lattelady Posted September 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Thanks, Dravin, for your clarification and explanation of the verses from a Member point of view. I appreciate the answer to my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanh Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I really don't grasp why you might be so interested in 'member views' as opposed to what is actual doctrine. I would expect you could go to any denomination of any religion and find a variety of views and personal opinions that surrond what the official doctrine of that religion/denomination is. What's the point of doing that? To measure variability among members? What's doctrine is doctrine, and varying personal viewpoints are worth little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alana Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Hey Dravin, I totally thought of it like that, too. Like the Holy Ghost is the doctor, and Jesus was literally the son of God, but there was no intercourse, she was a virgin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I really don't grasp why you might be so interested in 'member views' as opposed to what is actual doctrine. I would expect you could go to any denomination of any religion and find a variety of views and personal opinions that surrond what the official doctrine of that religion/denomination is. What's the point of doing that? To measure variability among members? What's doctrine is doctrine, and varying personal viewpoints are worth little. It's a way to bring divisiveness in. If I can pit you against someone else then I can sit back and enjoy watching you two duke it out and claim innocence in the whole affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted September 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 I apologize if that's the impression you've gotten. That's not my intention at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 do you accept that LDS doctrine is that Mary was a virgin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Bob, So I'm confused by the conflicted teachings. If you don't believe that God had physical relations with Mary (and I'm getting that very strong impression from most posters), but you DO believe that God impregnated her miraculously...do you make a separation between which personage of the Godhead actually caused her to become pregnant? Was it God the Father or the Holy Spirit, is what I mean. I realize my question has morphed a bit from the original question; I'm trying to balance what you're saying with what scripture is saying.Look at it this way. Jesus is the literal seed of God the Father. The Holy Ghost worked as the medium to transmit the seed of the Father. IOW, the Holy Ghost was sort of like a midwife in delivery. She guides through the pregnancy, does check ups, delivers the baby, and has a part in the birthing, though did not have a direct action in the actual insemination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 I think it is confusing sometimes to understand when a prophet is speaking about doctrine or speculating about his understanding of doctrine. Not everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet is considered doctrine. And propehts are learning from God thru the Holy Ghost just like the rest of us. And not every truth is understood in the season it is given. It is not surprising to me that even followers have trouble differentiating sometimes. It also makes sense that perhaps the latest prophet may need to clarify where a previous prophet misunderstood or miscomunicated. I often see our prophets trying to help the members with their doctrinaly understandings. It is often necessary to bring people back to center. It might be important to add that part of being LDS is following prophets but that we mustn't deny our own responsibility in being taught by God directly thru the Holy Spirit about what are prophets are teaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanh Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 Bob, I wasn't really trying to argue a false dichotomy. FORMER doctrine seemed to indicate with clarity that it wasn't anything like "holy artificial insemination." It's this quote that I want to ask about :"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He 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, no, nor was he begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Reed A. Benson p.7)But I read in the Bible and also in the Book of Mormon that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. So I'm confused by the conflicted teachings. If you don't believe that God had physical relations with Mary (and I'm getting that very strong impression from most posters), but you DO believe that God impregnated her miraculously...do you make a separation between which personage of the Godhead actually caused her to become pregnant? Was it God the Father or the Holy Spirit, is what I mean. I realize my question has morphed a bit from the original question; I'm trying to balance what you're saying with what scripture is saying.In talking with Lattelady outside of this thread, I finally understand what she wouldn't simply come out and state plainly. That she is intrepreting the quote above from President Benson - the bolded part "was sired" - to mean actual physical intercourse. No wonder there is confusion as to what she is asking, or what contradictions she is speaking of. Then again perhaps I'm just clueless in not having understood "sire" = sex rather than "sire" representing the litteral son of God as is consitently taught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 It is taught and accepted as truth in most Christian denominations that Jesus was born of a virgin (Mary), a miraculous conception through the Spirit of God. What is the LDS view on Jesus birth? Was He born of a virgin, as taught in the Bible? Or was He the product of a physical union with God the Father (Elohim)?As what you stated but I do not see anything miraculous here. What is miraculous is the Atonement itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) The LDS church today teaches the virgin birth--are there members that still subscribe to the teachings of some of the former prophets that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus? God