Cassiopeia Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) Wow, still? I remember when I was taking the discussions back in 1975 and my friend told me this absolutely ridiculous story of how Mary Magdalen was the wife of Jesus and that God the Father got Mary (the mother of Jesus) pregnant...erm through husband and wife relations. I almost didn't get baptized and then one of the missionaries told me about church folklore and there is no scriptural evidence for such statements. Honestly, people, this is one of those topics that has a major squick factor to it. It's just distasteful, a waste of your time and really, inappropriate when you could be doing more fruitful things with your time like..oh..I dunno...actually living the principles that ARE doctrine. Let the rest sort itself out in the next life. And btw...that's not that far away given how quickly time seems to be passing these days. Edited February 25, 2010 by Cassiopeia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanhin Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Exactly Cass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Well, you know, different people like to discuss different things. Sure, there are better things a person could be doing, but there sure are a lot worse things a person could be doing. And, this squick factor... this is my point about judging things we really don't understand. Read the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There's plenty of squick factor in that story alone. And if you find out one day it really did happen that way? Do you change your opinion or do you express your squickness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassiopeia Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Well, you know, different people like to discuss different things.Sure, there are better things a person could be doing, but there sure are a lot worse things a person could be doing.And, this squick factor... this is my point about judging things we really don't understand.Read the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There's plenty of squick factor in that story alone.And if you find out one day it really did happen that way? Do you change your opinion or do you express your squickness?It isn't a matter of my opinion being changed...It's like talking about my parents methods of procreation. Really, NONE of MY business. And no, I still won't like talking about and since, I think it's more relevant to talk about what does impact our salvation, I think such conversations are not only counter intuitive but invite contention and strife amongst us. And as for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kukui Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 In some of Hugh Nibley’s writings he discusses ancient manuscripts that discuss the apostles curiosity about how Mary conceived the Lord. Mary has the apostles stand in a circle as she recounts some of the details. As she gets to the sacred part of the story the Lord himself appeared and commanded Mary "to utter no more of this mystery." I think what we can say from some of these writings is that from the earliest times of the church people have been curious about the subject. I would agree with Cass and the writer of the documents in that these things are sacred and should be treated as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mysticmorini Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 In some of Hugh Nibley’s writings he discusses ancient manuscripts that discuss the apostles curiosity about how Mary conceived the Lord. Mary has the apostles stand in a circle as she recounts some of the details. As she gets to the sacred part of the story the Lord himself appeared and commanded Mary "to utter no more of this mystery."I think what we can say from some of these writings is that from the earliest times of the church people have been curious about the subject. I would agree with Cass and the writer of the documents in that these things are sacred and should be treated as such.my thought is that if the apostles were not seen worthy enough to know this, then we surly are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maya Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 I still keep my ground IMHO on this...1. Our DOCTORIN is in the scriptures; they clarely say, that Mary WAS a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. (And after my speculations Jesus was her ONLY Child. Jesus`s brothers were from Josefs earlier marriage. So she stayed virgin ALL her life.) I been also thinking of what Traveller brought in light about the mening of the word virgin, but I still go for the combined use of the word. Highly interesting things in Travellers indications!2. Yes our leaders in 1800 DID speculate on this and wonder about this matter. So I want to ask WHEN did even the idea of getting a child WITHOUT sex come in to the mans mind? And when was that made possible ... 1990 century? HOW else could the Church members make sense of Mary giving birth to a SON of God? It seamed obvious at that time to have happened alike with all people with sex, but it does not mean it had been or would be our DOCTORINE! Speculating is not a crime! Thsi only makes me smile of the knowledge of those times.3. The fact that Jesus is His only begotten DOES make him different from other men. It shuts out the possiblity, that he would have been concieved by anyone else than God. 4. To consieve (I hope I spell that right) does NOT as I understand the word, mean sexual relation ship but combining the two shells that are to become a human. This can be achieved in more than one way in tha world of today... howabout tomorrow? The "Christianity" expect usually a miracle of conseiving.. so WHY not getting a bit down from the clouds and admit somethign must have brought the seed in Mary so it could grow to Jesus. IF God did not want Mary to give birth to Jesus the human way so WHY bother at all making a girl pregnant. He could just have appeared in a blink a ready man... Or was it that He did not make him pregnant .. WHO then? Josef.. he was going to leave her as he noticed the pregnancy... would Mary then have been playing around? Would they still call her virgin... what ever meaning the word then had? Or did Mary have in her both the female and the male seeds waiting? Get real. In some way the seed of God did conceive Mary... or if it was not God, then whos and WHY would Jesus be called Son of God? His ONLY begotten? Is the Bible wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 If the apostles talked about it, I don't feel so bad about discussing it either, but only in a goodly manner of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 I love seeing the Saints gather together with their myriad ideas about How Things Work and have civil discussions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marts1 Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 yes, I saw many bits of civil in here :) 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.