LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[ParkerD]

Fruit of their loins vs fruit of the Holy Spirit…I just can’t help seeing Mormonism based on sexual relationship turned into some kind of religion, having its roots in polygamy…

I suppose it will trouble you to know that every child born into the world was born because of either a sexual relationship between a man and a woman (hopefully married), or the modern technology that has different means of reproduction, and will also trouble you to know that God placed Adam and Eve into this world and told them to reproduce, to have offspring, and also to be “help meets” for each other, and everything God did was “good” which includes allowing that they would reproduce through the way He created them to reproduce.

A sexual union between a man and woman within the bounds of marriage (covenant marriage preferred by God) is not a bad thing, and is not being disrespectful of God or of His plan of salvation. Religious people can do this, and are actually keeping a commandment when they have children and bring them up (nurture them) in righteousness within a loving, supportive home.

 

[KathleenGee]

There seems to be too much emphasis on sexual relations between man and woman, but the fruits of celibacy are invalidated by Mormonism, Parker.

There is great grace to give one’s self totally to the Lord, and to see fruit born in becoming a believer of Christ through the help of those totally consecrated to Christ for service to Him in the Church.

 

[ParkerD]

… the fruits of celibacy are invalidated by Mormonism, Parker.

There is great grace to give one’s self totally to the Lord, and to see fruit born in becoming a believer of Christ through the help of those totally consecrated to Christ for service to Him in the Church.

Hi, Kathleen,

I guess I agree that “the fruits of celibacy are invalidated by” the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it’s not due to an emphasis on sexual relations, at all. It is due to an emphasis on families, on children, on covenant marriage and covenant marriage relationships, and an emphasis on the Savior’s teachings about marriage as well as His teaching that those who didn’t feel they could live by the higher law of marriage He had then taught, could choose celibacy for themselves, but that means they will have the kingdom of Heaven as angels in their resurrection if they lived righteous lives and kept repenting from their sins during their life.

So it’s not a bad thing–it just means they choose for themselves, as you say, “service to Him” rather than choosing to obey the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth”–so indeed they will be able to do that forever, happily and joyfully, as an angel in Heaven.

 

[lax16]

Hi, Kathleen,

I guess I agree that “the fruits of celibacy are invalidated by” the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it’s not due to an emphasis on sexual relations, at all. It is due to an emphasis on families, on children, on covenant marriage and covenant marriage relationships, and an emphasis on the Savior’s teachings about marriage as well as His teaching that those who didn’t feel they could live by the higher law of marriage He had then taught, could choose celibacy for themselves, but that means they will have the kingdom of Heaven as angels in their resurrection if they lived righteous lives and kept repenting from their sins during their life.

So it’s not a bad thing–it just means they choose for themselves, as you say, “service to Him” rather than choosing to obey the commandment to “multiply and replenish the earth”–so indeed they will be able to do that forever, happily and joyfully, as an angel in Heaven.

Hi Parker - Didn’t you say earlier that you believe Jesus never married? He is the perfect role model for celibate priests.

So, do the LDS allow someone within their own faith to choose for themselves “service to Him” rather than marriage and children?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - Didn’t you say earlier that you believe Jesus never married? He is the perfect role model for celibate priests.

So, do the LDS allow someone within their own faith to choose for themselves “service to Him” rather than marriage and children?

Lax16,

Jesus was perfect. Marriage is for many good things, one of which is for the covenant marriage couple to be “help meets” for each other and to become one, which implies a process of “becoming” and of growing in their union. Thus, marriage is a perfect situation for growing through the many opportunities to learn how to be unselfish, both as a couple and as parents.

Nowhere did Jesus teach that He was a “role model” for celibate priests, although free will choice allows them to think they are following His “role model” while not following the commandment He reiterated about marriage and gave about a higher law of marriage. So, it’s fine that they choose that for themselves, and justify it by thinking He is their “role model,” but it is not a Biblically based belief.

There are many single Latter-day Saints who do seek out opportunities to serve others, and do so with a generous heart and spirit and with love for the Savior. They are certainly allowed to serve Him in many wonderful ways, including having nurturing roles in the case of single women, as aunts, or teachers (whether secular or within church callings), or assisting in privately run orphanages in third world countries, or as nurses in many places, etc.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

Jesus was perfect. Marriage is for many good things, one of which is for the covenant marriage couple to be “help meets” for each other and to become one, which implies a process of “becoming” and of growing in their union. Thus, marriage is a perfect situation for growing through the many opportunities to learn how to be unselfish, both as a couple and as parents.

