The Immaculate Conception

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Mary was indeed married to Joseph.

Not quite. If they had been married, why did God tell Joseph:

Quote

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:  25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

We should remember that "wife" here does not mean "married woman", but merely "woman". Their "marriage" did not take place until they "came together".

(Actually, "Wife" and "woman" are/were synonyms as no marriageable woman would not have been married. This is quite common in many languages, French femme, is "wife" but "woman" in most cases and by derivation.)

Elder Talmadge, et al., wrote significantly on this. "Espousal" was not marriage, but a betrothal, albeit of a very much more contractual nature than we think of in the XXI.

Lehi

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by LeSellers

[zil]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

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

We both appear to be right, but you much more so.

In 3-3 "Mary Was Espoused to Joseph" (you'll have to scroll to 3-3) of the institute manual called The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles (hard to find if you don't know it's there), it explicitly says they were not married, and it and the ref I'm about to cite both say they weren't living together as husband and wife (physically, I mean).  However, both references also say that for the purposes of the law, it was practically the same.

They appear to have updated the information since the above manual was used, and the current manual, New Testament Student Manual, in chapter 2, the part for Matthew 1:18, explains that she was legally his, just not physically (yet).

Thanks for the double-check.  I had only seen and remembered the older manual, which clearly needed a bit of updating to make the cultural differences more clearly understood.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Not quite. If they had been married, why did God tell Joseph:

Here is another wording of what you quoted:

"Fear not to take unto thee thy wife Mary."

"Take unto thee" means, in essence, "move in together". They were already married; they just hadn't set up household yet.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

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

 

Quote

Scriptures declare that His mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph. They had participated in the first of two components of a Jewish marriage ceremony. Their espousal might be likened to an engagement in our culture, which is followed later by the second component of a marriage ceremony.

--Russel M. Nelson, Christ the Savior is Born. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson_christ-savior-born/

 

Quote

What does it mean that Joseph and Mary were espoused?

“Espousal among the Hebrews was significantly more binding than are our engagements today. It was entered into by written agreement and was considered the formal beginning of the marriage itself. While the couple might not actually live together for as much as a year after the betrothal—a time designed to allow the bride to prepare her dowry—the espousal was as legally binding as the formal marriage” (Gerald N. Lund, inCelebration of Christmas: A Collection of Stories, Poems, Essays, and Traditions by Favorite LDS Authors [1988], 31).

@Vort,

I believe you're having trouble with the word in modern English.  We have Webster's 1828 dictionary entry for "espoused".

Quote

ESPOUS'ED, participle passive Betrothed; affianced; promised in marriage by contract;

Also, MANY alternate translations render either a betrothal or something similar.

Quote

New International Version
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

New Living Translation
to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David.

English Standard Version
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.

Berean Study Bible
to a virgin pledged in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

Berean Literal Bible
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the name of the virgin was Mary.

New American Standard Bible 
to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 

International Standard Version
to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 

NET Bible
to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
To a virgin who was engaged to a man from the house of David, whose name was Yoseph, and the name of the virgin was Maryam.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The angel went to a virgin promised in marriage to a descendant of David named Joseph. The virgin's name was Mary.

New American Standard 1977 
to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

American Standard Version
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Darby Bible Translation
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name [was] Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

English Revised Version
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Weymouth New Testament
to a maiden betrothed to a man of the name of Joseph, a descendant of David. The maiden's name was Mary.

World English Bible
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

Young's Literal Translation
to a virgin, betrothed to a man, whose name is Joseph, of the house of David, and the name of the virgin is Mary.

Finally, logic must win out in the end.  How much time would have passed for Joseph and Mary to have actually been married and not have had a wedding night? See Matt 1:19-20.  Just how long would it take for someone to notice she was with child?

What was Mary's query about when she asked,"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"  Obviously, if she was already married, even if by some convolution, she were still a virgin a month after marriage, she would easily have understood that she was to have a child by Joseph.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Here is another wording of what you quoted:

"Fear not to take unto thee thy wife Mary."

"Take unto thee" means, in essence, "move in together". They were already married; they just hadn't set up household yet.

The Greek word is μνηστεύω mnēsteuō 1) to woo her and ask her in marriage 2) to be promised in marriage, be betrothed

They were not married. They were engaged.

Remember, as I have aleady pointed out, that "wife" is the translation of γυνή gunē 1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow 2) a wife 2a) of a betrothed woman

The verses using "wife" here are not unambiguous: they could have as easily meant the betrothed Mary, not the married Mary.

