The Immaculate Conception


Recommended Posts

On 6/20/2016 at 8:50 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Why were we talking about this again?

Because of this:

On 6/14/2016 at 4:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

either Mary committed adultery or God impregnated her against her will

God did not commit adultery with Mary. If she had been married, it would have been adultery. Under Jewish law, adultery was only when a man (any man, whether he was married or not) had sex with a married woman not his wife. The Hebrew נאף nâ'aph is not the same as what we understand by adultery, so it plays an important part in understanding how the merging of God's DNA and Mary's came to become Jesus' body.

The second of @TilKingdomCome's options is unsupported by scripture, since Mary said "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." By which, she gave her full consent.

God does not break His own commandments. Neither does He commit adultery, nor does He commit rape.

Lehi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Because of this:

God did not commit adultery with Mary. If she had been married, it would have been adultery. Under Jewish law, adultery was only when a man (any man, whether he was married or not) had sex with a married woman not his wife. The Hebrew נאף nâ'aph is not the same as what we understand by adultery, so it plays an important part in understanding how the merging of God's DNA and Mary's came to become Jesus' body.

The second of @TilKingdomCome's options is unsupported by scripture, since Mary said "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." By which, she gave her full consent.

God does not break His own commandments. Neither does He commit adultery, nor does He commit rape.

Lehi

 

Quote

Ok.  First of all, no we don't teach that God had sex with Mary.  That's anti-mormon claptrap.  Some mormons have speculated about the process, and some of those speculators have held leadership callings at the time.  But no, we don't teach that.

From reading this thread would it be correct to say that some LDS do believe that God did have sex with Mary but that this belief is not taught in the church?

I've read quotes from 19th century LDS leaders who seemed to believed this but I was of the understanding that most LDS of the 21st century do not believe this and see Mary's pregnancy as miraculous.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

From reading this thread would it be correct to say that some LDS do believe that God did have sex with Mary but that this belief is not taught in the church?

I've read quotes from 19th century LDS leaders who seemed to believed this but I was of the understanding that most LDS of the 21st century do not believe this and see Mary's pregnancy as miraculous.

M.

Speaking for myself:  I'm open to the possibility, though I'm not (pardon the pun) married to the idea.  The scriptures seem consistent in describing Mary as a "virgin", and even if she wasn't--I just can't fathom how that would really be any of my business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I just can't fathom how that would really be any of my business.

^ this...but one other point (something I read on FAIR concerning the matter and also have personal experience with). My wife just went through the fertility treatment where if successful (we'll find out Friday) she will be pregnant. And sexual intercourse had nothing to do with the matter. It seems fairly obvious in the light of even our limited mortal perspective that sexual intercourse is not the only means of impregnating someone. And God's ways being so much more unfathomable than ours, and ours in these modern times having such marvelous (and unknown back in ye olden days when some of these "sex is the means whereby pregnancy occurs...therefore..." theories) means, I find it odd that people can't interpolate that to what seems obvious. God did not need to break any of His own laws concerning sexual relationships in order for Mary to become pregnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Maureen said:

From reading this thread would it be correct to say that some LDS do believe that God did have sex with Mary but that this belief is not taught in the church?

I've read quotes from 19th century LDS leaders who seemed to believed this but I was of the understanding that most LDS of the 21st century do not believe this and see Mary's pregnancy as miraculous.

M.

I have long held the position that she was basically a surrogate mother.  While not a perfect term, it's as close as our current mortal understanding can allow.

But I believe we'd all have to admit that the exact mechanism is neither taught in our faith nor is it any of our business.  It should be enough that it was a miracle.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Maureen said:

From reading this thread would it be correct to say that some LDS do believe that God did have sex with Mary but that this belief is not taught in the church?

I've read quotes from 19th century LDS leaders who seemed to believed this but I was of the understanding that most LDS of the 21st century do not believe this and see Mary's pregnancy as miraculous.

There are, undoubtedly, many Saints who believe that Mary's pregnancy was as "normal" as any other. It is not doctrine (as in taught by the Church), but it is a possibility, since there is no express doctrine, either, that it was not.

Even if it were a "normal" conjugation, it would still be miraculous, since, as the Bible says, the Holy Ghost had to overshadow her to allow her to receive His presence: your distinction without merit.

