The Conception of Jesus Christ

[hordak]

I have also noted that a previous post indicated that the King Follet Sermon has some teachings regarding this. I have read the King Follet Sermon, and although it teaches things that I simply can not reason, it says nothing about Mary and God having relations.

I must say, this thread has confused my already confused mind of the LDS teachings.

Peace,

Ceebooboo

I think that was me. From the beginning....

Hordak Virgin means not knowing a MAN sexually, Would God qualify?

I.E. Mary could sleep with God Physically and still not know a man

Faded God the Father, Man of Holiness. Yes, I think that we can say that the word "MAN" applies to Him. So the answer is yes.

Hordak I would would have to disagree. Consider when people refer to the "depravity of man"

"the evil of man" "one small step for man"

It clear IMO Man would refer to the human species. In fact look at the Folet discourse(?)

As man is now God once was

This indicates he would no longer be "man" and therefor Mary could have had Physical relations with God and still not know a man.

The term man doesn't apply to God. Evidence.

[JohnnyRudick]

ceeboo (boo)

"I have also noted that a previous post indicated that the King Follet Sermon has some teachings regarding this. I have read the King Follet Sermon, and although it teaches things that I simply can not reason, it says nothing about Mary and God having relations."

I don't recall the King Follett sermon saying that, either. I'll have to read through the thread again and think about the post you mention.

EDIT: Just did a search. The only other reference to "King" I can find in this thread is Alana's quote from Ezra Taft Benson, which in passing cites King Benjamin (in the Book of Mormon) as referring generically to the condescension of God.

I think;

He was referring to since God is a physical "Man", then what would physically inhibbit Him from having physical relations with a human woman.

That was the idea he was getting at.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

ceeboo (boo)

"I have also noted that a previous post indicated that the King Follet Sermon has some teachings regarding this. I have read the King Follet Sermon, and although it teaches things that I simply can not reason, it says nothing about Mary and God having relations."

I don't recall the King Follett sermon saying that, either. I'll have to read through the thread again and think about the post you mention.

EDIT: Just did a search. The only other reference to "King" I can find in this thread is Alana's quote from Ezra Taft Benson, which in passing cites King Benjamin (in the Book of Mormon) as referring generically to the condescension of God.

I think;

He was referring to since God is a physical "Man", then what would physically inhibit Him from having physical relations with a human woman.

That was the idea he was getting at.

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

Hordak, if memory serves God told Enoch that "Man of Holiness is my name" [EDIT: Just had a thought, though: Is that Elohim or Jehovah speaking? And if Jehovah, is He speaking of Himself or by divine investiture?], or something to that effect. I'm not sure the King Follett discourse is dispositive as to whether God may or may not now properly be called a man.

Ceeboo(boo), I think it just boils down to different cultural backgrounds. As I understand it, Catholicism is very preoccupied by the mechanics of Jesus' conception, even to the point of providing an explanation for the process of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

We Mormons find the mechanics an intellectual curiosity, but I don't think we attach much spiritual significance to it. For us, what's important is that Jesus came to earth and that He came with certain attributes that were rightfully His by virtue of His divine parentage; which attributes enabled Him to perform His ministry and His atoning sacrifice.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Ceebooboo]

I think;

He was referring to since God is a physical "Man", then what would physically inhibit Him from having physical relations with a human woman.

That was the idea he was getting at.

Bro. Rudick

Hello Johnny, :)

Perhaps that was what he was contributing.

If it was then I am still puzzled as to the LDS teaching. If God was once a man, like you and I of an Earth before he became God of our Earth, then he was still God at the time he had realtions with Mary, No???:confused:

Geeeeez, ya'll Mormons are straining my cerebelum :lol:

Peace,

Ceebooboo

[mikbone]

Im pretty sure in my thought process as to why I believe that the virgin Mary was a surrogate mother and not his biologic mother. Mostly because I am looking at the birth of Jesus Christ from a vastly different angle.

I am going to make a hypothetical statement here. Mull it over for a bit before you reject it. I believe that it does have some merit.

What if Jehovah had previously recieved a body on another world where Elohim served as his Savior?

[JohnnyRudick]

Hello Johnny, :)

Perhaps that was what he was contributing.

If it was then I am still puzzled as to the LDS teaching. If God was once a man, like you and I of an Earth before he became God of our Earth, then he was still God at the time he had realtions with Mary, No???:confused:

Geeeeez, ya'll Mormons are straining my cerebelum :lol:

Peace,

Ceebooboo

Yup, He was God at that time and He still is.

"realtions with Mary"?