Nowhere did Jesus teach that He was a “role model” for celibate priests, although free will choice allows them to think they are following His “role model” while not following the commandment He reiterated about marriage and gave about a higher law of marriage. So, it’s fine that they choose that for themselves, and justify it by thinking He is their “role model,” but it is not a Biblically based belief.

There are many single Latter-day Saints who do seek out opportunities to serve others, and do so with a generous heart and spirit and with love for the Savior. They are certainly allowed to serve Him in many wonderful ways, including having nurturing roles in the case of single women, as aunts, or teachers (whether secular or within church callings), or assisting in privately run orphanages in third world countries, or as nurses in many places, etc.

Parker - role models often model their roles, not teach about it.

from catholic.com

… Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.

So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom”:

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - role models often model their roles, not teach about it.

…
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom”:

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).

Lax16,

Three points go contrary to what you cited:

1. Jesus taught that a “house divided against itself shall not stand”. This is a simple teaching, but knowing this and seeing Jesus’ very strong and clear teaching that marriage as Adam and Eve had is not to be “put asunder” by men makes clear that those who can “receive” the higher law of covenant marriage with no divorce considered an “option” if the man has some kind of change of heart, should “receive” this higher law of covenant marriage. He said “all men cannot receive this saying”, meaning they aren’t ready for the higher law of covenant marriage, and if so then their self-appointed celibacy “for the sake of getting into Heaven” is said to be the next best option–meaning that the lower law of “divorce as an option” has really been replaced by this higher standard for covenant marriage with no divorce as an option.
2. Paul would of course know that he didn’t have the responsibility to countermand the major marriage covenant commandment of God which had been reiterated by Jesus. He emphasized covenant marriage in several places in his epistles. He was not “divided against himself” by teaching for covenant marriage in one place and against covenant marriage in another place. 1 Corinthians 7:8 is a mistranslation with the addition of the word “and”; meaning Paul was either a widower (most likely) or had been married and that his wife, being a Jew and (possibly) an unbeliever, had decided to leave him after his conversion (see verse 15).
3. 1 Corinthians 7:37, which the citation you presented seemingly ignored, says that a man who “keeps his virgin, doeth well”. Verse 36 gives reasons that if he marries “his virgin” “he sinneth not: let them marry.”

So the clear situation being described by Paul, is that if a man specifically has an “intended” (i.e. “his virgin”) and they are committed to “waiting” for each other, then it is a good thing if they do wait for an extended period of time in which both are devoting themselves to “the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord.” (v. 32) That is not saying they should never, ever marry–on the contrary, the words “his virgin” would make no sense other than that they do indeed intend to marry and still plan to do so in their future–after a period of serving the Lord.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

Three points go contrary to what you cited:

1. Jesus taught that a “house divided against itself shall not stand”. This is a simple teaching, but knowing this and seeing Jesus’ very strong and clear teaching that marriage as Adam and Eve had is not to be “put asunder” by men makes clear that those who can “receive” the higher law of covenant marriage with no divorce considered an “option” if the man has some kind of change of heart, should “receive” this higher law of covenant marriage. He said “all men cannot receive this saying”, meaning they aren’t ready for the higher law of covenant marriage, and if so then their self-appointed celibacy “for the sake of getting into Heaven” is said to be the next best option–meaning that the lower law of “divorce as an option” has really been replaced by this higher standard for covenant marriage with no divorce as an option.
2. Paul would of course know that he didn’t have the responsibility to countermand the major marriage covenant commandment of God which had been reiterated by Jesus. He emphasized covenant marriage in several places in his epistles. He was not “divided against himself” by teaching for covenant marriage in one place and against covenant marriage in another place. 1 Corinthians 7:8 is a mistranslation with the addition of the word “and”; meaning Paul was either a widower (most likely) or had been married and that his wife, being a Jew and (possibly) an unbeliever, had decided to leave him after his conversion (see verse 15).
3. 1 Corinthians 7:37, which the citation you presented seemingly ignored, says that a man who “keeps his virgin, doeth well”. Verse 36 gives reasons that if he marries “his virgin” “he sinneth not: let them marry.”

So the clear situation being described by Paul, is that if a man specifically has an “intended” (i.e. “his virgin”) and they are committed to “waiting” for each other, then it is a good thing if they do wait for an extended period of time in which both are devoting themselves to “the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord.” (v. 32) That is not saying they should never, ever marry–on the contrary, the words “his virgin” would make no sense other than that they do indeed intend to marry and still plan to do so in their future–after a period of serving the Lord.

