LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[campeador]

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.

What about the Savior’s example? Didn’t Jesus want all his Disciples to follow his example? Didn’t you say that the LDS teach an unmarried (and therefore celibate) Jesus? And what about Jesus’ own words:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:12

Where are the LDS who make ‘themselves eunuchs for the the sake of the kingdom of heaven’?

 

[ParkerD]

What about the Savior’s example? Didn’t Jesus want all his Disciples to follow his example? Didn’t you say that the LDS teach an unmarried (and therefore celibate) Jesus? And what about Jesus’ own words:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:12

Where are the LDS who make ‘themselves eunuchs for the the sake of the kingdom of heaven’?

Campeador,

I had stated my opinion that Jesus was unmarried, but also said it is an opinion and there is no official teaching about it in Latter-day Saint official statements. Jesus knew what His mission was, and that it included that He would be killed at a young age in life. He knew this perfectly, with not the slightest question about it. He also did not “need” marriage for the sake of becoming perfect–He was already perfect in every way. No follower of His, either then or now, has that same condition of course–they are not perfect.

To repeat an earlier comment, Jesus taught the higher law of covenant marriage, which Adam and Eve had and which was accompanied by the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth as God blessed them and taught them. Jesus also taught that “a house divided against itself shall not stand.” He would not, and did not, turn around having just explained that the law of Moses that allowed divorce was not “in the beginning” but was given due to “the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8) as part of the Mosaic law for the children of Israel, and then say that to be celibate was better than to be married.

If one follows the complete dialog in Matthew 19, after He had answered the question the Pharisees had presented, and had explained the higher law of covenant marriage with no divorce, the apostles said, “If the case of the man be so…, it is not good to marry.” The next verse has deliberate ambiguity, at least for us as we read the words, with the words “all men cannot receive this saying” appearing to refer to what the apostles had just said about “it is not good to marry”—but Jesus had just presented the higher covenant law, so “this saying” refers back to His own teaching, not to what the apostles said about it being a hard thing to do.

(Jesus was teaching that the higher law was indeed a hard thing to do, a thing that people who are “hard-hearted” are not ready to do.)

The word “it” or “this” in the translation you cited in verse 12, is referring to the entire teaching Jesus had given about covenant marriage, including that those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” fall under the higher law–meaning they choose celibacy for the sake of not committing adultery by needing divorce later (v. 9), since the kingdom of heaven has the higher covenant law to “reach for” and live by.

Thus, Jesus preserves free will choice in the matter of marriage, while also teaching the higher law of covenant marriage just like Adam and Eve had.

I suppose some Latter-day Saint men who choose not to marry do so because for themselves they see marriage as a hard thing, and reason that in their own personal case, “it is good not to marry”–but it means they have chosen not to keep the commandment given to Adam and Eve, by their own desire and choice and reasoning. If so, then as they serve others diligently they will have “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” It means they don’t qualify themselves for the highest degree of exaltation and an eternal covenant marriage, but are content to be of service eternally without the added joy of a marriage and being a parent in time or eternity.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Christ said that those who become His disciples will have hundreds of wives, children…spiritual…

And all our relationships in Christ will continue to grow with each other in love in heaven.

Those who deny themselves for the Gospel…find new relationships in many people…

Those in the consecrated life actually receive many, many more personal relationships than if they married!!!

Catholic missionaries even see their approximate brothers and sisters as also their sons or daughters…

 

[Peter_John]

He is not co-eternal, and not part of a triune God. He is a created being.

PArtly incorrect. As LDS beliefs affirm we are all co-eternal with God, this includes Jesus Christ. Otherwise it is accurate, as far as we define “created being” as one who has been lifted from raw intelligence, to spirit, to physical state. By this description Mormons also believe that God the Father would have to be “created” by some other god who does not pertain to us. He once lived a mortal existence, they believe, just as we did. Mormons interpret Paul’s affirmation that though there be gods many and Lord’s many, to us there is but one God, as relatively literal. To them it indicates that Paul believed there were numerous gods, but as far as anything to do with us, only our Heavenly Father matters – not that he was referring to the beliefs others had that there are other gods. As they do not accept Maccabees and Wisdom in scripture, they do not bring those to bear on interpreting Paul’s words.

 

[Peter_John]

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.

I need to reinforce Parker on this one. LDS doctrine (dogma in Catholic terms) affirms that Jesus was conceived with physical material from God the Father, but that this was done through some unrevealed – and perhaps incomprehensible to ourselves – action of the Holy Ghost. By specifc exposition this involved no sexual activity of any kind. This according to formal statements of doctrine in numerous manuals and discourses of leaders all the way back to LDS beginnings, which statements form the context of the very lines used to assert the reverse.