Further, as I also mentioned, Talmadge and many others have told us that they were not married, but betrothed. I hope you'll excuse my bias, but I'll take the word of an Apostle over yours. Jesus the Christ, pp 206~7:

Quote

MARY AND JOSEPH.
[Mary's visit to Elizabeth] lasted about three months, after which time Mary returned to Nazareth. The real embarrassment of her position she had now to meet. At the home of her cousin she had been understood; her condition had served to confirm the testimony of Zacharias and Elisabeth; but how would her word be received at her own home? And especially, how would she be regarded by her espoused husband? Betrothal, or espousal, in that time was in some respects as binding as the marriage vow, and could only be set aside by a ceremonial separation akin to divorce; yet an espousal was but an engagement to marry, not a marriage.

Here's Matthew Henry:

Quote

Mary's espousal to Joseph. Mary, the mother of our Lord, was espoused to Joseph, not completely married, but contracted; a purpose of marriage solemnly declared in words de futuro - that regarding the future, and a promise of it made if God permit. We read of a man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her, Deu_20:7. Christ was born of a virgin, but a betrothed virgin, 1. To put respect upon the marriage state, and to recommend it as honourable among all, against that doctrine of devils which forbids to marry, and places perfection in the single state. Who more highly favoured than Mary was in her espousals?

So, while it would have been looked as adultery if Mary had had intercourse with another man (even the Man of Holiness), this was in the eyes of the apostate Jews, not in the eyes of God. Jospeh Smith tells us that whatever God wants is right. It cannot be sin, no matter what you or I could think.

Joseph and Mary were not married.

Lehi

Edited June 17, 2016 by LeSellers

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Joseph and Mary were not married.

Incorrect. Look at the Lund quote your son-in-law gave above. It was indeed and in effect a legal marriage.

You are welcome to accept the word of an apostle over my word at any time. I do not pretend to be an expert, nor do I pretend to a greater knowledge of either scripture or God than I attribute to Elder Talmage. But Jesus the Christ was not and is not scriptural canon. My understanding of ancient Hebrew religious ceremony, including marriage, is based on my own study of that. If Elder Talmage's understanding differed from mine, so be it. If you want to take that as proof that I am wrong, that's okay, too.

But it doesn't mean that Mary was an unwed mother. She was not. She was espoused to Joseph. Twist that however you will.

[Vort]

To those who insist that Mary was an unwed mother, or at least unwed at her pregnancy, how do you explain Matthew 1:19, which explicitly identifies Joseph as Mary's husband and mentions Joseph's contemplation to divorce her privately ("put her away privily")?

[LeSellers]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

But it doesn't mean that Mary was an unwed mother. She was not. She was espoused to Joseph. Twist that however you will.

Who here is claiming Mary was an unwed mother? Joseph was Jesus' legal father, irrespective of Who His BioFather was, or how, exactly she became pregnant. As the angel (Gabriel) commanded Joseph, he took his betrothed and they married, even though he knew her not until (which contradicts the Catholic dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary) after Jesus' birth.

As I recall, Elder Talmadge wrote Jesus the Christ at the request of the First Presidency, and he wrote it in the Temple. Canonized, no; trustworthy, yes.
 

Quote

Talmage first presented his study on the Savior as a series of lectures delivered under the auspices of the Deseret Sunday School Union Board at the LDS University in Salt Lake City from September 1904 to April 1906. He was subsequently asked by the church's First Presidency to publish the lectures in book form.

On December 8, 1911, Talmage was ordained a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church. Less than three years later he was able to continue his work on the manuscript, writing in longhand, in a council room on the fourth floor of the Salt Lake Temple (known today as the Talmage Room). As chapters were completed, he presented them to the First Presidency, members of the Twelve, and Sunday School board members.

In his journal, under date of April 19, 1915, Talmage wrote: "Finished the actual writing on the book Jesus the Christ, to which I have devoted every spare hour since settling down to the work of composition on September 14th last. Had it not been that I was privileged to do this work in the Temple it would be at present far from completion. I have felt the inspiration of the place and have appreciated the privacy and quietness incident thereto. I hope to proceed with the work of revision without delay."

Published a century ago and translated into many languages, Jesus the Christ has become a classic volume in Mormon literature. It remains part of the "approved missionary library"; that is, it is one of the few non-scriptural works that Mormon missionaries are encouraged to read.

Lehi

Edited June 17, 2016 by LeSellers

[bytebear]

Yeah, I'm going with the Apostle.

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

To those who insist that Mary was an unwed mother, or at least unwed at her pregnancy, how do you explain Matthew 1:19, which explicitly identifies Joseph as Mary's husband and mentions Joseph's contemplation to divorce her privately ("put her away privily")?

Again, who here is insisting that Mary was an unwed mother?

The fact that a Jewish betrothal was more binding on the fiancés than our modern versions, and that it took a specific action to invalidate that betrothal, does not mean that she and Joseph were married.