The definition of miracle, at least among us Saints, is the application of laws which we do not understand, or, as we read in 2001, a Space Odyssey, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a miracle (he used "magic"). So, let's say that Mary pregnancy was something like in vitro fertilization. No one in the i would have been able to say it was "just science", it, to them, would have been miraculous.
I use lower case Roman numerals to indicate centuries before Christ. Upper case is for centuries after His advent.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Maureen said:

From reading this thread would it be correct to say that some LDS do believe that God did have sex with Mary but that this belief is not taught in the church?

I cannot speak for the fringe element of our religion but I can assure you that the teaching of God having sex with Mary is not our doctrine and is not taught in our meeting houses

13 hours ago, Maureen said:

I've read quotes from 19th century LDS leaders who seemed to believed this but I was of the understanding that most LDS of the 21st century do not believe this and see Mary's pregnancy as miraculous.

All speculation, in an attempt to explain the miraculous.  Yes I would hope that current day LDS view it for the miracle that it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2016 at 7:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

(Sorry in advance - I realise that this is a sensitive topic)

 

LDS teaching states that Jesus was born the natural way (ie God became man and He and Mary did the usual practice involved in child-bearing). How is this possible? Is God the same person as Joseph because, if not, then either Mary committed adultery or God impregnated her against her will - which, let's face it, is a pretty shocking thought. I asked the missionaries via txt a while ago and they said that they do believe in the virgin birth, but statements released by prophets say otherwise.

Please read 1 Nephi 11. All Iearned about this subject was from that chapter alone. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2016 at 7:58 AM, LeSellers said:

God did not commit adultery with Mary. If she had been married, it would have been adultery.

This is simply incorrect. God cannot sin. When God ends someone's life, do we say that God is guilty of murder? God's ways are not our ways, and our understanding of divine law is miniscule. The very idea that God would "commit adultery" if Mary were married to Joseph (or anyone else) is absurd. God can do whatever he sees fit to do, and we have no judgment to make on the matter -- at all -- except to say, "Thy will be done."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vort said:
On 6/21/2016 at 8:58 AM, LeSellers said:

God did not commit adultery with Mary. If she had been married, it would have been adultery.

This is simply incorrect. God cannot sin.

If He cannot sin, it is obvious that He did not sin.

One of the reasons He cannot sin is that He has made an irrevocable choice not to break the laws of Celestial existence.

I believe that "thou shalt not commit adultery" is an eternal law, one He has chosen not to break, and that includes fathering His child with Mary.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thou shalt not murder" is also an eternal law. I gather you don't believe God is a murderer for allowing, or even causing, innocent children to die.

The question is not whether "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is an eternal law. We all agree that it is. The question is how that law applies to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Vort said:

I gather you don't believe God is a murderer for allowing, or even causing, innocent children to die.

It is not murder to execute people under the law.

Those God "murdered" were breaking covenants, and breaking the covenant was a capital offense. Ergo, not murder.

Allowing a child to die is not murder, either.

God keeps His commandments faithfully, and completely.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

God keeps His commandments faithfully, and completely.

I'm not sure God (Elohim) has commandments He gives Himself. I'm not sure the commandments He gives to us are universally applicable to Him either. Whereas I do agree that He is no hypocrite and would not flaunt things, there is still a point to be made as per Vort's comments I think. I think the idea that God came down and physically bedded Mary is ridiculous. But there are those who also think the idea that God would ruthlessly kill man woman and child might seem ridiculous to some. In point of fact, many deny Christianity and the like just because it accepts such ideas. But the point remains that God's way are not ours, which is contradictory to the idea that any commandment that He gives us must also apply to Him. Generally I think it safe to presume that, but universally...maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

I talked about the Savior's birth and family just last Sunday as part of our father's day talk - making the point that no one needs to feel bad if their family is not a perfect Mormon family, because even the Savior's family did not really look perfect from the outside - that he was raised by a step father etc. etc. 

Another birth that is interesting to contemplate is that of Adam - Luke gives the Savior's genealogy, and ends it with "the son of Adam, the son of God"... so, was Adam the son of God?  is God our great grandfather as well as heavenly Father?  that's what I want to know!

