Touchy subject about God.

[ozzy]

Hey guys, its been a while.

I was reading this thread and decided I should point something out. Many times it has been mentioned that various authorities back in the day said yea or nay to a physical union between Christs literal parents. Unless I missed it, no reference has been given, aside from the nay part. Correct me if I am wrong on that statement.

I am not aware of any teachings going either direction from the prophets and apostles aside from the nay references here. I would like to point out that with the exception of official doctrine, no such statements are doctrine and are pure speculation. I know it is hard to believe that the higher-ups can speculate but... they can. Also, I get the feeling that as with many of their past teachings, we take much of what they say out of context. This is a common theme with such writings as Journal of discourses.

The only official doctrine is that there is no official doctrine regarding this subject. The reason is because even what the brethren have apparently taught in the past is not doctrine.

Does this mean it is not true? No. Just because there is no doctrine on a subject does not mean that various speculations on it are not true. What it does mean is that no teacher within the church has a right to teach that view.

Seminary teachers, Sunday School teachers, and all other teachers within the church reach various personal conclusions with regard to subjects lacking official doctrine, and this is not really a problem. Those teachers are out of line in teaching such things as doctrine.

If you want my opinion on the subject, I don't have one. I assume that Gods definitions of methods and virginity and the like may differ slightly from ours and as such we cannot come to a definitive conclusion on the subject.

Whether or not the thread should close? I dunno. If you don't like it, then don't read it is my opinion. But it is obviously important to someone, so I don't really see why we have to close a thread purely because it is beating a dead horse. I say leave it until it actually breaks a rule. It'll die eventually.

[Wingnut]

It's not true. Nobody (including your bishop) gets paid to do church services. We are the ONLY church who does not pay it's servers.

In addition to what other people have since clarified, I'm curious as to how you seem to know that we are the "ONLY" church who doesn't pay its clergy. We may be the only one of common knowledge, but I doubt we are the only church with a lay clergy.

[ozzy]

In addition to what other people have since clarified, I'm curious as to how you seem to know that we are the "ONLY" church who doesn't pay its clergy. We may be the only one of common knowledge, but I doubt we are the only church with a lay clergy.

THis was a curiosity to me as well. If I am not mistaken, Jehovahs witnesses also are largely if not completely unpaid ministry. Unless you count having to buy their publications that is.

[Blackmarch]

My father told me something recently that I thought was just hear say. Out west he said there are people who are paid to be seminary teachers in schools. He said this particular person was also the teacher of his class in church. This person told him that Christ was conceived in the same manner in which everyone else is made. In other words God the Father and Marry made Christ the same way everyone else does. He said that is why he is called his only begotten son. I asked my brother about this and he said he had never heard that in the church and he didn't believe it. Has anyone else heard this or do you know if it is true or just hear say? If it is true can you provide a reference?

this is an intrepretation of Mckonkies statement that Christ's conception was as natural for God as it is for man to concieve a child. (paraphrased) from Mormon Doctrine if I recall right. The problem with using that intrepretation is the assumption that natural for god means the exact same thing as natural for mortal man, rather than something else (like how easy or normal for gGod to do something like for instance).

I can't find anything to confirm or deny that was the actual method used (I really really doubt it, as I belive bible states that Mary had not known any man and considered her to be a virgin).

The only thing I can find scripturally is that it was done through the power or medium of the holy ghost.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Blackmarch]

THis was a curiosity to me as well. If I am not mistaken, Jehovahs witnesses also are largely if not completely unpaid ministry. Unless you count having to buy their publications that is.

probably at one point the LDS church was the only church that was bigger than <insert given number of members> with unpaid clergy. I imagine there have been quite few smaller churches that have had unpaid ministry. But just a guess on my part mostly.

[MobyMule]

It's not true. Nobody (including your bishop) gets paid to do church services. We are the ONLY church who does not pay it's servers.

