Virgin when associated with Mary means she "knew no man", which is a euphemism for she had never had sexual relations. Such scriptural passages trump any opinion you may like to produce. And that is how you know it is the doctrine of the Church.

Peace.

[FlaviusHambonius]

OK Here's the last one:

Thanks Billy Boy.

I have never heard of Carlfred B. Broderick. I also note he is pretty specific in his statement about saying the view you cite is his interpretation. But I agree completely with your observation:

Quote

The problem you have is that the statements from LDS officials often do not jive with LDS doctrine. This includes Presidents, Prohets & scholars who speak with authority on behalf of the church.

That is exactly the point. Where you are going astray is that no authority has spoken on behalf of the Church contradicting the canonized doctrines of the Church contained in the scriptures on this subject. I have previously acknowledged that I find statements by various members, including some who served as leaders of the Church, which could be seen as stating that God had some kind of physical relationship with Mary to create Jesus. But I always first assume they are talking about the literal fatherhood and creation of Jesus' physical body, since that is the official doctrine of the Church, and if they appear to go beyond that, then I simply accept them as their personal opinion on the subject. Which is also a well recognized tradition in the LDS Church, although more so in its first 100 years or so than in the past 50. In light of the scriptures and statements by Church officials, particularly the Harold B. Lee statement, I don't see how the church of the last 40 years can be accused of teaching anything approaching God having sex with Mary. Sorting out earlier statements is more difficult, but the Church's response to Orson Pratt's teachings, which I will also concede included topics beyond the incarnation, seems instructive.

I remember being on my mission in Austria, and translating General Conference for a German speaking missionary who did not speak English. It was about 5 weeks after GC had aired in April, and so we had the Conference issue of the Ensign to help translate from. One talk was by a member of the 70, and his live remarks were edited in the magazine in such a way as to correct what he was saying. His verbal statements were expressing new doctrine about a topic which there was no revelation on the subject. The Ensign had removed those statements, and brought it back to doctrinal soundness. Prior to the 1940's, many general authorities, including the Presidents of the Church, would often teach their opinions with no indication of it being their opinions. Then the Church started clamping down, and just because something was published by Desseret Book no longer meant it also got the "Published by the LDS Church" stamp.

That process has continued to evolve, specifically to protect the integrity of LDS doctrine. If you read Journal of Discourses, for example, virtually none of the talks were ever edited by the speakers who gave them, and none were ever reviewed by the Church as we would see today in Conference report. Add to the fact most leaders were first generation members, and many doctrines were still not completely codified as we have them today. The Church was much smaller, and if you had a question, you could walk up to Brother Brigham and ask him, or a member of the Twelve. And even then it was acknowledged that only statements from the Prophet and approved by the councils of the Church and presented to the entire Church had the force of doctrine, binding upon the Church. Which is why you don't see Adam God, God having sex with Mary, or even whether God the Father lived on a planet like Jesus did, taught in the Church. They are or were opinions, not accepted revelations, even when we have the case of a prophet saying he had received some insight from God. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, that is not enough to be accepted as new doctrine, as it may still lack the final form desired by God and the Spirit. Thus the King Follett discourse, though it may be correct, was never reviewed and codified to be construed as scripture.

I read some remarks by General Authorities last night in preparing my response which could easily be taken to mean God had sex with Mary. But they were their opinions, and would not make it into Conference Report if it were to happen today.

Opinions, even by leaders, have no authority unless endorsed by the highest councils of the Church, at a minimum, and do not rise to the level of being scripturally binding unless presented to the Church and accepted by vote. This is the long standing method to be able to recognize and separate doctrine from opinion. And in this case, the doctrine, as contained in LDS scripture, is clearly teaching that Mary did not have sex with God.

Peace.

[Moksha]

Zeus appeared both in human and animal form to have dalliances with human females, so the precedence was set sometime back for this to be imaginable. Probably even predates Zeus as well, with even more ancient deities.

Wondering if it is okay for Mormons who choose to believe in the immaculate conception (virgin birth) to do so, or would it be heretical?

Edited December 14, 2008 by Moksha
spelun

[Heavenguard]

I just wanted to give a note of thanks for sharing those POVs.

Hm, but now when I think about it, (in Luke) Gabriel told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her, and (in Matthew), an angel tells Joseph that Mary's child is of the Holy Spirit. That Jesus is the Son of God is perfectly natural still to those who are Trinitarians (I just had a look at that thread - could you tell?), but how do the LDS reconcile Gabriel's claims that Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit, but that he is born of God, being that the LDS see Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost as three individual beings that together form the "team" of the Godhead?

Edited December 15, 2008 by Heavenguard
Added question

[Moksha]

And in this case, the doctrine, as contained in LDS scripture, is clearly teaching that Mary did not have sex with God.

Peace.

That answers my question.

Opinions, even by leaders, have no authority unless endorsed by the highest councils of the Church, at a minimum, and do not rise to the level of being scripturally binding unless presented to the Church and accepted by vote. This is the long standing method to be able to recognize and separate doctrine from opinion.

Wish this was more widely known. :)

[HiJolly]

Wondering if it is okay for Mormons who choose to believe in the immaculate conception (virgin birth) to do so, or would it be heretical?

The immaculate conception was the conception of MARY, not Jesus. FYI.

Catholic theologians figured that if Mary was going to conceive God Himself as a virgin, she'd better not have the stain of Original Sin.

HiJolly

[Moksha]

The immaculate conception was the conception of MARY, not Jesus. FYI.

HiJolly

I see. But what about Jesus' birth? As FlaviusHambonius pointed out, Mormons can believe in the virgin birth and not be out of sync with Mormon doctrine, si?

[Heavenguard]

Catholic theologians figured that if Mary was going to conceive God Himself as a virgin, she'd better not have the stain of Original Sin.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. I did always have issue with that teaching, as that would be tantamount to putting Mary on the same plane as Jesus.

Would someone be able explain the conceived by the Holy Ghost/Son of God/Individuals of the Godhead idea? I give that not all lay people will know all about everything, of course, but if someone could, that'd be very interesting for me to know.

[HiJolly]

I see. But what about Jesus' birth? As FlaviusHambonius pointed out, Mormons can believe in the virgin birth and not be out of sync with Mormon doctrine, si?

Si, como no. :)

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. I did always have issue with that teaching, as that would be tantamount to putting Mary on the same plane as Jesus.

Pert' near. They pray to Her, so I kinda agree, though I'm sure no Catholic that's serious about their religion would agree that this means they are equal.

Would someone be able explain the conceived by the Holy Ghost/Son of God/Individuals of the Godhead idea? I give that not all lay people will know all about everything, of course, but if someone could, that'd be very interesting for me to know.

Directed at Catholics on the board, I'm guessing?

HiJolly

[HoosierGuy]

Moses 2:26

26 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. And I, God, said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The above is where Heavenly Father steps in and creates man personally. Up to then Jesus, assisted by many of the noble and great

ones, had done the creating.

Luke 1:35

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.

The "Power of the Highest" is Heavenly Father. The "Holy Thing" is the Christ child. Heavenly Father once again steps in. What's wrong with that? Are we all not direct offspring of Heavenly Father?