This Ed Deckeresque approach to detracting from LDS beliefs of asserting Mormons believe God and Mary had sex may be the most pernicious and intentionally deceptive – one of few anti-Mormon assertions that constitute outright lying as far as I am concerned. Asserting it requires taking one or two sentences from the entire history of LDS discourse out of their context, when even the context of those statements makes it clear that Mormon Doctrine specifically supports Mary’s literal and complete virginity until after Jesus was born.

When I find any writer asserting this I dismiss their entire repertoire simply because it represents a complete absence of critical thinking in their approach.

Only idiots with a personal ax to grind advance this detraction. Only fools continue believing it when presented with the context.

 

[Peter_John]

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?

There is no “moving away from that.” It has never been a part of LDS doctrine that claims God and Mary had sex. The very individual statements anti-Mormons use to justify this argument come from contexts surrounded with staements affirming that they did not. They can only be understood to mean they did by intentionally removing them from the clarifying context, making them a vicious and intentionally deceptive attack on LDS beliefs by those who so abuse the statements.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

You tap danced around that quite well

 

[Peter_John]

You tap danced around that quite well

He is not tap dancing. The only differences between LDS beliefs specificallyabout the conception of Christ (meaning not complicating things with peripheral dogmas like the Immaculate Conception of Mary) and catholic beliefs is that Catholics believe it was completely by the power of the Holy Spirit: The only physical material involved came from Mary herself… Since LDS believe that God has a physical body they believe this action of the Holy Spirit introduced thesubstance of God’s own body, so that Jesus is literally the Son of both God the Eternal Father and Mary. Both believe the Lord’s conception miraculous, both believe it required Mary’s consent. Mormons justbelieve the miraculous act involved physical substance from God himself.

 

[lax16]

I need to reinforce Parker on this one. LDS doctrine (dogma in Catholic terms) affirms that Jesus was conceived with physical material from God the Father, but that this was done through some unrevealed – and perhaps incomprehensible to ourselves – action of the Holy Ghost. By specifc exposition this involved no sexual activity of any kind. This according to formal statements of doctrine in numerous manuals and discourses of leaders all the way back to LDS beginnings, which statements form the context of the very lines used to assert the reverse.

This Ed Deckeresque approach to detracting from LDS beliefs of asserting Mormons believe God and Mary had sex may be the most pernicious and intentionally deceptive – one of few anti-Mormon assertions that constitute outright lying as far as I am concerned. Asserting it requires taking one or two sentences from the entire history of LDS discourse out of their context, when even the context of those statements makes it clear that Mormon Doctrine specifically supports Mary’s literal and complete virginity until after Jesus was born.

When I find any writer asserting this I dismiss their entire repertoire simply because it represents a complete absence of critical thinking in their approach.

Only idiots with a personal ax to grind advance this detraction. Only fools continue believing it when presented with the context.

Wilford Woodruff - 4th President 1887-1989
“And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. **Jesus, our elder brother, was **begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Brigham Young - 2nd President 1847-1877
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

Ezra Taft Benson - 13th President 1985-1994
“**The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh **was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not **the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.”

Joseph Fielding Smith - 10th President 1970-72
“Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of man, and that man was God! They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge this statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible.”

Joseph F. Smith - 6th President 1901-1918
“You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers, 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 the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was **]begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overhsadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?”

 

[lax16]

He is not tap dancing. The only differences between LDS beliefs specificallyabout the conception of Christ (meaning not complicating things with peripheral dogmas like the Immaculate Conception of Mary) and catholic beliefs is that Catholics believe it was completely by the power of the Holy Spirit: The only physical material involved came from Mary herself… Since LDS believe that God has a physical body they believe this action of the Holy Spirit introduced thesubstance of God’s own body, so that Jesus is literally the Son of both God the Eternal Father and Mary. Both believe the Lord’s conception miraculous, both believe it required Mary’s consent. Mormons justbelieve the miraculous act involved physical substance from God himself.

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. **Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the ****capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time **being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268)

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost… (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50-51)— Compare this to Matthew 1:18

In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of discourses, 8:211)

'Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject when I replied to this idea- “If the son was begotten y the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed off on the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.”…But what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know but this subject? Comparatively Nothing." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50-51)

‘What a learned idea’ Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50-51)

“God the Father is a perfected, 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 normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.”(McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 742)

“…but the Holy ghost is not the Father of Christ and when the Child was born, he was the Son of the eternal Father.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 743)

“These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 546)

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7).-- Is this Modern enough?

“Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. Jesus was born of a mortal mother and an immortal father” (Gospel Principles, pg.57)

“As far as this life is concerned, [Jesus] was born of Mary and of Elohim; he came here as an offspring of that Holy Man who is literally our Father in heaven. He was born in mortality in the literal and full sense as the Son of God. He is the Son of his Father in the same sense that all mortals are the sons and daughters of their fathers” (Bruce McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:330).