It seems you're needlessly splitting hairs. No one said that she was an unwed mother (she and Joseph completed their marriage ceremony before His birth). "Divorce", as we understand it was not exactly what Joseph contemplated doing. Their betrothal was not a marriage, but their marriage was.

And, finally, the concept involved in the actual, literal, physical Fatherhood of God the Father in regards to Jesus is critical to LDS (and, indeed, most Christian theology, even though they often deny the reality of that Fatherhood.) Without the human ability to die (mortality) Jesus could not have made His sacrifice. Without the immortality granted by His Father's DNA, His death would not have been a sacrifice.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

Look at the Lund quote your son-in-law gave above.

Quote

What does it mean that Joseph and Mary were espoused?

“Espousal among the Hebrews was significantly more binding than are our engagements today. It was entered into by written agreement and was considered the formal beginning of the marriage itself. While the couple might not actually live together for as much as a year after the betrothal—a time designed to allow the bride to prepare her dowry—the espousal was as legally binding as the formal marriage” (Gerald N. Lund, in Celebration of Christmas: A Collection of Stories, Poems, Essays, and Traditions by Favorite LDS Authors [1988], 31).

Do you imagine that I "liked" his post without reading it? I had already perused it.

Notice the espousal was not the marriage, but the beginning of the marriage. No one has said that either of them (and especially Mary), under Jewish law could have ended the betrothal without formal, legal ritual. But they were not married.

Even though the (assumed) current Institute manual says that the betrothal was the more important part of the marriage, it was still not complete without the wedding ceremony itself. They were not married. And, while Elder Lund was a Seventy, Elder Talmadge was an Apostle.

Lehi

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Again, who here is insisting that Mary was an unwed mother?

The fact that a Jewish betrothal was more binding on the fiancés than our modern versions, and that it took a specific action to invalidate that betrothal, does not mean that she and Joseph were married.

It seems you're needlessly splitting hairs. No one said that she was an unwed mother (she and Joseph completed their marriage ceremony before His birth). "Divorce", as we understand it was not exactly what Joseph contemplated doing. Their betrothal was not a marriage, but their marriage was.

And, finally, the concept involved in the actual, literal, physical Fatherhood of God the Father in regards to Jesus is critical to LDS (and, indeed, most Christian theology, even though they often deny the reality of that Fatherhood.) Without the human ability to die (mortality) Jesus could not have made His sacrifice. Without the immortality granted by His Father's DNA, His death would not have been a sacrifice.

Lehi

Joseph was Mary's husband when he discovered she was pregnant. That is why he was considering divorcing her. Wriggle out of that one.

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Even though the (assumed) current Institute manual says that the betrothal was the more important part of the marriage, it was still not complete without the wedding ceremony itself. They were not married. And, while Elder Lund was a Seventy, Elder Talmadge was an Apostle.

Stripe-counting does not establish truth. Truth establishes truth.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Stripe-counting 

 Dare I ask what that means? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

"put her away privily"

I know I'm going to regret getting into this...

Do we know for certain that "put away" means divorce? It used to be the custom to "hide" a girl/woman who was having a baby before marriage. I'm sure that trying to explain these remarkable circumstances was daunting at best... so perhaps it was that Joseph was making plans to "put her away"- hide her- as she was engaged but not yet married, and he wanted to save her from public scrutiny. He loved her. Heavenly Father did make sure he knew what was going on, but it wouldn't surprise me that the kind of man I suppose he was would want to "put away" his sweetheart to protect her. 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Eowyn

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I know I'm going to regret getting into this...

Do we know for certain that "put away" means divorce? It used to be the custom to "hide" a girl/woman who was having a baby before marriage. I'm sure that trying to explain these remarkable circumstances was daunting at best... so perhaps it was that Joseph was making plans to "put her away"- hide her- as she was engaged but not yet married, and he wanted to save her from public scrutiny. He loved her. Heavenly Father did make sure he knew what was going on, but it wouldn't surprise me that the kind of man I suppose he was would want to "put away" his sweetheart to protect her. 

The verse in question is Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

It seems Joseph felt he had two choices...  One Public and One Private....  If "put away" is not way of saying divorce or otherwise break off the relationship...  Then yes that could work.    However it is then Joseph was choosing the private way of getting it done.  Until the angel intervened. 

 

 

[LeSellers]

15 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 Dare I ask what ["stripe counting"] means? 

I assume he's referring to rank, as a sergeant has three stripes and a master sergeant six.

It's about the difference between an Apostle and a Seventy. He's saying that just because an Apostle says X and a Seventy says Y, that it is not automatically going to be X that is true. He's calling my A vs. 70 argument either a fallacy of Special Pleading, one of argumentum ad hominem, or perhaps, of an appeal to authority.