No Scripture says He had what we define as "realtions with Mary".

He made it possible for Mary to "conceive" the scriptures say.

This was done through the power of the Holy Ghost the Scriptures say.

How this was done, the Scriptures do not say except the Scriptures do say it enabled her to remain a virgin.

Let's stick to the Scriptures.

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 26, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling

[Just_A_Guy]

What if Jehovah had previously recieved a body on another world where Elohim served as his Savior?

Does not compute . . . . . . . Now I know how Ceebooboo feels!

Seriously, though--what an interesting thought! It seems to me that part of Adam-God (also not Church doctrine, Ceebooboo--just something Brigham Young and a few others said) was the idea that before reaching your exaltation you have to serve as an Adam on one world, and a savior on one world.

The idea of Mary as surrogate mother troubles me. LDS literature is full of allusions to Christ's being half-mortal, half-immortal (which was ostensibly why He could die, and also why He could choose the hour and manner of His death). I'm not sure how that would all work out if Jesus weren't actually the biological seed of Mary.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnnyRudick]

Hello Johnny, :)

Perhaps that was what he was contributing.

If it was then I am still puzzled as to the LDS teaching. If God was once a man, like you and I of an Earth before he became God of our Earth, then he was still God at the time he had realtions with Mary, No???:confused:

Geeeeez, ya'll Mormons are straining my cerebelum :lol:

Peace,

Ceebooboo

Yup, He was God at that time and He still is.

"realtions with Mary"?

No Scripture says He had what we define as "realtions with Mary".

He made it possible for Mary to "conceive" the scriptures say.

This was done through the power of the Holy Ghost the Scriptures say.

How this was done, the Scriptures do not say except the Scriptures do say it enabled her to remain a virgin.

Let's stick to the Scriptures.

Bro. Rudick

[Ceebooboo]

Ceeboo(boo), I think it just boils down to different cultural backgrounds. As I understand it, Catholicism is very preoccupied by the mechanics of Jesus' conception, even to the point of providing an explanation for the process of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

.

Hey JustAGuy,

I would not say it is simply cultural backrounds.

Catholics ( and many other Protestant demoninations ) hold the firm belief that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and this indeed fullfilled earlier prophetic Scipture. Do you not agree???

The " teaching " ( or maybe not teaching ) of the LDS that Mary and God had sexual relations to concieve The Christ is simply put, ( Sorry ).

Sorry again for my , but as I said earlier, this is the first time I have heard this talked about with my many LDS friends.

Peace,

Ceebooboo

[Ceebooboo]

Let's stick to the Scriptures.

Bro. Rudick

Hey Johnny, :)

DID A LDS MEMBER JUST TELL ME TO STICK TO THE SCRIPTURES???!!!!!:)

Sorry Johnny, I simply could not resist !!:)

I hope you took no offense, it was a mere attempt at a little humor in a very in depth thread :).

Peace,

Ceebooboo

[Vort]

The absurdity of this thread astounds me.

ABSURDITY FROM ONE SIDE

• "I understand the mysteries of God, including the creation of Jesus Christ, AND I'm authorized and perfectly comfortable discussing them in public."
• "Our mortal minds and frames of reference, coupled with our current understanding of the laws of science, are perfectly adequate to explain all these matters."
• "The scriptures give a full and complete explanation of the conception of Jesus Christ! And if they don't, I am able, qualified, and authorized to fill in the blanks."
• "Some of these ideas may offend the sensitive and may even bring about bad feelings toward the Church and its members...but that's okay! If people can't deal with (my opinions of) The Truth®, then that's their tough luck."
• "There is nothing about discussing God's putative sexuality that can be considered offensive or in extremely poor taste."

ABSURDITY FROM THE OTHER SIDE

• "Sex? Ewwww! That's just GROSS!"
• "God could not possibly have engaged in a coital act. I know this because, well, it's gross! Yuck!"
• "I do not hate sex. In fact, I love sex. At its best, it is as noble and Godly an act as we humans engage in. But don't ask me to believe that God 'does it'. That's just -- ewwww, gross!"
• "One of the things that sets Latter-day Saints apart from many other Christians and from the ancient Catholic tradition is that we view the procreative act as a great and beautiful gift from God, not a base and animalistic expression of lust. But of course, God is above all that, because...ewwww, gross!"
• "Clearly, in the conception of Jesus, we are talking about matters far above our present technology. In vitro fertilization, done at a level far more sophisticated than we can conceive (heh, heh), must be taking place. The truth is, we don't know how God created Jesus inside Mary's body, but we DO know that it can't be, well, you know, the normal way, because that would just be GROSS!"

