notquiteperfect Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Someone I know is taking a training course for work where they're learning to think outside the box. One of the questions they were asked about was if Jesus was the only one conceived by immaculate conception. It was brought up that Catholics believe that Mary was also conceived this way??? I've never heard of this and wonder if any of you have. Another idea that was brought up was that some believe that Eve wasn't Adam's first wife. Lilleth (?) was but was cast out. Again never heard of this but it's got my friend curious so thought I'd ask about it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 I think it is important here to define what Immaculate Conception means. A lot of non-Catholics get this confused with "conceived through the Spirit and not by sexual relations" or without a father (virgin birth). This is not the case. Immaculate Conception means - born without original sin. Yes, Catholics believe Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless all throughout her life. This doctrine is taken from an exegesis of the angel's visit to her when the angel declared, "Hail Mary, full of grace". In Catholic belief, "full of grace" means "without sin". In non-Catholic belief, "full of grace" in this context is interpreted as "favored daughter of God". The Catholic interpretation is derived from the Greek origin of the angel's greeting using the word "kecharitomene" which has a deeper connotation than just being favored. Now, in LDS belief - there's no such thing as original sin, so Immaculate Conception does not apply - I mean, we could say we are all immaculately conceived... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Another idea that was brought up was that some believe that Eve wasn't Adam's first wife. Lilleth (?) was but was cast out. Again never heard of this but it's got my friend curious so thought I'd ask about it here. Lilleth is an eisegesis of Gen 1 conflated with Jewish folklore. Lilleth is a character in a Jewish folklore and some people started thinking that the Eve mentioned in Gen 1 creation story is actually Lilleth and the actual Eve is the one who is referred to in Gen 2 creation story. Lilleth in Jewish folklore refused to be subservient to Adam so she became the poster child for a group of Jewish feminists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Another idea that was brought up was that some believe that Eve wasn't Adam's first wife. Lilleth (?) was but was cast out. Again never heard of this but it's got my friend curious so thought I'd ask about it here. http://askgramps.org/4997/is-there-any-truth-to-the-story-about-lilith-being-adams notquiteperfect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Someone I know is taking a training course for work where they're learning to think outside the box. One of the questions they were asked about was if Jesus was the only one conceived by immaculate conception. It was brought up that Catholics believe that Mary was also conceived this way??? I've never heard of this and wonder if any of you have. Another idea that was brought up was that some believe that Eve wasn't Adam's first wife. Lilleth (?) was but was cast out. Again never heard of this but it's got my friend curious so thought I'd ask about it here. With all due respect to Catholics and their beliefs, neither of these ideas are Biblical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 With all due respect to Catholics and their beliefs, neither of these ideas are Biblical. Which is just fine because Catholics are not sola scriptura folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Which is just fine because Catholics are not sola scriptura folks. My point has nothing to do with Catholics and what they believe, why they believe it, or even if it's justified for them to believe it. It is simply that whereas the OP is asking from an LDS perspective, it should be noted that the concepts are not supportable via any LDS sermons, ideas, means, scriptures, etc... As the only real shared resource between the two religions is the Bible, I point out that it is non-biblical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) My point has nothing to do with Catholics and what they believe, why they believe it, or even if it's justified for them to believe it. It is simply that whereas the OP is asking from an LDS perspective, it should be noted that the concepts are not supportable via any LDS sermons, ideas, means, scriptures, etc... As the only real shared resource between the two religions is the Bible, I point out that it is non-biblical. OIC... But... not to be contrary or anything... Immaculate Conception is biblical. It may have different interpretation in LDS but its foundation is still the Bible - Matt 9. Lilleth is not a Catholic belief... but it is still tied to Gen 1 - biblical but with a different interpretation than the LDS (and Catholic) interpretation. Edited February 12, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 I am not going to comment on this topic, I just wanted to say that Anatess is the best non Catholic "Catholic" ever..... thank you for sharing your knowledge... Maureen and notquiteperfect 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Lilleth is not a Catholic belief... but it is still tied to Gen 1 - biblical but with a different interpretation