Carborendum

Celebrity Doppelganger

Recommended Posts

Guest Scott
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I already did above.  Like I said - the DOWRY has nothing at all to do with a Marital Covenant.  Just because you haven't given the dowry yet doesn't mean you have not made the marital covenant when you signed the contract.

That doesn't answer the question.

Here is what Russell M Nelson said:

Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was expecting that holy child. Joseph desired to protect her privacy, hoping to spare Mary the punishment given to a woman pregnant without a completed marriage. 

If the conception happened after Joseph and Mary were married, why did Joseph try to protect her from the  punishment of being pregnant before a completed marriage?  

Share this post


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

That doesn't answer the question.

Here is what Russell M Nelson said:

Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was expecting that holy child. Joseph desired to protect her privacy, hoping to spare Mary the punishment given to a woman pregnant without a completed marriage. 

If the conception happened after Joseph and Mary were married, why did Joseph try to protect her from the  punishment of being pregnant before a completed marriage?  

Because in Jewish Cultural Tradition (not Godly Covenant) - cultural consequences are meted out for deviation from ceremonial tradition.  Just because it is improper for a Jew to pull an oxen from the ditch on the Sabbath doesn't make pulling oxen out of ditches on a Sabbath unrighteous.

It has been clear from all Biblical teachings before and after the restoration that the righteous Godly pattern is for children to be conceived under a Marital Covenant.  This has not changed and it never will.  To make the claim that the conception of Jesus deviated from this Godly pattern is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to say that Scott's description of Espouse is the one that is normally seen as correct.

Historically, it could be seen as the formal contract between two people that they will get married.  It is legally binding.  It is far stronger than an engagement, but a legal item.  To get out of that contract, one would have to legally break it.  It has ramifications of doing so.  Thus, Joseph, having already signed that contract (or his parents, though most feel Joseph was older and this would have been of his own volition) would need to break it in some manner if he wished to get out of it.

He could have broken it publically.  This would be harsh, as in such a situation it would be seen as akin to adultery on Mary's part (fornication literally, but as it was a contract, much more serious).  If he secretly did it, via trying to do things behind the scenes, her chances of avoiding punishment under Jewish law were better.  Putting her away publically would mean bad things (technically, she could be put to death, but those punishments were not as common in those days). 

This is NOT the marriage though.  They still were not married as of yet from how I understand it.  Marriage was the fulfillment of the contract.  I think they WERE married by the time the Lord was born.

In addition, they had not consummated the marriage.  This can be a tricky thing, as in some ancient cultures, even if you had been married by LAW, it was not considered official until it was consummated. 

The evidence is that Mary was married to Joseph when they went to be taxed.  It makes no sense for her to be travelling with him under his family heritage (each to their own place to be taxed) unless they were married, at least legally.  At the same time, it is possible that they had not consummated the marriage, thus the term of espoused could still work, and actually for Christians at the time who believed it to be a VIRGIN birth, actually a very important point.  To be a virgin birth, there could be no consummation done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Because in Jewish Cultural Tradition (not Godly Covenant) - cultural consequences are meted out for deviation from ceremonial tradition.  Just because it is improper for a Jew to pull an oxen from the ditch on the Sabbath doesn't make pulling oxen out of ditches on a Sabbath unrighteous.

It has been clear from all Biblical teachings before and after the restoration that the righteous Godly pattern is for children to be conceived under a Marital Covenant.  This has not changed and it never will.  To make the claim that the conception of Jesus deviated from this Godly pattern is absurd.

This gets into a VERY tricky area.

It's also VERY hard to explain.  There was a teaching that was around when I joined the church.  The origins are from a statement made by Brigham Young and later reiterated by Joseph F. Smith.  However, they did NOT actually say what the teaching or theory was, and thus is not really anything other than LDS rumor.  IT IS something that I discussed directly with Joseph McConkie (and we had our disagreements at the time, but the older I get, the more I tend to agree with his viewpoints), and we had some rather interesting discussions (argumentive discussions?) about it at times.

The idea is that Mary WAS married with the conception of the Lord, however that marriage is NOT to Joseph.  It was an eternal marriage to the Father of our Lord,  and that Joseph is merely a temporary husband for this mortality.  Joseph and Mary's marriage is for time, while the marriage to the Father of our Lord is the sealing or eternal marriage covenant Mary made and which the lord was conceived upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This gets into a VERY tricky area.

It's also VERY hard to explain.  There was a teaching that was around when I joined the church.  The origins are from a statement made by Brigham Young and later reiterated by Joseph F. Smith.  However, they did NOT actually say what the teaching or theory was, and thus is not really anything other than LDS rumor.  IT IS something that I discussed directly with Joseph McConkie (and we had our disagreements at the time, but the older I get, the more I tend to agree with his viewpoints), and we had some rather interesting discussions (argumentive discussions?) about it at times.