Just...wow.

That is all.

[JohnnyRudick]

Hey JustAGuy,

I would not say it is simply cultural backrounds.

Catholics ( and many other Protestant demoninations ) hold the firm belief that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and this indeed fullfilled earlier prophetic Scipture. Do you not agree???

The " teaching " ( or maybe not teaching ) of the LDS that Mary and God had sexual relations to concieve The Christ is simply put, ( Sorry ).

I and many of us agree with you on that:)

Peace;)

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey JustAGuy,

I would not say it is simply cultural backrounds.

Catholics ( and many other Protestant demoninations ) hold the firm belief that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and this indeed fullfilled earlier prophetic Scipture. Do you not agree???

Very well. Let me alter that to "different theological backgrounds." :)

[Ceebooboo]

Very well. Let me alter that to "different theological backgrounds." :)

More than fair, Sir :):):):)

[hordak]

Hey Johnny, :)

DID A LDS MEMBER JUST TELL ME TO STICK TO THE SCRIPTURES???!!!!!:)

Sorry Johnny, I simply could not resist !!:)

I hope you took no offense, it was a mere attempt at a little humor in a very in depth thread :).

Peace,

Ceebooboo

I was going to mention that but didn't have the nerve. I have technically been a member my whole life and wasn't offend because there is some truth to that.

[JohnnyRudick]

The absurdity of this thread astounds me.

ABSURDITY FROM ONE SIDE

. . .

ABSURDITY FROM THE OTHER SIDE

. . .

GROSS!"

Just...wow.

That is all.

Yep, yet Brigham Young threw the ball out there and we have to deal with it.

Bro. Rudick

[Ceebooboo]

The absurdity of this thread astounds me.

ABSURDITY FROM ONE SIDE

• "I understand the mysteries of God, including the creation of Jesus Christ, AND I'm authorized and perfectly comfortable discussing them in public."
• "Our mortal minds and frames of reference, coupled with our current understanding of the laws of science, are perfectly adequate to explain all these matters."
• "The scriptures give a full and complete explanation of the conception of Jesus Christ! And if they don't, I am able, qualified, and authorized to fill in the blanks."
• "Some of these ideas may offend the sensitive and may even bring about bad feelings toward the Church and its members...but that's okay! If people can't deal with (my opinions of) The Truth®, then that's their tough luck."
• "There is nothing about discussing God's putative sexuality that can be considered offensive or in extremely poor taste."

ABSURDITY FROM THE OTHER SIDE

• "Sex? Ewwww! That's just GROSS!"
• "God could not possibly have engaged in a coital act. I know this because, well, it's gross! Yuck!"
• "I do not hate sex. In fact, I love sex. At its best, it is as noble and Godly an act as we humans engage in. But don't ask me to believe that God 'does it'. That's just -- ewwww, gross!"
• "One of the things that sets Latter-day Saints apart from many other Christians and from the ancient Catholic tradition is that we view the procreative act as a great and beautiful gift from God, not a base and animalistic expression of lust. But of course, God is above all that, because...ewwww, gross!"
• "Clearly, in the conception of Jesus, we are talking about matters far above our present technology. In vitro fertilization, done at a level far more sophisticated than we can conceive (heh, heh), must be taking place. The truth is, we don't know how God created Jesus inside Mary's body, but we DO know that it can't be, well, you know, the normal way, because that would just be GROSS!"

Just...wow.

That is all.

Hi Vort, :)

Good to see you are in good spirits my friend.:)

I take it you think I am one of the " sex, ewww yuck " guys.:lol:

Not really my friend, I am actually an avid fan of " sex ".

You seem to have completly missed the point.

To suggest this, as you have, shows you have NO IDEA what some of us non LDS believe God and Christ to be. Sorry that you judge and not join the fun of sharing perspectives and beliefs. ( A loss for all involved )

Peace,

Ceebooboo

[JohnnyRudick]

Hey Johnny, :)

DID A LDS MEMBER JUST TELL ME TO STICK TO THE SCRIPTURES???!!!!!:)

Sorry Johnny, I simply could not resist !!:)

I hope you took no offense, it was a mere attempt at a little humor in a very in depth thread :).

No offense taken:D

We LDS people Love the Scriptures and strive to stick to them.

It is just that some of us seem to get caught up and go adrift by the offhand comments of those we hold in high esteem.

But Jesus is in control and will keep us on track;)

Bro. Rudick

[Vort]

Hi Vort, :)

Good to see you are in good spirits my friend.:)

Thanks, likewise.

