Was Jesus born of a virgin?

[hordak]

I have heard others use the 'HF was married to Mary' explanation before, because there is an implication of sexual relations in order for Christ to be born. Wouldn't that act, of necessity, have made Mary a 'non-virgin'? And, if we follow that reasoning, wouldn't the relations have been incestuous? The bible states that she was 'overcome by the power of the HG' or some such wording. Where is there any connotation of sexual relations in this phrase?

I don't know how HF did it, and to me we are treading on some sacred ground here so we ought to be careful, but as someone said earlier, with in-vitro, cloning, etc., that we can do now, I'm sure that HF could figure out a way to make this happen.

All I know is that the BoM testifies again to Christ's divinity, and as him being the Only Begotten of the Father, the literal Son of God.

The idea of a physical relationship comes from God having a physical body. Early leaders such as Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt and Brigham young taught this idea as well. If we define virgin and "knowing no man sexually" i don't think now God that way would change it as God is not man.

[pam]

Are we questioning her virginity or if such is truly a matter of biblical record? The former could have some doctrinal implications.

The last thought brought up that some are responding to is whether Mary was married to Heavenly Father in order for Jesus to be the literal son of God. Which as six pointed out..we really need to start being careful in how we respond etc.

[rameumptom]

Josephs translation (or any translation for that matter) wasn't word for word. It's possible Joseph choose word the word virgin ( which also indicates purity,) for it's familiarity even though it wasn't in the plates like he did with cockatrice, and alpha and omega.

(Not saying it did, but it could have)

No translation is "word for word", yet a word like "virgin" can be interpreted correctly. Royal Skousen has done some exceptional work in showing that Joseph's translation was primarily a real translation, and not just a catalyst effort (such as probably done with the Book of Abraham).

[rameumptom]

I have really struggled with this, until it was explained to me that the Father and Mary were first wed before the conception of the Saviour....

That is pure speculation. I do not believe in this concept myself. I believe that the Father placed his seed within Mary via the power of the Holy Ghost. IOW, artificial insemination or as a test tube baby.

[Dravin]

The last thought brought up that some are responding to is whether Mary was married to Heavenly Father in order for Jesus to be the literal son of God. Which as six pointed out..we really need to start being careful in how we respond etc.

That is one of the things I had in mind when I posted that:

Mary not a virgin due to physical relations with Heavenly Father = Isn't doctrine.

Mary had physical relations with somebody other than Heavenly Father which resulted in Christ = Isn't doctrine, furthermore it kinda kicks the legs out from Christianity, it'd make Christ a liar or deceived, but not who he said he was.

Mary had premarital physical relations with somebody but it didn't result in Christ = Baring possible conflict with prophecy that Christ was/would be born of a Virgin (which has been discussed) this doesn't have doctrinal implications (Well except possibly for Catholic concepts about immaculate conception) but I'm not sure why one would say she engaged in premarital sex, it certainly isn't implausible (current social mores not withstanding) that somebody not engage in premarital sex. If the word is more correctly translated to mean young woman I'm not sure I'd assume she wasn't a virgin even if it isn't a scriptural declaration.

It should be noted some are inclined to believe that Mary remained a virgin her whole life (she did not engage in marital relations with Joseph) and her not being a virgin before would certainly put a wrench in the idea of lifelong virgin hood, but unless I'm mistaken such is not (LDS) doctrine.

And finally: The word means young women, it was 'incorrectly' translated, but such isn't an assumption of Mary not being a virgin. No doctrinal implications, Joseph Smith's translation of a word or words to mean virgin in the Book of Mormon can't reliably be called inaccurate (or accurate beyond our situational ethos in Joseph Smith), we don't know what word was on the plates and furthermore what exactly the writers of the plates had in mind when they used that unknown word. So even if the Bible is more accurately translated young women that doesn't tell us what word is the more accurate rendering of the plates.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Dravin

[Snow]

I have really struggled with this, until it was explained to me that the Father and Mary were first wed before the conception of the Saviour....

Explained by who?

The one-eyed sailor down by the dock?

[Dravin]

Maybe she met my parents? I recall them explaining that 'doctrine' (Mary and Heavenly Father had marital relations, some sort of marriage/sealing having taken place) to me several years ago. Not sure if they still hold to it though, the subject hasn't come up again.

[bmy-]

As it has been stated.. Mary could not have sexual relations with Heavenly Father (as we understand the rules, at least) because she was married to Joseph.

Who is to say that Joseph was not Heavenly Father incarnate? We know that Michael the Archangel (a previously exalted being) came to earth and took on a mortal tabernacle once more, so is this really a sticking point from a doctrinal issue? The mechanism apparently exists, after all -- we have seen it with Noah, Michael, etc.

