Recommended Posts

(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 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.

You sure you're heard that from LDS prophets?  That's waaaaay out there.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The missionaries got this one right - about all we know (not guess, not opine about, not have evidence for, but Know with a capitol "K") about the process comes from scripture. 

Quote

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed artthou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throneof his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 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.

One thing that sets us apart from Catholics, is they believe Mary remained a virgin for all her life, and we don't see any reason to believe that. 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 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.

1) No we do not believe that the Father had sex with Mary.  As @NeuroTypical so eloquently said "that's anti-Mormon claptrap".

2) Yes, we do believe that the Father was the Son's biological Father.  Again-- no does that does not mean they had sex (see #1).  Even us tiny humans can have a baby conceived without sex being involved, let alone the infinitely powerful God.  No, we do not know the mechanism (we are not infinitely powerful/knowing God). 

3) Yes, Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's conception & birth.  

4) No, this did NOT happen against Mary's will---  come on, the Father is Perfectly good!

 

*********

Note: None of this is the Immaculate Conception.  The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic idea pertaining to the birth of Mary, not Christ.  

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok.  First of all, no we don't teach that God had sex with Mary.  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.

This is the correct answer ^^^^^

Any comment/quote about the actual conception of Jesus is at best personal "opinion" only, as the Church has not released an official statement on this matter. 

 

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason, as best I can tell, that leaders like Brother Brigham, said that Jesus was sired by God is to emphasize that He was, in actual fact, the Son of God, God the Father.

Many people believe that God the Father is not really a Father in any literal sense. We do. Not only is He our Father (the Father of spirits), but He is the literal, physical Father of Jesus Christ. The angel Gabriel told Mary what would happen to her, and that she would be the mother of the Savior. But the words recorded in the Bible are confusing:

Matthew's record says:

Quote

18 ¶Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Luke's Testament says:

Quote

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.

Somehow the reality of the parentage, or better, Parentage, of Christ got muddled. It was to clarify this to assure us that God the Father is, indeed, the Father of the Redeemer of the world, and that Jesus is not the Son of the Holy Ghost that we have the statements hinting of a literal, ordinary conception.

Your hypothesis, that Mary committed adultery, is not correct based on Jewish Law. First, "adultery" is the translation of the Hebrew נאף, nâ'aph, which means "woman breaking wedlock". So the unmarried could not commit "adultery". The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives us:

Quote

In Scripture [adultery] designates sexual intercourse of a man, whether married or unmarried, with a married woman.

So, Mary, being unmarried, was not an adulteress, nor would God have been an adulterer even if their union had literally been carnal.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

To be clear the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception is the notion that Mary was conceived and born without sin, making her worthy to carry the Son of God.  It is not about the virgin birth of Christ.    Carry on.

Indeed. It seemed tangential to bring it up, but it now seems more central.

Mary is, according to Catholic Dogma, "the Immaculate Conception". She was not guilty of the Transgression of Adam, or "original sin". How is unexplained, but we need not defend Catholic teachings.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case "espoused" is contributing to the doubt about adultery, "espoused" is similar to what we might think of as "engaged" (though more culturally binding, from my understanding, than we tend to think "engaged" is).  So when  it says Mary was espoused to Joseph, no, she was not already married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 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.

No it is not.  At least every quote from a leader that ive seen that states natural along with the term God, never said that god did it the natural way.

 

Let me guess and say youre thinking of mormon doctrine by McConkie? Id suggest taking a careful read of the paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides... Heavenly Father becoming Man... nowhere in any teaching in all of Christendom is it ever believed that Heavenly Father became Man.  Rather... Jesus, a person in the Godhead, became Man through his mortal birth through Mary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 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.

 Not against her will: Luke 1;38, "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

Also take note of the Book of Mormon; 1 Nephi 11: 14-21 (from Nephi’s vision), “And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou? And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. 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. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.”

I think the bolded text is key to understanding such mysteries and the condescension of God. Otherwise, how can the humble and pure in heart take any of this and make it appear tawdry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Besides... Heavenly Father becoming Man... nowhere in any teaching in all of Christendom is it ever believed that Heavenly Father became Man.  Rather... Jesus, a person in the Godhead, became Man through his mortal birth through Mary.

separate question from the OP, but based on what you have stated here: Is Heavenly Father a Man?  Does he have a body of Flesh and Bone?  How did he get that body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

separate question from the OP, but based on what you have stated here: Is Heavenly Father a Man?  Does he have a body of Flesh and Bone?  How did he get that body?

Are you asking the LDS or the rest of Christendom?  They have 2 drastically different answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 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.

True, the topic is sensitive, but not necessarily taboo; however, how you have addressed the question is reassuring. 

How is this possible?

Well TilKingdomCome, I didn't think I would have to teach you about the birds and the bees, but here goes...just kidding.

Is God the same person as Joseph?

No, they are different people. God is not Joseph and Joseph is not God the Father.

If not, then either Mary committed adultery or God impregnated her against her will - which, let's face it, is a pretty shocking thought.

Mary wasn't married to Joseph so in no way could she have committed adultery. Fornication would be the argument, which would then lead the logical assessment that she wasn't a virgin. This doesn't mean she was impregnated against here will, or as Jane Doe pointed out, "come on, the Father is Perfectly good!" 