the Father is the Literal Father of Jesus, how that was accomplised we do not know except for "by the power of the Holy Ghost"The problem comes when someone tries to figure out what someone long dead was trying to say when they said "Jesus is the literal son of God the Father' and they attach their own meaning to it.To answer your question though, yes I know of at least 2 members personally that believe God and Mary had sex because they disagreed with me in a class where I said we just don't know and I had the doctrine to prove it (cannonized scripture), they just had a statement from a long dead leader that COULD be interpreted that way, but never actually came out and said it. Edited September 24, 2009 by mnn727 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted September 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 mnn727, thanks for being honest--that's what I was wondering--not because I want to start a fight over it. I appreciate your willingness to answer me. It was kind. The question I have is: when a prophet makes a statement, and members follow it, and then a new prophet comes and says, "The current revelation is _______", does the entire Church agree and know to follow the current prophet, or are there some that say, "No, I still believe the former prophet's words are to be upheld" ? Mnn727, you've answered what I kindof knew was true, even though I felt like others were saying, "No, that's not true", that there are some that still believe the former (even if it wasn't a FORMAL doctrine, it was an idea that some might have gotten from a prophet's words). I may have drawn that conclusion, had I heard those words back then; there's no way for me to know that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 The question I have is: when a prophet makes a statement, and members follow it, and then a new prophet comes and says, "The current revelation is _______", does the entire Church agree and know to follow the current prophet, or are there some that say, "No, I still believe the former prophet's words are to be upheld" ? . Let me give you a quote from a former (deceased) Apostle that speaks to this very question. He was talking specifically about the revelation allowing Blacks to have the Priesthood in 1978 but I think it really gets to the heart of what to do when a current Prophet says something different than deceased Prophets. This is from Elder Bruce R McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles given in 1978There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles. I hope that helps your understanding of how the Church works (or should work) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 The thing is, latte, is that we read our scriptures and attend church in which manuals are provided to us which contain instructions on doctrine and how to live our lives. These manuals are updated and approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles (the presiding authorities in our church). Further, we have a magazine, Ensign (link to current issue) that contains words of our leaders among other things (fun stories, inspiring stories, thoughtful articles on issues, etc.). We also have a General Conference every 6 months in which our presiding authorities speak to us about pressing issues.Do some people read something from a past prophet and hang on to that? Yes. Should they? Probably not. But it isn't like Pres Monson is going to stand up and say, "Ok people, that thing Joseph Smith said on July 23, 1836 is no longer applicable...." To me, it is similar to learning math. I first learned how to count to 10, then 100, then on. Then I learned simple addition and subtraction and eventually moved on to more complex subjects like geometry, algebra, etc. The Lord's people are the same--we can't handle His fulness all at once--we have to learn little by little.That is why a modern prophet is so necessary. What Brigham said to the people in 1850 was important for them. Was it doctrine? Eh, don't know....depends on the subject. But, the Lord is the same--so His doctrine does not change. How we understand the doctrine may change, how the doctrine is actually applied in this fallen world may change, etc. But the core doctrine doesn't change. That's why (IMO) the church is relying more and more on teaching principles--teach the principle behind the doctrine and let the people work out their salvation with God themselves. So the doctrine behind the birth of our Savior is that He was born of a virgin and is the Son of God. How it was done is not necessary for us to know right now. Maybe you and I can take a class together in the next life by Mary and Joseph, "Parents of Perfect Children--How to Survive." We can then ask the particulars at that time. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 when a prophet makes a statement, and members follow it, and then a new prophet comes and says, "The current revelation is _______", does the entire Church agree and know to follow the current prophet, or are there some that say, "No, I still believe the former prophet's words are to be upheld" ?When the prophet makes a statement that is to be followed or adhered to by the church as doctrine, it is voted on in a general conference and added to the Doctrine and Covenants. All of the statements that you are questioning do not fall under that category, and in fact, the scriptures (not just the Bible) are clear. Mary was a virgin. