Touchy subject about God.


Mute
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Yes some seminary teachers teach full time, students are released from school for a class period and have their seminary then where LDS populations are very high. Its elective, no one is forced to go and considered release time from school.

2. I think you'll find a very small percentage of LDS believe that. I believe however its based upon misunderstood statements, conjecture and opinion.

It is certainly NOT doctrinal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MNN is right. Some people may state that as fact. The truth is that it's not doctrinal and not taught as doctrine.

I always get a sour taste in my mouth when people discuss 'Pseudo-Doctrine' as fact. Pseudo-Doctrine is doctrine that you get when you interpret things like 'Only Begotten' through the lens of specific time period. Some might possibly be true. Some might not. I would put this in the 'Might not' category. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church leaves the window open to interpretation when they said:

The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

So I think is also a lot of conjecture to say it is not doctrinal when the present church clearly has no position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mysticmorini

in past times the idea that mary and the father had physical relations in order to conceive christ was pretty widespread. I believe the subject (like many other controversial pseudo-doctrine) may have been touched on in the journal of discourses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church leaves the window open to interpretation when they said:

So I think is also a lot of conjecture to say it is not doctrinal when the present church clearly has no position.

If the church has no position then it isn't the doctrine of the Church that Jesus was conceived by physical relations. In other words saying such is not a doctrinal statement (as by your own admission it isn't doctrine). Not really much conjecture involved.

His implying that is is false along with being not doctrinal is where the conjecture comes in.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "official" doctrine as outline in the scriptures, which is our official source of doctrine, is that Mary was a virgin when she both conceived and bore the Son of God, and that Jesus Christ was the literal offspring of God the Father both spiritually and physically. With our ability to artificially inseminate, it doesn't surprise me that God, the creator of all things, can accomplish such feats.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think is also a lot of conjecture to say it is not doctrinal when the present church clearly has no position.

Since Doctrine can be described as a revealed eternal truth: If we don't know or its never been revealed, then how can it be considered doctrinal?

This is doctrine and in my opinion (but obviously not some others opinion) is pretty clear:

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.

1 Ne. 11: 13, 15, 18, 20

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

• • •

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

• • •

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.

• • •

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "official" doctrine as outline in the scriptures, which is our official source of doctrine, is that Mary was a virgin when she both conceived and bore the Son of God, and that Jesus Christ was the literal offspring of God the Father both spiritually and physically. With our ability to artificially inseminate, it doesn't surprise me that God, the creator of all things, can accomplish such feats.

Regards,

Vanhin

Not to get too blunt... but artificial insemination isn't used to avoid natural means...it's used when natural means don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was taught by many past leaders

and even in a 2002 ensign,

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following in 1916 to clarify the meaning of certain scriptures where Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, is designated as the Father. It is thought that a printing of this statement will be helpful to members as they study the Old Testament this year.

Elohim,” is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race.

Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior

Literal parent of Jesus, Spirit parent of the rest.

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."Ezra Taft Benson
[God] had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son , ...it may be that ... He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits (bear his children) in eternity.Orson Pratt
The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."Brigham Young
Mormons differ from other Christians in our literal belief that we are begotten of God spiritually and that Christ was begotten of him physically. Paul says in Acts that we are God's offspring (17:28-29). We believe that our spiritual conception was sexual just as we believe that Christ's mortal conception was. Elucidating on the latter, James E. Talmage says, 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 there of (1986, 81) (Robert A. Rees, Bearing our Crosses Gracefully: Sex and the Single Mormon, Dialogue, Vol.24, No.4, p.99).

There is more.The Prophets an apostles have taught a physical conception in the past,

The only person with athority (that i have found) who "spoke out against" it was Harold B Lee. Who doesn't say it is false but that teachers shouldn't speculate.

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." -Elder Harold B. Lee

Everything i have found against it comes from apologist , who's doctrinal opinions are as binding as any other member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get too blunt... but artificial insemination isn't used to avoid natural means...it's used when natural means don't work.

What people use it for is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have the technology to do things that people in earlier times would think miraculous, so, God, who is greater than us, can cause a virgin to be conceived with His own Child, to our great astonishment.

Mary was a virgin when she bore the Son of God, plain and simple.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited by Vanhin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior

Yep.

