S
SirThomasMore
Guest
I agree
- Status
T
TikiTokiguy
Guest
In the LDS study guides I have read they do stress that Heavenly Father’s spirit came down and put Jesus into Mary. That seems to be an important point with them. Is there any other evidence that is more clear and stated plainly they believe Heavenly Father had sex with Mary?
C
Caprica
Guest
No, Latter-day Saints do not consider 2 Maccabees to be scripture.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
There is no idea in mormonism that Jesus was “put into Mary”. Their belief is that Jesus is a demi-god. Half god and half human, having been conceived by their god the father. Brigham Young and other LDS leaders taught a very literal version of this, that is, that their god the father had a one-time sexual relationship with Mary. Today, LDS have backed off on this and generally say they don’t know how Jesus was conceived, but they still hold to the belief that He is the offspring of a union of a god and Mary.
In a modern DNA sense, they believe that Jesus had the DNA of a god and a DNA of a human. They believe Jesus’s divine properties/abilities that are seen in during His ministry were something He inherited, like a person inherits brown eyes or black hair.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Since there has been a departure from the topic due to a misunderstanding of the LDS view of Christ as truly the Son of God (conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost) as He said and as certainly Mary and Joseph would have testified, then if anyone cares to share it, I would like to understand what the Catholic view is of whether Mary was “pregnant” before the birth of Jesus, and if Jesus is considered to be the Son of God the Father in reality, or the Son of the Holy Ghost, or ? (I am only interested in understanding the belief, not in challenging the particulars of it. I had thought I had understood that Catholics believed Jesus was truly the Son of God the Father, though of one divine essence with the Father yet a Separate Person. I have probably misunderstood at some point–the reason for this post–to ask for clarification. But it is off topic so I am not looking for a long discussion, just a simple explanation.) Thanks.
T
TikiTokiguy
Guest
- Elder James E. Talmage has written: “That Child born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the ‘Son of the Highest’” (Talmage, 81)*.
So what does “not in violation of natural law” mean in that statement? Also celestial Sireship? Is that all pointing that Heavenly Father did have sex with Mary?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
I’m aware of that and the ironic thing is that the KJV I use was distributed by the LDS. It’s just too bad that you can’t legally use the JST to see what, if anything, Smith had to say about it.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
YES! Like following a false prophet like Joseph who makes up his own version of God and Christ! You are exactly right!
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
P
ParkerD
Guest
TikiTokiguy,
“Not in violation of natural law” would mean Heavenly Father knew of a way to provide the Paternity of Jesus while all the while Mary was a virgin and remained so. This is not hard for us mortals to understand at this point in the health knowledge of the human medical world. Such a thing is possible, while not violating “natural law”.
That Heavenly Father could do so through the power of the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary as described in the Bible, makes logical sense to me and those I have heard discuss this subject (though not often discussed, as it’s a “given” that Jesus was the literal Son of God the Father and the literal Son of Mary and all the while Mary was a virgin.)
Yet of course Jesus being the literal Son of Heavenly Father means that the physical nature of His Godhood was retained and so when I read a description “fully God” I can understand that and agree with that. He was fully God, and yet had the physicality that meant He would undergo the physical suffering of the mortal world and the physical suffering of the atonement, while being “fully God”.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Yes, this is a bit off topic but that one was closed so here are the facts: the church once taught that Jesus was the literal product of physical sexual contact between God and Mary.
“God the Father is aperfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says (1 Ne.11).” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, Bruce McConkie)
Before someone says that was simply his opinion, we will find that it is a mere reflection of the church’s teachings at that time.
“you all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mother–you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father…We must come doen to simple fact thatGod Almighty was the Father of His son Jesus Christ…Now, my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Box Elder Stake Conference, Dec 20, 1914, speaking to young children, Family Home Evening, Personal Commitment, 1972, p 125)
So as of at least 1979, the church’s position was that God was the literal, physical father of Jesus Christ. Since we know that Jesus’ mother was Mary, and that she was married at that time, we have not only God committing adultery, but having sex with his own daughter.
I’m sorry, Parker, but the misunderstanding is yours.
This, of course, then bleeds into polygamy, and early church documents clearly show that it held Jesus (and the apostles, too) to have had many wives and that polygamy was the reason for his crucifixion.
P
ParkerD
Guest
I was wanting to understand the Catholic view, not the misunderstood version of the LDS view that you think you understood but that I differ with. I think the medical world has advanced since 1979 or the earlier quotes, and that a scenario with Jesus being the literal Son of God the Father yet Mary remaining a virgin all the while, is the scenario described in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
By the way, Joseph only married Mary after He had been told to do so by the angel who visited him. Mary had already conceived by that point in time.
Just because earlier leaders didn’t know how the Paternity of Jesus could be accomplished without a physical relationship, only means they didn’t have the understanding about that aspect of His being literally begotten of God the Father.