Parker - the LDS belief that marriage is needed for eternal life comes from Joseph Smith, not Jesus.

from Proclamation to the Family:
The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1–4

from lds.org
Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation

1. Mormons divorce and re-marry going against Jesus’ command not to.
2. Jesus died for our sins offering us the promise of eternal life. Marriage is not necessary to achieve His Promise.
3. No where in the Bible did anyone get married/sealed in white garments in a temple ceremony. This is an LDS invention.
4. The Catholic Church has instituted the sacrament of marriage long before Joseph Smith came along.
5. The sacrament of marriage did not exist until Jesus Christ instituted it during His life on earth. (Matthew 19:4-6)
6. Celibacy is promoted as an option for those working towards the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:9-12)

Isaiah 56:1
To the euchuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenants, I will give in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - the LDS belief that marriage is needed for eternal life comes from Joseph Smith, not Jesus.

from Proclamation to the Family:
The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1–4

from lds.org
Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation

1. Mormons divorce and re-marry going against Jesus’ command not to.
2. Jesus died for our sins offering us the promise of eternal life. Marriage is not necessary to achieve His Promise.
3. No where in the Bible did anyone get married/sealed in white garments in a temple ceremony. This is an LDS invention.
4. The Catholic Church has instituted the sacrament of marriage long before Joseph Smith came along.
5. The sacrament of marriage did not exist until Jesus Christ instituted it during His life on earth. (Matthew 19:4-6)
6. Celibacy is promoted as an option for those working towards the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:9-12)

Isaiah 56:1
To the euchuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenants, I will give in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.

Lax16,

I think it’s OK for you and those you accept as your leaders to call “eternal life” being an angel in Heaven. Jesus did indeed offer this, and also said that covenant marriage (which had been given to Adam and Eve as He noted) was “joined together” by God and should not be “put asunder” by man. The important thing for one who desires celibacy or marriage for only this life, is that those who want to serve as angels, will indeed be able to serve as angels and will certainly do it joyfully and happily, and will have been given this great gift through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. Jesus presented a free will choice teaching about an eternal marriage covenant, available but not forced on anyone.

As far as the Isaiah passage, there was a lot you left out that makes the entire passage clear–that it was not singling out eunuchs, but was saying they could be “better than sons” also:

3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8 The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

That passage is saying that not only will the house of Israel (outcasts of Israel) be gathered in the last days (the days we are now in), but also “strangers” and “eunuchs”, and they need not think there is no place for them “at the table of the Lord” or “in His house of prayer.”

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I think it’s OK for you and those you accept as your leaders to call “eternal life” being an angel in Heaven. Jesus did indeed offer this, and also said that covenant marriage (which had been given to Adam and Eve as He noted) was “joined together” by God and should not be “put asunder” by man. The important thing for one who desires celibacy or marriage for only this life, is that those who want to serve as angels, will indeed be able to serve as angels and will certainly do it joyfully and happily, and will have been given this great gift through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. Jesus presented a free will choice teaching about an eternal marriage covenant, available but not forced on anyone.

Hi Parker - (What a beautiful day!)
I do not understand what you are talking about - eternal life means being an angel in heaven?
The Catholic Church and Her leaders do not teach this.

the CCC says:

*VI. THE HOPE OF THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH

1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, **the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in **body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed:

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631

1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."632 It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."633

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.6391047

IN BRIEF

1051 Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.

1052 "We believe that the souls of all who die in Christ’s grace . . . are the People of God beyond death. On the day of resurrection, death will be definitively conquered, when these souls will be reunited with their bodies" (Paul VI, CPG § 28).

1053 “We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated **with the holy angels **in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern” (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

1059 “The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment **all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ’s tribunal **to render an account of their own deeds” (Council of Lyons II [1274]S 859; cf. DS 1549).

1060 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

“AMEN”

As far as the Isaiah passage, there was a lot you left out that makes the entire passage clear–that it was not singling out eunuchs, but was saying they could be “better than sons” also:

I did not leave out anything - the point being eunuchs are included, not excluded, as Mormon teaching would have it.
Those who do not marry in the LDS faith do not reach the highest level of heaven, so even those who are living or who have lived the celibate life either by choice or circumstance, to serve others in foreign lands making it nearly impossible to maintain a family life or because they could not find a suitable marriage partner for one reason or another - ARE NOT LEFT OUT OF JESUS’ PROMISE. But in Mormonism, they are.
See: Proclamation to the Family

 

[TheExorcist]

Those who do not marry in the LDS faith do not reach the highest level of heaven, so even those who are living or who have lived the celibate life either by choice or circumstance, to serve others in foreign lands making it nearly impossible to maintain a family life or because they could not find a suitable marriage partner for one reason or another - ARE NOT LEFT OUT OF JESUS’ PROMISE. But in Mormonism, they are.
See: Proclamation to the Family

Ah but this is not so any more. In the newest Church Handbook of Instructions it gives an “out” to this so to speak. This is probably to address the number of single members who can’t find spouses.