Lehi

Edited June 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

To those who insist that Mary was an unwed mother, or at least unwed at her pregnancy, how do you explain Matthew 1:19, which explicitly identifies Joseph as Mary's husband and mentions Joseph's contemplation to divorce her privately ("put her away privily")?

Good point.  Again 1828 dictionary:

Quote

A man contracted or joined to a woman by marriage. A man to whom a woman is betrothed, as well as one actually united by marriage, is called a husband .

 

[LeSellers]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1828 dictionary:

Quote

A man contracted or joined to a woman by marriage. A man to whom a woman is betrothed, as well as one actually united by marriage, is called a husband .

And we have Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary:

Quote

husband in the Bible
i.e., the "house-band," connecting and keeping together the whole family. A man when betrothed was esteemed from that time a husband (Matt. 1:16, 20; Luke 2:5). A recently married man was exempt from going to war for "one year" (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

Lehi

Edited June 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Joseph was Mary's husband when he discovered she was pregnant. That is why he was considering divorcing her. Wriggle out of that one.

The word in v 19 is not "husband,", but "man": the Greek ἀνήρ anēr: 1) with reference to sex 1a) of a male 1b) of a husband 1c) of a betrothed or future husband  2) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy 3) any male 4) used generically of a group of both men and women

It seems we are at an impasse. You aren't going to be convinced by any argument, and I've made my own mind up on this hypothetical, i.e., If Mary and God the Father had sexual union to conceive their Son, Jesus, then it was not adultery because Mary was not married (keeping in mind that the Hebrew concept of adultery is not the one we use today: נאף nâ'aph meant "woman who breaks wedlock"). The only case where this is even an issue is the little-supported theory that the conception of Jesus was their physical union. At the the very least, this is not Church doctrine, and no one here has positively affirmed that he believes it to be the case.

All the best,
Lehi

 

[Maureen]

On 6/17/2016 at 0:36 PM, Vort said:

...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....

I'm pretty sure that Catholics would not agree with this. Christ is without sin, meaning he too was born without "original sin". My understanding of why Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception is because "original sin" is something you inherit. If Mary is without "original sin" then she is the perfect vessel to bring the sinless Christ into the world. Christ did not need to be baptized to show a repentance of sin, since he was without sin. One thing his baptism did do was bring together all three persons of the Trinity/Godhead.

M.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

All I know is, the Greek words Matthew uses for "espoused" and "wife" before Joseph "took" Mary, are the exact same words Luke uses to describe the pair on their journey to Bethlehem (which presumably happened after they were fully married).

We may well be straining at gnats here; but my understanding is that in a typical Jewish "betrothal" of the period sex between the couple, while not routine, would not have been considered fornication; and unfaithfulness by either partner during this state could have been grounds for the full punishment typically meted out to adulterers.

Why were we talking about this again?

[Maureen]

BETROTHAL ( in Talmudic Hebrew):

 By: Marcus Jastrow, Bernard Drachman

Table of Contents

• In the Bible.
• Betrothal and Home-Taking.
• Gifts.
• The Legal Ceremony.

The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law.

In the Bible.

Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.

The root  ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract  ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal

 

M.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Maureen

[Guest MormonGator]

On June 19, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Maureen said:

I'm pretty sure that Catholics would not agree with this. Christ is without sin, meaning he too was born without "original sin". My understanding of why Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception is because "original sin" is something you inherit. If Mary is without "original sin" then she is the perfect vessel to bring the sinless Christ into the world. Christ did not need to be baptized to show a repentance of sin, since he was without sin. One thing his baptism did do was bring together all three persons of the Trinity/Godhead.

M.

 

Exactly. Catholic dogma is very confusing to those who aren't Catholic. Heck, even those of raised Catholic don't get it. You explained it really well, for sure.  

[Guest]

On 6/20/2016 at 9:50 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Why were we talking about this again?

Because Vort insisted on calling Joseph and Mary "married" and others objected to it.  I believe all involved in the discussion understand that the traditions and laws of the Jews at the time vs. today just don't compare very well.  We are all aware that their status was something more than an engagement of today but less than a marriage of today.  Since there is no proper word for it in modern English, the appropriate word in Jacobian English truly is "espoused".  But one could properly use the word "engaged" or "married" to describe their status and neither would truly be accurate per today's vernacular.  But the tradition has been to call them "slightly more than engaged" rather than calling them actually "married".  Most of us went with that based on the single issue of intimacy.  But Vort insisted on using the word "married" because in all other ways it was a marriage like that of today.

Bottom line, we were having another semantic argument.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Guest