***That is NOT doctrine, just another side of the cube.

[hordak]

No translation is "word for word", yet a word like "virgin" can be interpreted correctly. Royal Skousen has done some exceptional work in showing that Joseph's translation was primarily a real translation, and not just a catalyst effort (such as probably done with the Book of Abraham).

Recognize the name not familiar with the work. I'm not saying it wasn't a real translation but that the word could easily be put in for familiarity, just like other words Joseph included that couldn't have been in the plates.

If we say the passage is accurate, the author meant virgin in the Bible because it's in Book of Mormon then it stands to reason that the child will put his hand in the den of the half lizard half chicken that turns people to stone with it's gaze during the millennium. Many take it to be a mistranslation. But since it is in the Book of Mormon also should we take it to be literal?

[rameumptom]

Hordak,

So we can either trust Joseph Smith's translation, or question it because it might be something different? Unless you can come up with something better than just an opinion, I suggest you offer your opinion without trying to make it seem like a scholarly proof.

The Bible uses the term virgin, which is an acceptable translation of the Hebrew. The Book of Mormon uses the term virgin, as well. Joseph Smith never in his teachings changed it. Seems to me that the onus is on those who would have Mary as anything but a virgin prior to Christ's birth.

[sixpacktr]

As it has been stated.. Mary could not have sexual relations with Heavenly Father (as we understand the rules, at least) because she was married to Joseph.

Who is to say that Joseph was not Heavenly Father incarnate? We know that Michael the Archangel (a previously exalted being) came to earth and took on a mortal tabernacle once more, so is this really a sticking point from a doctrinal issue? The mechanism apparently exists, after all -- we have seen it with Noah, Michael, etc.

***That is NOT doctrine, just another side of the cube.

Mary was not married yet when she was overshadowed by the HG, simply betrothed. A little different.

And I'd like to have a reference that says that Michael was an exalted being that came to earth again to take on a mortal tabernacle. Sounds a lot like Adam/God. And Noah? That one is new to me.

And Joseph was not God Incarnate...

[hordak]

Hordak,

So we can either trust Joseph Smith's translation, or question it because it might be something different? Unless you can come up with something better than just an opinion, I suggest you offer your opinion without trying to make it seem like a scholarly proof.

Not sure what you mean by that. It is a fact, that the BoM contains language that didn't exist when the plates were written and the almah vs betulah is a scholarly debate.

The Bible uses the term virgin, which is an acceptable translation of the Hebrew. The Book of Mormon uses the term virgin, as well. Joseph Smith never in his teachings changed it. Seems to me that the onus is on those who would have Mary as anything but a virgin prior to Christ's birth.

I have no issue with the idea Mary was a virgin. I don't know. I readily admit that. The problem is the way in which the conclusion is reached.

Yes the bible says it, yes the Book of Mormon says it, yes Joseph didn't change it.

But the same thing is true of the cockatrice and yet very few people who believe in that mythical creature.

[martybess]

Jesus has to be born of a virgin because of lineage, guys. He is literally the Son of God, not just spiritually (like the rest of us) but physically as well.

Why would he not be the literal son of God if Mary was not a virgin? I am not the first born in my family but that does not change who my father is. Please explain.

-Marty

[Dove]

Explained by who?

The one-eyed sailor down by the dock?

I would sincerely doubt that, Dove.

Yes, he's the literal son of God. No, that didn't involve 'relations' with God and Mary. Joseph and Mary were married to one another. Unless you can point out where in the scriptures it says that Mary was involved in Polyandry, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

Sorry, Guys,

I've been away for a few days and didn't know my comments were being answered back.....

The first time I heard that the Saviour was born by "relations" through the Father and Mary was in the MTC by my Sunday School teacher....

I have struggled to get my head around it for years, besides hearing it/reading it in the Ensigns and other church references since then.....

Please give me time to look them up, as I'm fairly confident I can find them...

It wasn't until years later that I found out at a woman's conference the doctrine of Mary and the Father being married...Given in a talk by Hyrum? Smith in the morning star.

This to me means that their is polygamy in Heaven, that Mary was probably married to the Father for eternity and Joseph for time, not that the Father "divorced" His other wives, nor that Mary practiced polyandry...

Regardless, I have heard this "doctrine" many a time from the pulpit from head leaders...

It's not my intent to be disrespectful concerning this. I would simply like some answers to what I've heard several time through church sources....Neither is this meant to be disrespectful or take lightly the topic at hand

Thanks...

Edited October 23, 2009 by Dove

[pam]

Fair enough Dove. I would love to see those talks when you find them. Just not something I've ever heard before.

[Dove]

Here are some references I've found in lds.org.....I'm looking for more as we speak.....