 

[Inishfree]

Lax,

I want to thank you for your posts. It is very interesting to read them and I have learned quite a bit.

Thank you and peace be with you.

 

[lax16]

Ah but this is not so any more. In the newest Church Handbook of Instructions it gives an “out” to this so to speak. This is probably to address the number of single members who can’t find spouses.

So…the Proclamation to the Family has an addendum?

It is very clear that one must be married to achieve the highest level of heaven per Joseph Smith. Who decided to revise that which has been proclaimed publicly and hangs in the home of every devout Mormon?

 

[lax16]

Lax,

I want to thank you for your posts. It is very interesting to read them and I have learned quite a bit.

Thank you and peace be with you.

Well, thank you. I try!

I believe, after reading your post regarding your Irish heritage, that we could be related!

Peace be with you, too!

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - the LDS belief that marriage is needed for eternal life comes from Joseph Smith, not Jesus.

from Proclamation to the Family:
The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1–4

from lds.org
Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Lax16,

In view of your later question about this, there has not been an addendum or a modification to the Proclamation on the Family and what it means. “Exaltation” means to have the joy that comes through being parents, through all eternity. It means those who have chosen an eternal covenant marriage as they had the opportunity for it and understood that opportunity, and live by their covenants, can have their covenant fulfilled through the Savior’s atoning grace.

Single women would qualify through their desires if they desired an eternal covenant marriage, to have this blessing in eternity even if they didn’t receive the opportunity in this life. Single men would have a case by case basis as to their motives, efforts, desires, health limitations, and so forth. If they didn’t desire an eternal covenant marriage, then it would have been their choice and they won’t have it in eternity.

 

[TheExorcist]

So…the Proclamation to the Family has an addendum?

It is very clear that one must be married to achieve the highest level of heaven per Joseph Smith. Who decided to revise that which has been proclaimed publicly and hangs in the home of every devout Mormon?

No its not an addendum to the Proclamation to the Family. This is from the Handbook of Instructions, a book that every LDS bishop and stake president has that outlines how to govern wards and stakes. The verbiage (as read by the bishop of our ward last week) is very similar to talks given by LDS General Authorities in previous years and say something to the effect of “no member who lives a fully faithful and righteous life will be denied any blessing in the hereafter”. I wish I could get an exact copy of the text but its not publicly available.

 

[twopekinguys]

I suppose it will trouble you to know that every child born into the world was born because of either a sexual relationship between a man and a woman (hopefully married), or the modern technology that has different means of reproduction, and will also trouble you to know that God placed Adam and Eve into this world and told them to reproduce, to have offspring, and also to be “help meets” for each other, and everything God did was “good” which includes allowing that they would reproduce through the way He created them to reproduce.

A sexual union between a man and woman within the bounds of marriage (covenant marriage preferred by God) is not a bad thing, and is not being disrespectful of God or of His plan of salvation. Religious people can do this, and are actually keeping a commandment when they have children and bring them up (nurture them) in righteousness within a loving, supportive home.

So, are you saying that God the Father, or was it the Holy Spirit, had physical sex with Mary?

I thought the lds were moving away from that?

 

[ParkerD]

So, are you saying that God the Father, or was it the Holy Spirit, had physical sex with Mary?

I thought the lds were moving away from that?

I think I’ve stated ten to fifteen times on different threads on this website, that the answer to your question is as given in the Bible and also told in the Book of Mormon–that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and was a virgin both before she conceived and after she conceived and when Jesus was born. God the Father, having all power, certainly had the power and knowledge that Jesus could be conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and this Holy Son be the Son of God the Father, literally, and thus be the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, literally, by a means that was miraculous in our sphere of knowledge but was completely possible for God the Father to do.

Certainly, modern technological understanding establishes a basis for knowing that the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary was physically possible and the virgin birth physically possible, and if someone doesn’t know what a “virgin” means, they can look it up.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker, if I recall right, – it would take to go back to past threads, that you appeared indifferent to the celibate life being the more perfect way to follow the Lord.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, if I recall right, – it would take to go back to past threads, that you appeared indifferent to the celibate life being the more perfect way to follow the Lord.

Kathleen,

I absolutely know that the celibate life is not the “more perfect way to follow the Lord”. If someone perceives the need in their own life to be celibate, then that’s fine, but it has nothing to do with being a “more perfect way to follow the Lord” based on the Savior’s teachings or other Biblical teachings. If that is someone’s assumption, then it is an erroneous assumption, but they can make their own choice and have their own reasons, and will be blessed with joy and happiness as they serve others–just miss out on the eternal marriage covenant and the growth that being in a covenant marriage relationship and having children and learning from them and with them, leads to.