“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh…” (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, pp. 466-467)

Now the struggle we come to is that there is constant contradiction about this. On the one hand we clearly see that Mormonism teaches that Heavenly Father produced Jesus the same way we are produced. And then on the other hand Mormons try to affirm what God teaches in passages like Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it to! This of course will also lead us to the discussion of the Mormon teaching about God having a body of “flesh and bone as tangible as man” (D&C 130:22). This is something the Lord Jesus explicitly denies (John 4:24, Luke 24:39).

 

[lax16]

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.

I see, but will they be allowed into the highest level of heaven?

 

[lax16]

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.

Parker - either you really don’t know what your church teaches or are pretending not to.
Either way, this is from 1976. I think you were around then, right?

from an lds institute manual:

JESUS IS LITERALLY THE SON OF THE ETERNAL FATHER
(3-6) Because God Was His Father, Jesus Had Power Over Life and Death
When Gabriel came to Mary with the announcement that she would be the mother of the Lord, Mary was troubled. She had not as yet consummated her marriage to Joseph. She was sure of her virgin condition, and her question to Gabriel was as if she had said: “How can I be the mother of a son when I am yet unmarried?” The angel’s explanation to Mary is the clearest explanation of the fatherhood of God and the divine sonship of Christ available in holy writ. Gabriel declares: “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.” ( Luke 1:35 .) This statement, clear enough as it stands, does not say Jesus was the son of the Holy Ghost, but he was the Son of God the Father. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has explained, Jesus was the “‘Son of the Highest’ ( Luke 1:32 ), and ‘the Highest’ is the first member of the godhead, not the third.” ( DNTC, 1:83.)

Because Christ was the son of an immortal Father and a mortal mother, he had the capacity to live eternally if he chose, but also the ability to die. Elder James E. Talmage has written:

“That Child to be 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.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.” ( Jesus the Christ, p. 81.)

Jesus, then, had the powers of life and the ability to die. He had greater power than any man. (See Smith, Teachings, 181.) To further understand the significance of the divine sonship, complete the following exercise:

Who Was the Father of Jesus?
Recount some of the testimonies that demonstrate that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Father, in the flesh. Note these verses: Luke 1:30–35 ; 1 Nephi 11:18–21 ; and Mosiah 3:8 . Who was the father of Jesus? What did Jesus inherit from his Father that he could not have inherited from his legal guardian, Joseph?

 

[Peter_John]

Wilford Woodruff - 4th President 1887-1989
“And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. **Jesus, our elder brother, was **begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Brigham Young - 2nd President 1847-1877
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

Ezra Taft Benson - 13th President 1985-1994
“**The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh **was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not **the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.”

Joseph Fielding Smith - 10th President 1970-72
“Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of man, and that man was God! They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge this statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible.”

Joseph F. Smith - 6th President 1901-1918
"You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers, 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 the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was **]begotten of his father

. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overhsadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?"
The first thing to recognize is that some of these statements reflect the common LDS misunderstanding that other denominations believe the Holy Ghost, not the Father Almighty, was literally the Father of Jesus (hence the word begotten). This is what the statements refute, though it attacks straw men, since “conceived by the Holy Spirit” means the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Christians in general also believe the statements you have highlighted. Jesus is not the Son of the Holy Spirit.

In Mormonism the idea of the Holy Spirit literally begetting anyone is completely antithetical as this requires a physical body, and they do not believe the Holy Spirit has one. They do believe the Father has one, and that Jesus is the Son of God “in the most literal sense” it means that, for lack of a better turn, God contributed genetic material in the conception of Christ. The “spirit that overshadowed her” was the Holy Spirit, and this mediated the conception, rather than there being any sex involved.

Catholics believe that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that God had no genetic material to contribute. Mormons believe that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in this state God’s genetic material was joined with Mary’s, specifically NOT in a sexual manner.

Here is my question: If you cannot believe that God has the power to conceive life using male and female genetic material without sex, as Mormons believe Jesus was conceived, how can you believe he conceived it with only a woman’s body? The latter is more miraculous than the former.

The former is how Mormons interpret the story of Christ’s conception. To assert they have to mean God had sex with Mary because they say God was literally the Father denies the Power of God. They mean that God’s own body was used miraculously – not after the manner of human reproduction – through the power of the Holy Ghost. As non-Mormons often misunderstand these affirmations as expressed by your post, Mormons also misunderstand that “conceived by the Holy Spirit” means that non-Mormons think the Holy Spirit literally begat Christ.

They adamantly believe the conception was miraculous. They adamantly believe Mary remained a Virgin until after Jesus’s birth.