The Only Begotten. “Only Begotten Son” is a well-accepted term relating to Jesus Christ. It is found repeatedly in the Bible and is used by Christians generally. The real meaning of the term, however, is clouded unless one has an understanding of the true nature of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph’s First Vision and later revelations taught us these essential facts: that the Father and Son are separate beings and that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. With this understanding provided by modern revelation, it is possible to grasp the truth that God the Father is indeed the Father of Jesus Christ’s mortal body. The angel said to Mary, “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” (Luke 1:35; see also 1 Ne. 11:13–21).

Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.” 5

President Ezra Taft Benson added his witness in these words: “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, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!” 6

[Dove]

Here are some references I've found in lds.org.....I'm looking for more as we speak.....

The Only Begotten. “Only Begotten Son” is a well-accepted term relating to Jesus Christ. It is found repeatedly in the Bible and is used by Christians generally. The real meaning of the term, however, is clouded unless one has an understanding of the true nature of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph’s First Vision and later revelations taught us these essential facts: that the Father and Son are separate beings and that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. With this understanding provided by modern revelation, it is possible to grasp the truth that God the Father is indeed the Father of Jesus Christ’s mortal body. The angel said to Mary, “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” (Luke 1:35; see also 1 Ne. 11:13–21).

Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.” 5

President Ezra Taft Benson added his witness in these words: “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, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!” 6

[pam]

I still don't see where this says Mary was married to God.

[Dove]

I still don't see where this says Mary was married to God.

Right, I'm looking for that as well

[Dr T]

"Only begotten Son" just means "unique."

[rameumptom]

I have no issue with the idea Mary was a virgin. I don't know. I readily admit that. The problem is the way in which the conclusion is reached.

Yes the bible says it, yes the Book of Mormon says it, yes Joseph didn't change it.

But the same thing is true of the cockatrice and yet very few people who believe in that mythical creature.

But this again is a non sequitur. Simply because there is something that is mythical, does not mean all things within the book(s) are mythical or allegorical. Each thing must be taken on a case by case basis, and considered within the context of prophetic teachings, as well as scholarly review. To compare the almah/betulah discussion with a cockatrice is comparing apples to oranges.

[hordak]

But this again is a non sequitur. Simply because there is something that is mythical, does not mean all things within the book(s) are mythical or allegorical. Each thing must be taken on a case by case basis, and considered within the context of prophetic teachings, as well as scholarly review. To compare the almah/betulah discussion with a cockatrice is comparing apples to oranges.

I agree. One should not "toss the baby out with the bath water". Your right, it should be viewed on a case by case basis. The point point of the cockatrice it show that it did happen, and it doesn't mean that it did in the virgin case as well. But that combined with the Jewish scholarship leads me to believe it did. I don't know, as know one does but that's my opinion which obviously differs from your own. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[rameumptom]

The first time I heard that the Saviour was born by "relations" through the Father and Mary was in the MTC by my Sunday School teacher....

I have struggled to get my head around it for years, besides hearing it/reading it in the Ensigns and other church references since then.....

Please give me time to look them up, as I'm fairly confident I can find them...

It wasn't until years later that I found out at a woman's conference the doctrine of Mary and the Father being married...Given in a talk by Hyrum? Smith in the morning star.

I've heard it speculated upon by leaders in the past. However, you'll note that it has not been taught by "head leaders" for decades. The Church's official website states what is and isn't doctrine, by the way. While a past teaching, this does not match up with what the Church considers doctrine.

[rameumptom]

The quotes from Pres Benson and Elder Talmage state that God is the paternal DNA parent of Jesus Christ. However, neither states how that came to pass. They do not mention sexual relations. In Talmage's day, there were no test tube babies nor understanding of DNA. Today there are a myriad of methods we know of are possible to cause pregnancy, including in vitro insemination, etc.

Dr T, while your view of Only Begotten meaning "unique", we agree, Jesus IS unique. However, given that LDS believe in an anthropomorphic God and Son, we believe that it is because Jesus' physical body literally has his Father's DNA. All of us are literal spirit children of God, but only Jesus was born in the flesh from God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The quotes from Pres Benson and Elder Talmage state that God is the paternal DNA parent of Jesus Christ. However, neither states how that came to pass. They do not mention sexual relations. In Talmage's day, there were no test tube babies nor understanding of DNA. Today there are a myriad of methods we know of are possible to cause pregnancy, including in vitro insemination, etc.

Dr T, while your view of Only Begotten meaning "unique", we agree, Jesus IS unique. However, given that LDS believe in an anthropomorphic God and Son, we believe that it is because Jesus' physical body literally has his Father's DNA. All of us are literal spirit children of God, but only Jesus was born in the flesh from God.

Then, also, what you are saying too is that we do not have God the Father's DNA in us, otherwise Adam would have been a 'begotten' as well.