Yes, the first time I heard this was on my mission and it was "pretty shocking," and still is a possible doctrine that is confusing, fuliginous, appearing far left field, and yet, if true, all things that are good come from God. So, if true, then there is knowledge that is currently beyond our understanding which we will then have full knowledge of when the times comes and our tiny little minds will be able to comprehend it, no matter how shocking it is now.

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.

Missionaries are correct. The last statement is also correct. This has been taught by previous prophets. This is also taught by Stake Presidents. This is taught by some institute teachers at BYU. This is also taught by some LDS bishops as true. The missionaries are correct though.

The institute teacher at BYU, in one of my classes shared this. I raised my hand and said, "This would deny 'virigin' birth." He then bore solemn witness/testimony it was true and this was doctrine. The same month, one of the members of my stake presidency stood up and shared what Truman G. Madsen had shared, "that God and Mary were intimate and that this is true and true doctrine." I asked my bishop and he didn't confirm either one way or the other, he merely said, "By what method Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost, remember that all things that are good come from God. We need not worry about these things and some things should remain unspoken until it is decreed through canonical scripture." Needless to say I like my bishop's response.

As others have shared, this is not canonical doctrine. If an individual member wants to pray, and they feel they have received revelation confirming its truth, then it is their personal belief. As pertaining to LDS doctrine, canonical, it is not at this moment, nor has any prophet specifically called it out as "false" (I could be wrong on that though, I just haven't read anything specifying it is false). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

nor has any prophet specifically called it out as "false" (I could be wrong on that though, I just haven't read anything specifying it is false). 

I can't remember where...think it was Hinkley though, who specifically called it "profane" in response to the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I can't remember where...think it was Hinkley though, who specifically called it "profane" in response to the question.

I would love to read it if you come across it. Then find that darn institute teacher and say, "Read this buddy." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of points to make here, most or all of which have probably already been made.

On 6/14/2016 at 3:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

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

The topic of "the immaculate conception" is not at all sensitive to Latter-day Saints. That is because the "immaculate conception" is a Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, it applies to Mary, not to Jesus. Catholic doctrine teaches that all children are conceived in sin, and therefore bear the taint of Adam's original sin. This sin will damn all men and women to an eternity in hell unless they are baptized. Even God himself had to get baptized to remove the taint of original sin. But Mary alone was born under a grace that meant she had no original sin. This is Mary's "immaculate conception" -- she was conceived spotless (immaculate) and thus had no need of baptism. (Remember, this is Catholic theology, not LDS.)

EDIT: Maureen points out that Catholic theology does not include the idea that Christ was born in sin and needed the cleansing of baptism. Rather, Mary was "immaculately conceived" exactly so that she would not pass on "original sin" to her divine Son. My bad. I am no Catholic theologian.

On 6/14/2016 at 3:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

LDS teaching states that Jesus was born the natural way

All Christian churches teach that Jesus was born "the natural way", that is, by a woman through normal childbirth.

On 6/14/2016 at 3:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

(ie God became man and He and Mary did the usual practice involved in child-bearing)

A couple of problems here:

  • God need not "become" a man. He is a Man. Mankind was created in his image.
  • There is no LDS doctrine that Jesus was conceived through a sexual act, Many LDS leaders have believed and even stated words to the effect that "there is only one way to make a man". This idea is normally applied to Adam, teaching that his creation was not from God molding mud like an adobe (to echo Brigham Young). Some have applied this idea to Jesus, as well. While I personally have no problem with the idea, it most certainly is not an LDS teaching.
On 6/14/2016 at 3:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

How is this possible?

Not sure what you're trying to ask. Do you mean how is it possible that the LDS Church teaches this? It doesn't. Do you mean how is it possible that God could have created his Son in the flesh in this way? Well, the answer to that seems self-evident. Do you mean something else? If so, please re-ask the question.

On 6/14/2016 at 3:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

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.

Lots of problems with this line of thought.

  • The Father is not Joseph.
  • The idea that Mary "committed adultery" is ludicrous on its face. God cannot sin, by definition, so any act of his cannot be sinful, nor can anyone be guilty of sin for obeying God. For example, when God causes people to die, he is not guilty of murder.
  • Furthermore, the idea of God impregnating Mary "against her will" is absurd for multiple reasons. In the first place, God can do whatever he sees fit. He's God. That goes with the territory. In the second place, Mary explicitly said to the angel, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Even in our weird, hyper-neurotic 21st-century society, that's called "consent".
On 6/14/2016 at 3:30 PM, TilKingdomCome said:

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.

I know of no statements that contradict what I have written above. Feel free to provide the citations, and then perhaps we can deal with them.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2016 at 4:23 PM, LeSellers said:

So, Mary, being unmarried, was not an adulteress

A correction: By my understanding, Mary was indeed married to Joseph. The verse you quoted plainly states that she was espoused to Joseph. "Espoused" means "made a spouse to". It does not mean some ancient form of being a fiancee, as some have suggested. They were married, but had not yet "come together" and set up a household (including sharing a bed). Had they engaged in sexual relations, they would not have been considered to have committed any sort of sin. So Mary was a married woman, not an "unwed mother", as many of the politically correct would have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2016 at 5:48 PM, zil said:

Just in case "espoused" is contributing to the doubt about adultery, "espoused" is similar to what we might think of as "engaged" (though more culturally binding, from my understanding, than we tend to think "engaged" is).  So when  it says Mary was espoused to Joseph, no, she was not already married.

Pretty sure this is incorrect. Mary was indeed married to Joseph at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now