General Authorities do get a Stipend/Living allowance. I don't find that bad though since they are called to serve Full Time. Most untill death or health prevents.

[marts1]

General Authorities do get a Stipend/Living allowance. I don't find that bad though since they are called to serve Full Time. Most untill death or health prevents.

I have heard that as well.

[Vanhin]

Yes, but why would He do something artificially that humans are built and made for?

Why are we resurrected (restored to our physical bodies) if there isn't some required use for them? Why are we male and female if there isn't some required use?

I know these questions have not been answered, and it is perfectly fitting that the Church does not take an official stance, but we have the right to ponder and pray and receive our own personal revelation. We each can do that.

Does that fact that Mary was a virgin mean it positively did not happen? Not necessarily. We have seen things happen "not normally" when there was no other way. It's possible when a child is made from a perfected, glorified parent, for a good and noble purpose, that "virgin" is not just the physical condition we understand it as. Maybe God's definition includes more.

I think it's very important for us to keep our minds open to anything. No matter how small of a chance we see this as being, it's possible this is what really did happen. We need to be careful to not condemn actions we do not understand through our limited, finite, often wrong understandings and perceptions.

I'm not saying it did or it didn't, I'm just saying we need to be careful what we condemn.

I think my brother Finrock's last two posts pretty much sum up my thoughts. I would like to see your replies to them.

All these years that I have prayerfully studied the scriptures, I don't know how I understood them at all... It seems like every time I turn around latter-day saints are trying to redefine common words and phrases to fit the doctrine that they want to believe.

Virgin means virgin. I believe it literally, no one had sexual intercourse with Mary to conceive the Son of God, or she would not be a virgin.

As for how it happened, I don't know - it's a miracle!

Also, I don't know how you have construed my words to mean God has parts that have no use. That is way beyond the scope of my point, which is that if we are capable of conceiving children without actual intercourse, God is capable of causing Mary to conceive His Son, and she remain a virgin.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Wingnut]

this is an intrepretation of Mckonkies statement that Christ's conception was as natural for God as it is for man to concieve a child. (paraphrased) from Mormon Doctrine if I recall right. The problem with using that intrepretation is the assumption that natural for god means the exact same thing as natural for mortal man, rather than something else (like how easy or normal for gGod to do something like for instance).

The other problem with that is that Mormon Doctrine isn't Mormon doctrine. It's Elder McConkie's opinions. The first edition stated point blank that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable whore of all the earth, as referenced in 1 Nephi. Mormon Doctrine is not a reliable source of doctrine.

[Blackmarch]

The other problem with that is that Mormon Doctrine isn't Mormon doctrine. It's Elder McConkie's opinions. The first edition stated point blank that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable whore of all the earth, as referenced in 1 Nephi. Mormon Doctrine is not a reliable source of doctrine.

I agree. my peeve is when it gets used in a bash, is that doctrine or not it's still taken out of context or msintrepreted....

[MarginOfError]

I refuse to have anything to do with Mormon Doctrine and was elated when the Church scrubbed all of the references to that book from the new edition of Gospel Principles.

[annamaureen]

I'm not a fan of Mormon Doctrine, either. Some people still follow it as if it actually is doctrine.

[marts1]

I agree...maybe 2% may be in error.

[Justice]

Also, I don't know how you have construed my words to mean God has parts that have no use. That is way beyond the scope of my point, which is that if we are capable of conceiving children without actual intercourse, God is capable of causing Mary to conceive His Son, and she remain a virgin.

I didn't think that's what you said, I just threw that in there for people who have never thought about it. Sometimes I quote a person but don't address the person or quote specifically, but just to help start my train of thought.

I never said He wasn't capable. All I said is that it is possible it happened in ways many don't approve of. They need to be careful how strongly they disapprove of something they don't fully understand.

Joseph Smith said (paraphrase) that if a person could gaze into heaven for just 5 minutes they would learn more about God and the sociality that exists in heaven than all the world.