Adam was not a son of God "begotten in the flesh" in the way that Jesus was. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. Hence He is called the Only Begotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

Luke 3:38 [Cainan] was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

But that's not what Luke actually wrote. Here are his words:

Quote

Luke 3:38  [Καϊνάν] τοῦ ᾿Ενώς, τοῦ Σήθ, τοῦ ᾿Αδάμ, τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Literally, [Cainan] of (the) Enos, of (the) Zeth, of (the) Adam, of (the) God. The word "son" is not there. It's interpolated by the translators. It was 'way back in verse 21 when see saw the word υἱός huios (son). There, the word is used to show that Jesus was not Joseph's son, people only thought He was.

We should be careful in using the specific words of the English Bible to make a point. No biblical writer used English.

To avoid (probably uselessly) a charge of heresy, I do believe that Adam was a son of God, that he, Adam, was not the same kind of son that Jesus is/was. But it's not helpful to use bad arguments when making the case.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

To avoid (probably uselessly) a charge of heresy, I do believe that Adam was a son of God, that he, Adam, was not the same kind of son that Jesus is/was. But it's not helpful to use bad arguments when making the case.

I knew this would happen:

20 minutes ago, changed said:

It is a genealogy, and God is listed in the family tree in the same way that everyone else was listed in the family tree.  If you don't think that God created Adam or that Adam was God's child, then who do you think Adam's father was? 

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, changed said:

Adam was not created in the same way that the Savior was, but Adam was most definitely an earthly son of God.

Luke 3:

 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Your scripture doesn't prove the point to me. We're all sons and daughters of God. Only one was born in the flesh. Adam was not born of God. He was created by Him from the dust of the earth. Terming him the "son of God" to me is no different than terming you or me sons of God. Clearly Adam is different...the only non-begotten human (well...one of two), but not and earthly son of God without some word wrangling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

 Adam gave up eternal life for us - he was immortal like his Father, he was immortal like his brother Jesus - they were both immortal beings who gave up their life for us - and they were both children of God.

Hold on a minute there... WE ARE ALL IMMORTAL BEINGS in the same manner as Adam, in the same manner as Jesus, in the same manner as God.  Yes we are.  Just because we decided to get strapped with this training wheel of a mortal body doesn't make us not-immortal... only our training wheels are not immortal.

The difference between Adam and Jesus is that Jesus is already God.  He didn't need to have to get strapped with training wheels to learn how to be a God.  Adam is not a God.  He needed training wheels to learn how to become God.  We are just like Adam - we also need training wheels to learn how to become Gods.  Adam is simply the very first one of us who strapped on the training wheels.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, changed said:

 

We are not immortal beings in the same way as Adam and Jesus were

Adam and Jesus were not the same in that regard.

And even then, Adam was only differently immortal prior to his mortality...upon which he was the same kind of immortal being as us, indeed.

14 minutes ago, changed said:

Our lives depend on Adam and Jesus - their lives do not depend on us. 

This is a meaningless point. But anyhow Jesus's did depend on Mary's. Still...meaningless as to what defines one as "begotten" of God in the flesh.

16 minutes ago, changed said:

Adam was not deceived in eden 

Partially I think. Adam was certainly as a child in many ways and certainly did not have complete knowledge. He only knew what God had told him... But that isn't relevant to the point either.

17 minutes ago, changed said:

Adam and Jesus are both Fathers to us... 

Though in very different ways...and also not to the point.

There's no denying the Adam (prior to becoming mortal) was different. That doesn't mean that he was the "same" as Jesus, in the same class of mortal being, the same physical "begotten"-ness as Jesus...and in point of fact the scriptures are very, very, very clear on the point that Jesus is the only begotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

“Adam fell that men might be.... (2 Nephi 2:25)

 

Elder James E. Talmage …. Adam’s part in the great event was essentially different from that of his wife; he was not deceived; on the contrary he deliberately decided to do as Eve desired, that he might carry out the purposes of his Maker with respect to the race of men, whose first patriarch he was ordained to be.” (Articles of Faith, pp. 69–70.)

 

Anyone who wants to read more about it can go look through the writings of Brigham Young...

Brigham-Young-2.jpg

Either you are not reading carefully or you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

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