than the LDS (and Catholic) interpretation. More specifically Gen 1 the creation of Man and Woman in Verse 27 and then Gen 2 the creation of Adam Verse 7 then Eve in verse 22. The whole Lilith idea is that God created Adam and Lilith together out of the dust of the earth (Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:7) Then there was a rebellion by Lilith from Adam leaving him alone which was not good (Gen 2:18) Thus God created Eve differently (Gen 2:22) This is not how we LDS understand those scriptures but it is a way of interpreting them none the less. notquiteperfect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 OIC... What? But... not to be contrary or anything... Immaculate Conception is biblical. It may have different interpretation in LDS but its foundation is still the Bible - Matt 9. I'm referring to Mary being immaculately conceived. But...Matt 9? Just read it. Not sure what you're getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 What? OIC... Oh, I see... in txt speak. I'm referring to Mary being immaculately conceived. But...Matt 9? Just read it. Not sure what you're getting at. Matt 9 - the visitation of the angel (that's Matt 9 right? I'm basing it off of memory... and my chapter and verse memory is almost non-existent). You know, when the angel said - Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee... That's the biblical basis of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. One cannot be full of grace and have sin. In protestant interpretation, "full of grace" here means favored of God. The Catholics take a deeper meaning of the greek word origin of this verse to go beyond just favored of God but to point to the characteristic of grace in Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 More specifically Gen 1 the creation of Man and Woman in Verse 27 and then Gen 2 the creation of Adam Verse 7 then Eve in verse 22. The whole Lilith idea is that God created Adam and Lilith together out of the dust of the earth (Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:7) Then there was a rebellion by Lilith from Adam leaving him alone which was not good (Gen 2:18) Thus God created Eve differently (Gen 2:22) This is not how we LDS understand those scriptures but it is a way of interpreting them none the less. It's a way of interpreting them if "interpreting" means making up random stuff and inserting it where there is no cause. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 It's a way of interpreting them if "interpreting" means making up random stuff and inserting it where there is no cause. :) I agree with this one. This doesn't make sense without that Jewish folklore tied to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Dagnabbit! Matthew 9??? What??? BIRTH OF JESUS... it would not be in chapter 9... it would be more like chapter 1... open your scriptures, anatess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 It's a way of interpreting them if "interpreting" means making up random stuff and inserting it where there is no cause. :) That is one way of describing Midrash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Okay... here's the scripture.. .It's in Luke 1. KJV:And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Douay-Rheims:26And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.28And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 That's the biblical basis of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. One cannot be full of grace and have sin. In protestant interpretation, "full of grace" here means favored of God. The Catholics take a deeper meaning of the greek word origin of this verse to go beyond just favored of God but to point to the characteristic of grace in Mary. This certainly holds more merit than the Lilith idea. However, it definitely requires interpretation to get there. Significantly so. That's not to say I do not allow such interpretations. But they are, as we believe, only the interpretation of man. Without revelation, new clarifying scripture, etc., we do not (as LDS) give such ideas any consideration. Because, frankly, anyone could take any single word (in this case "grace") and read variable meanings into them and come up with all sorts of interesting ideas. But none of them would hold much weight. (Sadly, we do see LDS people doing this all the time too.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 This certainly holds more merit than the Lilith idea. However, it definitely requires interpretation to get there. It does. But there were a couple of centuries of interpretation and doctrinal development to get there. I would say that the Immaculate Conception was the culmination of a theological progression, only the root of which is in the scriptures. So it's understandable for there to be confusion about how to get from point A to point B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 I won't speak for the LDS interpretation of these teachings. But personally, I'm disinclined to believe in any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notquiteperfect Posted February 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 You guys* are awesome! Thanks so much! *includes gals as well :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 I am not going to comment on this topic, I just wanted to say that Anatess is the best non Catholic "Catholic" ever..... thank