I take it you think I am one of the " sex, ewww yuck " guys.:lol:

On the contrary, I intentionally left out any names or direct quotations to avoid making this a finger-pointing exercise.

Not really my friend, I am actually an avid fan of " sex ".

You seem to have completly missed the point.

Can you explain what the point is, then?

To suggest this, as you have, shows you have NO IDEA what some of us non LDS believe God and Christ to be.

If that is your judgment, why not enlighten me? If you're offended by some of the ideas offered here, why not just explain what's offensive about them?

Sorry that you judge and not join the fun of sharing perspectives and beliefs. ( A loss for all involved )

But of course, I did share my perspective...

Ceebooboo, we all make judgments every moment. You do, too, as when you made a judgment on my intentions, based solely on your interpretation of my words. Rather than take me to task for being "judgmental", you might seek to enlighten me so that I can understand what your beliefs are and why you found some of the ideas expressed so deeply offensive.

[mikbone]

The absurdity of this thread astounds me.

ABSURDITY FROM ONE SIDE

• "I understand the mysteries of God, including the creation of Jesus Christ, AND I'm authorized and perfectly comfortable discussing them in public."
• "Our mortal minds and frames of reference, coupled with our current understanding of the laws of science, are perfectly adequate to explain all these matters."
• "The scriptures give a full and complete explanation of the conception of Jesus Christ! And if they don't, I am able, qualified, and authorized to fill in the blanks."
• "Some of these ideas may offend the sensitive and may even bring about bad feelings toward the Church and its members...but that's okay! If people can't deal with (my opinions of) The Truth®, then that's their tough luck."
• "There is nothing about discussing God's putative sexuality that can be considered offensive or in extremely poor taste."

That is all.

Well stated.

I have always tried to understand God. Just because some people think that topics are mysterious dosent mean that I have to have the same belief. I have always questioned and tried to find the truth thru common sense, logic, pondering, study, and prayer.

Sure our current minds are probably not able to understand the complete nature of God. But the beauty of the Truth is that, it is what it is. The Brother of Jared was able to comprehend the nature of God because he wanted to and he deserved it.

The scriptures do give a vast amount of information of the life and times of Jehovah and Jesus Christ. And if man never made the attempt to fill in the blanks we would never progress. It is in our nature.

I doubt that my comments have offended any. If so, I an sorry. They are thoughts. I dont require you or anyone else to believe them.

I do have problems with people stating that God the Father and the Virgin Mary had intercourse. It is a false doctrine.

[Jim108]

You guys are so confused. I checked out some of the things that JS has said and BY said and it is just a big ball of wax to figure out. I will take Gods Word (Bible) on the subject. Not too complicated. God Bless, Jim

[JohnnyRudick]

You guys are so confused. I checked out some of the things that JS has said and BY said and it is just a big ball of wax to figure out. I will take Gods Word (Bible) on the subject. Not too complicated. God Bless, Jim

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in

that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and

searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy

scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation

through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly

furnished unto all good works.

2 Nephi 4:15 And upon these I write the things of my soul, and

many of the scriptures which are engraven upon the plates of

brass. For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart

pondereth them, and writeth them for the learning and the profit

of my children.

2 Nephi 4:16 Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the

Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I

have seen and heard.

Alma 17:2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the

angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice

exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy,

they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed

strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a

sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures

diligently, that they might know the word of God.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have

eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Bro. Rudick

[Vort]

I do have problems with people stating that God the Father and the Virgin Mary had intercourse. It is a false doctrine.

In the sense that any doctrinal teaching that is not authorized by the Church but is presented as such is a "false doctrine", I completely agree. In the sense that it's a false statement -- well, short of a direct revelation from God, I don't see how you can know such a thing. And if you have received such a personal revelation, it's 100% sure you aren't authorized to share that with us.

Whether the statement is true or false, it does not strike me as the sort of thing appropriate for a public discussion board. I remain astounded at the absurdity of the entire thread.

[Vort]

I checked out some of the things that JS has said and BY said and it is just a big ball of wax to figure out. I will take Gods Word (Bible) on the subject. Not too complicated. God Bless, Jim

And here is an even greater simplifying factor: Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were mouthpieces of God. So if you want to know how to return to God, listen to them.

That's not to say that everything they are recorded to have said is completely accurate, especially given our current understanding of things. Also note that if a true statement is misinterpreted, it becomes false. Many of the statements attributed to Brigham Young (and Joseph Smith) that we now hold to be false may in fact be true, and we're simply too ignorant to understand them.