He also told the brethren in a meeting (paraphrase) that if they knew the sociality that exists in heaven they would all apostatize that very minute.

All I'm saying is we need to be open minded and be ready to change our views if they do not line up with heaven's view... if we plan on living there.

I don't see anything wrong with either view, and in both cases I still see Mary as a virgin... if God says so.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

If she had sexual relations with Heavenly Father, she could not be a virgin.

Vanhin, this is the mortal reasoning I refer to.

Even with our physical definition there is a gray area.

I'm going to try to be as un-graphic as I possibly can.

Does virgin mean a girl who has not has sex, or is it a girl who has the physical condition of not having had sex? What if she had sex part way and her body still had the physical condition of a virgin? Is she still a virgin?

Anyway, my point is that we need to be careful when we say what we believe is an absolute truth. It could be that Mary conceived the way every other woman has ever conceived, yet God still calls her a virgin. Maybe His definition isn't based solely on either of the 2 definitions I mentioned, but perhaps included is a spirtual innocence and purity. Maybe God's definition is that a woman hasn't had sex with a mortal man.

There are still too many variables to say it had to be A or B based on what we understand, because, frankly, we understand very little.

[Justice]

I have heard some say, as they speculate, that if it did happen that way, they don't want anything to do with God or heaven.

That's the condemning I'm speaking of. I think it's dangerous.

[annamaureen]

He also told the brethren in a meeting (paraphrase) that if they knew the sociality that exists in heaven they would all apostatize that very minute.

Could someone please find this original quote for me? I've never heard it before and can't find it based on this paraphrase. Thanks.

Edited February 19, 2010 by annamaureen

[Justice]

I'll keep looking (for both). I always look before I post, but I couldn't find it. It was in a book I had at one time that I lost in a move.

[Moksha]

That is the official stance... Mary was a virgin, and Jesus Christ was the literal offspring of God the Father and Mary.

Thank goodness, although the story of Leda and the Swan is interesting, it belongs in another anthology.

[mikbone]

This person told him that Christ was conceived in the same manner in which everyone else is made. In other words God the Father and Marry made Christ the same way everyone else does.

Alma 7:10 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.

Here are the requirements.

1) Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father

2) Virgin Birth

3) Conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Elohim (Father and Mother) could have produced Jesus Christ employing the normal mortal method. After Her Ovum and His Sperm united and formed the seed that was to become Jesus. The Holy Ghost could have transported the seed into the womb of the virgin.

It is my belief the Virgin Mary is a surrogate mother, a precious and chosen vessel.

[JohnOF123]

I refuse to have anything to do with Mormon Doctrine and was elated when the Church scrubbed all of the references to that book from the new edition of Gospel Principles.

I'm not a fan of Mormon Doctrine, either. Some people still follow it as if it actually is doctrine.

Coming from mainstream Christianity, this confuses me. How can one deny the Church's doctrine, yet still belong, or believe for that matter. Do many LDS members hold to this same position?

Thx for the input :)

[mikbone]

Mormon Doctrine is a book written by Bruce R. McConkie.

Amazon.com: Mormon Doctrine (9780884940623): Bruce R. McConkie: Books

Not to be confused with LDS theology.

[john doe]

Mormon Doctrine is a book written by Bruce R. McConkie.

Amazon.com: Mormon Doctrine (9780884940623): Bruce R. McConkie: Books

Not to be confused with LDS theology.

Or LDS Doctrine.

[JohnOF123]

Mormon Doctrine is a book written by Bruce R. McConkie.

Amazon.com: Mormon Doctrine (9780884940623): Bruce R. McConkie: Books

Not to be confused with LDS theology.

Ohh, okay. Thx.

[Nikkie85]

Around Christmas last year one of my Mia Maids came up to me and asked, "So like if Jesus is the only begotten son does that mean...well what does that REALLY mean?" I defined for begotten but she kept saying "but what does that really mean?"

To be honest I had no idea how to answer the question so I politely told her to ask her parents.