you for sharing your knowledge... You are way magnanimous, Omega! So... in the interest of expanding the knowledge... In Catholic belief, Mary was sinless... and so, non-Catholic Christians always wonder... what? How can that be? Because, if she was sinless, she wouldn't need the Atonement! And clearly, in the Bible, Mary referred to Jesus as "my Savior" (it's in Luke 1:47... I looked it up, lol). So... how can she be sinless and needing Atonement? The answer to this question is actually a very pivotal element in my Catholic-to-LDS conversion... Because... this Catholic teaching becomes a whole lot clearer (and the LDS teaching becomes more profound coming from Catholic teaching) when we add the events in pre-mortal existence. Jesus was chosen to atone for our sins before we committed them... we were all still figuring out this Plan of Salvation before the earth was even created when Jesus was chosen as the Savior. Therefore, Jesus' atonement is necessary not just because we sin... but, more importantly, because of the existence of opposition that makes it possible for us to sin. Without Jesus' being provided as our Savior, we wouldn't have agreed to the Plan of Salvation where it is possible for us to sin and lose our place with God... I mean, in pre-mortal life, we were already with God... so why would we choose to progress when it is entirely possible we will never make it back to God? So, what I've been taught about Mary's immaculate conception actually helped me understand pre-mortal existence better. But yes, since we don't believe in original sin, this really is all moot. But just exploring further the Catholic understanding, in the case of Mary (in Catholic teaching) - she can be sinless and still require a Savior because the Savior saved her from sin... (a bit different from the Savior saving the crucified criminal from sins he already committed). So, in an illustration kind of way - say, a man is standing on the fork between good and evil... then he walked on the side of evil - Jesus saves him through repentance. Now, say a man is standing on the fork between good and evil... then he was about to walk on the side of evil but Jesus scooped him up before he would complete the action to require the consequence... Jesus still saved the man, but he remained sinless... Yes, yes, it is totally different from LDS understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 This certainly holds more merit than the Lilith idea. However, it definitely requires interpretation to get there. Significantly so. That's not to say I do not allow such interpretations. But they are, as we believe, only the interpretation of man. Without revelation, new clarifying scripture, etc., we do not (as LDS) give such ideas any consideration. Because, frankly, anyone could take any single word (in this case "grace") and read variable meanings into them and come up with all sorts of interesting ideas. But none of them would hold much weight. (Sadly, we do see LDS people doing this all the time too.) Of course they are not LDS doctrine or ideas... We look at them now (under the influence of the light of the revealed word) and we can see the errors clearly. However none of these idea came out of no where. They started founded in scriptures. They grew though attempts to logically answer questions, to be rational, to have it make sense. Its easy to call the ideas crazy and wild, and make fun of them. However I think it would be wiser to see them as example how good people can be deceived and the dangers of arm of the flesh for doctrine versus the spirit. How many time do we see and hear even now about how things of God doesn't make sense and how many times do we try to logically and rationally explain them? Vort and mordorbund 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Someone I know is taking a training course for work where they're learning to think outside the box. One of the questions they were asked about was if Jesus was the only one conceived by immaculate conception. It was brought up that Catholics believe that Mary was also conceived this way??? I've never heard of this and wonder if any of you have. Please note that the "immaculate conception" is a Catholic-only doctrine, being intimately tied into the Catholic doctrine of "original sin". The LDS understanding of "original sin" is quite different from Catholic teachings. We explicitly reject the doctrine that would lead to an idea of "immaculate conception". We are all pure before God at birth, as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants make abundantly clear. Another idea that was brought up was that some believe that Eve wasn't Adam's first wife. Lilleth (?) was but was cast out. Again never heard of this but it's got my friend curious so thought I'd ask about it here. This is an old Jewish legend. There is value in some old Jewish legends, but none in this one. It's just nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 The first time I heard about the Immaculate Conception doctrine was in a Trivial Pursuit question. I was surprised to find out that the answer was Mary, so I read up on it. I found it interesting and it made sense given the explanation. I don't believe in the doctrine myself but since then whenever I hear about Immaculate Conception, I know whom it is referring to. M. 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.