The idea is that Mary WAS married with the conception of the Lord, however that marriage is NOT to Joseph.  It was an eternal marriage to the Father of our Lord,  and that Joseph is merely a temporary husband for this mortality.  Joseph and Mary's marriage is for time, while the marriage to the Father of our Lord is the sealing or eternal marriage covenant Mary made and which the lord was conceived upon.

Mary being sealed to the Father has zero backing in scripture.  The God Jesus is eternally sealed to our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother by virtue of Him being the son of God The Father before his mortal life on earth.  His mortal birth under the marital covenant of Mary and Joseph does not change that fact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It has been clear from all Biblical teachings before and after the restoration that the righteous Godly pattern is for children to be conceived under a Marital Covenant.  This has not changed and it never will.  To make the claim that the conception of Jesus deviated from this Godly pattern is absurd.

It has also been clear from all Biblical teachings before and after the restoration that the righteous Godly pattern is for children to be conceived under a martial covenant only between a husband and wife.   Obviously the conception of Jesus deviated from this Godly pattern.   It was a completely seperate situation.

So far you are the only person I have ever heard say that the conception happened after the marriage.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scott said:

 Obviously the conception of Jesus deviated from this Godly pattern.

Not obvious to me. If conception is to be done only within marriage, I don't see why Jesus would be an exception. He submitted to baptism, after all.

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

So far you are the only person I have ever heard say that the conception happened after the marriage.

You've heard me say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Scott said:

It has also been clear from all Biblical teachings before and after the restoration that the righteous Godly pattern is for children to be conceived under a martial covenant only between a husband and wife.   Obviously the conception of Jesus deviated from this Godly pattern.   It was a completely seperate situation.  

I'm not sure why this concept is difficult to explain.  I thought it is very simple.   Jesus was conceived by the power of God UNDER A MARITAL COVENANT.  Jesus was not an exception to that covenant requirement.  Jesus being conceived ONLY through the blood of Mary and nobody else's does not render Mary and Joseph's Marital Covenant unnecessary to righteousness in the exact same manner that Jesus' sinless mortal existence does not render his Baptism unnecessary to righteousness.

 

Quote

So far you are the only person I have ever heard say that the conception happened after the marriage.  

 

The entire Catholic Church - Roman and Greek - teach it.  The annunciation of the angel Gabriel was not the same event as the conception.  They are two separate festivals in the Catholic Church.  Also, @Vort believes this to be an LDS teaching.  The people that contradict this teaching are the Protestant Apologists who use it as a rebuttal to the Catholic teaching of perpetual virginity.... and you.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 9:17 AM, MormonGator said:

People say I look like F Scott Fitzgerald but I don’t see it. 

578D5C90-F620-4121-B744-8CB153F05EC1.jpeg

is this you or Mr Fitzgerald? I haven't seen either so I'm not quite sure who this is. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

is this you or Mr Fitzgerald? I haven't seen either so I'm not quite sure who this is. :)

I actually don’t exist. I’m a Russian bot. 
 

VOTE TRUMP! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Trump who?

You keep talking like that and I might send you a cool kids club card. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You keep talking like that and I might send you a cool kids club card. 

 

. SIgns of progress at last! All my life I've been carefully following the how to be cool instruction books, both the kids and the adult editions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

. SIgns of progress at last! All my life I've been carefully following the how to be cool instruction books, both the kids and the adult editions.

Welcome. Just study hard. There is an IQ test, and we had to fail @mirkwood. I was surprised. After all, @Just_A_Guy passed. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Welcome. Just study hard. There is an IQ test, and we had to fail @mirkwood. I was surprised. After all, @Just_A_Guy passed. So...

I did that the same way I passed the bar exam.  Sadly, I can’t talk about e either test  until all of the other parties involved have been dead for at least ten years . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I did that the same way I passed the bar exam.  Sadly, I can’t talk about e either test  until all of the other parties involved have been dead for at least ten years . . .

That alone ups your coolness factor.

Share this post


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

Mary being sealed to the Father has zero backing in scripture.  The God Jesus is eternally sealed to our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother by virtue of Him being the son of God The Father before his mortal life on earth.  His mortal birth under the marital covenant of Mary and Joseph does not change that fact.

 

Didn't say I agreed with their theories completely (and actually, me and J. McConkie some disagreements on several items), only that it was a thing that was believed by several high ups in the church (and I actually didn't touch upon what I would say were the more scandalous parts of it, it was far more extensive than what I discussed, first time I heard it was from the missionaries and was something that almost lost me from conversion...except that there were other missionaries that said it was not actually doctrine or taught as such in the Church).

However, it segued in with what you were talking about regarding the Lord being born under a marriage covenant, which brought that idea to mind.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I did that the same way I passed the bar exam.  

Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman would like to talk to you. 

(just playing bud) 

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