Mary was a virgin when she bore the Son of God, plain and simple.

Yep.

Both are true. The OP didn't ask if God was the literal father of Jesus Christ. He clearly was. He asked if Jesus was conceived in the same manner as you and I, which he clearly was not. Please view the many discussions on this topic in the past as this has been discussed ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the church leaves the window open to interpretation when they said:

So I think is also a lot of conjecture to say it is not doctrinal when the present church clearly has no position.

Which is exactly why someone would say that any position going further than what the Church says is doctrinal would be considered not doctrinal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He asked if Jesus was conceived in the same manner as you and I, which he clearly was not.

That's my issue right there. How do we know that? If the Church claims NOT to have a position on the matter (they could have perfectly said it is not so) how do we go about saying he was NOT conceived in the same manner than everybody else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my issue right there. How do we know that? If the Church claims NOT to have a position on the matter (they could have perfectly said it is not so) how do we go about saying he was NOT conceived in the same manner than everybody else?

The Church has no position on "how" the miraculous conception occurred, however, our official canon makes it plainly clear that Mary was a virgin when she conceived an bore the Son of God. This rules out physical intimacy. She did not "know a man" (Luke 1:34).

That is the official stance... Mary was a virgin, and Jesus Christ was the literal offspring of God the Father and Mary. That is not in question.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

Yep.

Both are true. The OP didn't ask if God was the literal father of Jesus Christ. He clearly was. He asked if Jesus was conceived in the same manner as you and I, which he clearly was not. Please view the many discussions on this topic in the past as this has been discussed ad nauseum.

You missed some quotes there. While it is safe to say the church doesn't teach this now, clearly it was taught and believed by many church authorities in the past.

So past prophets/ apostle taught a literal conception

More recent taught we take no stand, we don't speculate

Apologist teach nope

Who would know more?

Whether or not it is true is neither here nor there (personally i think a physical union between physical God of flesh and bone and women of flesh and blood, teachings of the church leaders make sense. And the reason people dismiss is and call it "touchy" is because they think God follows our laws (which given the OT is clearly not the case)

But my problem is people discounting it as some "crazy folk doctrine" picked up from an obscure quote here or their when it is clearly more rooted in the church then that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church has no position on "how" the miraculous conception occurred, however, our official canon makes it plainly clear that Mary was a virgin when she conceived an bore the Son of God. This rules out physical intimacy. She did not "know a man" (Luke 1:34).

That is the official stance... Mary was a virgin, and Jesus Christ was the literal offspring of God the Father and Mary. That is not in question.

Regards,

Vanhin

Who's the worlds wealthiest man?William Henry "Bill" Gates III

Who's the worlds most powerful man?Silvio Berlusconi

Prime Minister of Italy (debatable)

But reading this would you assume God can't be richer or more powerful? No I'm sure you would realize man means just that. Man

I can honestly say that no man(or women) told me i should marry my wife. (in fact many thought the opposite) Yet i can assure you i was told it was the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it boils down to: the Church (or highly placed individuals within the Church) have published materials that could lead a person to either conclusion; but the Church itself doesn't have an official position as to which is the right one.

Summed up beautifully. Should we vote for a close of the tread ?(is this a democracy?)

I vote yea, (answered as best it can be)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some point to consider.

1) God issued to His children the Law of Chastity, which is that men and women will not have sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married. (I'm working on the assumption that the spirit of this law has been constant throughout history)

2) God does not break His own laws and commandments.

3) By 1 and 2, for God to impregnate Mary through sexual intercourse would require that God take Mary as a spouse.

4) Mary was espoused to Joseph, and eventually married him. Mary and Joseph are known to have had other children.

5) If 3 is true, then 4 becomes problematic as God would have had to either divorce Mary, or Mary and Joseph would have been in an adulterous relationship.

6) In the absence of any indication of Mary and Joseph being in an adulterous relationship, I feel it is safe to conclude that 3 is false.

According to the scriptures (and I'm going to be lazy and not provide references), Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. What's more, the scriptures teach us that Mary was a virgin at conception and delivery.

It seems to me that any statement by any Church leader that sexual intercourse was required for conception is an errant interpretation that fails to consider the full weight of all the evidence contained in the scriptures.

QED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share