Peace to all.
T
TikiTokiguy
Guest
That’s one of the problems - so many things in the LDS church bleed into polygamy. If they still truly believe Heavenly Father had sex with Mary, that’s disgusting and not Christian at all in my book.
T
TikiTokiguy
Guest
That whole paragraph is disgusting. Smith is saying children are begotten like Jesus? Then that means he believes Jesus was begotten like children. So he’s admitting Heavenly Father had sex with Mary.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Add to that, remember that while polygamy has been removed “from the Earth”, it is still the norm in the highest degree of the Mormon Celestial kingdom. So the Mormon version of God, that they call Heavenly Father, has many wives. Afterall, He sets the standard. While Mormons will sometimes mention the existence of “Heavenly Mother”, it is more accurate to say “Heavenly MotherS” as there are no doubt many of them, according to the Mormon plan. And Heavenly Father and these Heavenly Mothers are the parents of all of our spirits, including Jesus and including the person we now know as Satan (originally known as Lucifer), both of whom are our “elder brothers” according to Mormonism. (side note ~ that question posed to Mitt Romney may have been a “cheap shot” but it was, in fact, 100% accurate.)
After the “War in Heaven” where Jesus put forth His plan and Lucifer (Satan) put forth his, Lucifer lost and, in rebellion, took 1/3 of the souls in heaven with him. They are now known as the Devil and his demons. But originally both Jesus and Lucifer were spirit children of Heavenly Father and his group of Heavenly Mothers and we are likewise spirit children, just like Jesus and Lucifer, and Jesus and Lucifer are our “elder brothers”.
There are many things within this sort of theology to find fault with. What offends me most is the subordinate place of Jesus. And this also makes it way into daily practice. Mormons do not pray to Jesus, they may CLOSE their prayers “in Jesus’ name” but they do not pray to Him. Jesus is honored as an “elder brother” of those of us who live on Earth (so apparently He is the “God” of this world in some way, under the Mormon view of cosmology.) But Jesus is clearly subordinate to God/the Mormon “Heavenly Father”.
This is a departure from the earliest form of Mormonism, which took a more Trinitarian view, and perhaps, as Mormonism continues to evolve, it will change more. It will take a lot of evolving for Mormons to be considered “just another Christian sect”.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Yes, I made a mistake; Matt. 1:18 says that she was pregnant before she was married to Joseph.
The rest, however, you’ve simply sidestepped and thus violated D&C 21:4-6 and Gospel Principles: “The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” And yet, that’s exactly what happened. Not only that, but your position goes against the BOM itself, which tells us in Alma 41:8 and Mormon 9:9 that God’s edicts do not change. And yet, that’s exactly what happened there, too.
This is exactly the reason that Mormonism is an evolution and not a restoration.
T
TikiTokiguy
Guest
Has anybody ever done any stories on what goes on in the mind of LDS women who like the idea of their husbands having many wives in the next life? Is that Fawn Brodie book on Smith any good?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
You are 100% correct on every point of your post.
And we know that when D&C 132:4 says that celestial marriage is going to be a “new and everlasting covenant,” we now know that it actually means 47 years, a misnomer if there ever was one. I guess even ‘god’ didn’t know that the church was eventually going to roll over and play dead in the face of the government’s enforcement of the Edmunds-Tucker Act.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Yes, that’s about the size of it and that’s the end result of the Mormon god having a body of flesh and bones. This is downplayed today and I don’t know how many Mormons actually believe or understand where this doctrine leads, but the implications are foul, aren’t they?
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I can only tell you that if you pose the question among a group of Temple-recommend holding Mormon women in the current day, you will get a stunning silence as to how much they like the idea.
I don’t have a cite for that. I have personal experience.
But any rejection on the part of Mormon women doesn’t change the facts. Polygamy is the “norm” in the Celestial Kingdom.
Since I have a history with friends who are Mormons going back over 4 decades, I once asked the father of my dearest and longest Mormon friend what would happen to me in the afterlife, according to his belief, since I am now unmarried. He was a Mormon Bishop and a wonderful man and I loved him with all my heart, and I always will. He was a dear sweet man that I will never forget, he was like a 2nd father to me, although I have a perfectly good Father that is still living.
This dear sweet man said he would “take me as his own” in the circumstance I presented. While that is very sweet and kind, it still gave me a start. There is NO WAY I could be that person. I know he meant it as a kindness, but it’s something I could never accept. His wife is his wife. I could never add to that number. Apart from the theological impossibility of it (admittedly my opinion not his) I would think of it as an insult to a woman I dearly love, his wife.
This simply cannot be. I cannot be of God. It just can’t. Not even if it is meant in love. It is just WRONG.
In fact, if it is of God, then, I truthfully do not want to know that god.
- Status