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think it is confusing sometimes to understand when a prophet is speaking about doctrine or speculating about his understanding of doctrine. Not everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet is considered doctrine. And propehts are learning from God thru the Holy Ghost just like the rest of us. And not every truth is understood in the season it is given. It is not surprising to me that even followers have trouble differentiating sometimes. It also makes sense that perhaps the latest prophet may need to clarify where a previous prophet misunderstood or miscomunicated. I often see our prophets trying to help the members with their doctrinaly understandings. It is often necessary to bring people back to center.It might be important to add that part of being LDS is following prophets but that we mustn't deny our own responsibility in being taught by God directly thru the Holy Spirit about what are prophets are teaching. I totally agree. Prophets are not infallible. But they are called of God to lead and guide us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 mnn727, thanks for being honest--that's what I was wondering--not because I want to start a fight over it. I appreciate your willingness to answer me. It was kind. The question I have is: when a prophet makes a statement, and members follow it, and then a new prophet comes and says, "The current revelation is _______", does the entire Church agree and know to follow the current prophet, or are there some that say, "No, I still believe the former prophet's words are to be upheld" ? Mnn727, you've answered what I kindof knew was true, even though I felt like others were saying, "No, that's not true", that there are some that still believe the former (even if it wasn't a FORMAL doctrine, it was an idea that some might have gotten from a prophet's words). I may have drawn that conclusion, had I heard those words back then; there's no way for me to know that now.It becomes an issue of doctrine versus teachings. If a prophet comes out with something new in an official declaration, then it probably will become doctrine. However, if it is taught without being made official, chances are it is just his opinion, though likely correct.When it comes to teachings or doctrine, each of us is expected to find out for ourselves if it is true by study, pondering and praying about it. If the Holy Ghost bears witness of the teaching to us, then it is binding upon us to live and believe it until a greater truth is presented to us that transcends the previous teaching.Most of our teachings are well thought out and considered, and there is much common agreement in scripture and the voice of living prophets on it. It amazes me at how so few teachings are really controversial in the Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 When the prophet makes a statement that is to be followed or adhered to by the church as doctrine, it is voted on in a general conference and added to the Doctrine and Covenants..I have to clairify the statement "it is voted on in a general conference" this is not a 'yes we want it', 'no we don't' type of vote. it is a sustaining vote, do we personally sustain it or not. If it gets to a sustaining vote in general conference, its a done deal, we can either accept it personally or not, but its still in effect for the Church whether we accept it ourselves or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 I have to clairify the statement "it is voted on in a general conference" this is not a 'yes we want it', 'no we don't' type of vote. it is a sustaining vote, do we personally sustain it or not. If it gets to a sustaining vote in general conference, its a done deal, we can either accept it personally or not, but its still in effect for the Church whether we accept it ourselves or not.Yes, you are correct. Voted is the wrong term. The correct term is Sustained. But the church as a whole must agree on doctrine. Things that are not sustained can have any number of explanations. We all agree on the virgin birth. We do not all agree or even know the manner of conception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 But the church as a whole must agree on doctrine. . Sorry, but that is not true, the FP and the Qof12 can create new or change existing doctrine. We have no say in the matter other than whether we individually will follow it and sustain it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sorry, but that is not true, the FP and the Qof12 can create new or change existing doctrine. We have no say in the matter other than whether we individually will follow it and sustain it or not.Not so. We are given a choice. But often the Lord knows our choice and tells the prophet and we agree. However, the example of the renouncement of polygamy is an example of when the Lord gave a choice to the people. They could have chosen to continue the practice at the expense of starting over yet again. Read the wording of the revelation and it is clear that church members had a choice in what direction the church should go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 I do agree with the LDS teaching/Bible teaching that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. I don't believe that God was the literal father (whether by physical means, or by miraculous i.v.f., or any other literal means). I believe what the Bible teaches: Matthew 1:20 "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her IS FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT." What there only one prophet, and I know it was long ago, that made comment about Jesus being conceived by physical relations between Mary and God? (someone had an earlier post about a sunday school class where two people defended their beliefs about that because of the teachings of some "long dead prophet." ) Do you know if it was just one prophet's point of view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Do we call GOD a liar then? "This is my only begotten Son, hear ye Him...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanh Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 What there only one prophet, and I know it was long ago, that made comment about Jesus being conceived by physical relations between Mary and God?Do you have a reference for that? Or are you relying on the liberal intrepretation of President Benson's quote you posted earlier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnn727 Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) I believe Brigham Young was the first that came close to saying it, subsequent leaders of the Church also hinted at it - although not one, not even Brigham, ever came right out and said it, so its all open to interpretation, as far as your quote, Luke states it differently and I believe clairifies what Matthew said : Luke 1:35 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. So the Holy Ghost makes it possible for the Highest (God the Father) to make her conceive, thus Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of the Holy Ghost Edited October 1, 2009 by mnn727 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.