 

[Peter_John]

Parker - either you really don’t know what your church teaches or are pretending not to.
Either way, this is from 1976. I think you were around then, right?

from an lds institute manual:

JESUS IS LITERALLY THE SON OF THE ETERNAL FATHER
(3-6) Because God Was His Father, Jesus Had Power Over Life and Death
When Gabriel came to Mary with the announcement that she would be the mother of the Lord, Mary was troubled. She had not as yet consummated her marriage to Joseph. She was sure of her virgin condition, and her question to Gabriel was as if she had said: “How can I be the mother of a son when I am yet unmarried?” The angel’s explanation to Mary is the clearest explanation of the fatherhood of God and the divine sonship of Christ available in holy writ. Gabriel declares: “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.” ( Luke 1:35 .) This statement, clear enough as it stands, does not say Jesus was the son of the Holy Ghost, but he was the Son of God the Father. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has explained, Jesus was the “‘Son of the Highest’ ( Luke 1:32 ), and ‘the Highest’ is the first member of the godhead, not the third.” ( DNTC, 1:83.)

Because Christ was the son of an immortal Father and a mortal mother, he had the capacity to live eternally if he chose, but also the ability to die. Elder James E. Talmage has written:

“That Child to be 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.’ In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman.” ( Jesus the Christ, p. 81.)

Jesus, then, had the powers of life and the ability to die. He had greater power than any man. (See Smith, Teachings, 181.) To further understand the significance of the divine sonship, complete the following exercise:

Who Was the Father of Jesus?
Recount some of the testimonies that demonstrate that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, the Father, in the flesh. Note these verses: Luke 1:30–35 ; 1 Nephi 11:18–21 ; and Mosiah 3:8 . Who was the father of Jesus? What did Jesus inherit from his Father that he could not have inherited from his legal guardian, Joseph?

If you cannot accept that Mormons believe all of this without sex then you must simply have a dirty mind.

Your choices of what you highlight disclose your own bias and indicate the very cherry-picking that starts this debate. You deliberately chose not to highlight “supreme sanctity,… and pure though mortal maternity,” which specifically means it did NOT involve sex to a Mormon – as does the prior unhighlighted statement “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof.” To a Mormon it means it involves the same biological process of reproduction (natural law) without the normal anatomical mechanisms (a higher manifestation thereof).

Mormons find the suggestion that God had sex with Mary inherently sacrilegous, as it makes God an incestuous lecher.

Do you believe God has the power to generate biological reproduction miraculously? So do Mormons.

 

[lax16]

If you cannot accept that Mormons believe all of this without sex then you must simply have a dirty mind.

Your choices of what you highlight disclose your own bias and indicate the very cherry-picking that starts this debate. You deliberately chose not to highlight “supreme sanctity,… and pure though mortal maternity,” which specifically means it did NOT involve sex to a Mormon – as does the prior unhighlighted statement “not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof.” To a Mormon it means it involves the same biological process of reproduction (natural law) without the normal anatomical mechanisms (a higher manifestation thereof).

Mormons find the suggestion that God had sex with Mary inherently sacrilegous, as it makes God an incestuous lecher.

Do you believe God has the power to generate biological reproduction miraculously? So do Mormons.

I have a dirty mind?:tsktsk:

Really - it was ME that made this stuff up - I couldn’t have come up with this if I wanted to.

In their 1992 book, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints, BYU professors Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks attempt to respond to the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the **physical parentage **of Christ. Note their own words:

We will ignore the fact that **these scattered nineteenth-century speculations were never **canonized by the Mormon Church, and that no comparable statements occur in Latter-day Saint scripture. **We will pass over the unfairness of holding Mormons to statements that they and their own leaders have never deemed authoritative and binding **(and we will deprive ourselves of the great entertainment that would ensue were we to call our Protestant critics to account for every speculation advanced by their pastors and reformers of the past five centuries). . . . The speculations that most incense the critics are simply literalistic interpretations of the divine paternity alluded to in the title, Son of God.While **certain early Mormon leaders may occasionally have reinterpreted the concept ****of virgin birth,they never for a moment suggested that Jesus was begotten by **a mortal man, nor that his father was any other personage than God. . . . And for a denial, it cannot be repeated too often, that the Latter-day Saints have never accepted as official doctrine. (129-131)

In a footnote Peterson and Ricks cite numerous Christian critiques of Mormonism that note this doctrine. They focus upon Walter Martin, saying he finds these rare and isolated speculations shocking and vile,and makes the obligatory allusions to Greek mythology. From the above citation, then, we can conclude that the idea that God the Father physically begat Jesus Christ is a mere scattered nineteenth century speculation that was never canonized by the Mormon Church. These speculations have never been considered authoritative and binding. They were merely literalistic interpretations of the divine paternity based upon the title Son of God. They amount only to a reinterpretation of the virgin birth, and have never been accepted as official doctrine.

A colleague of Peterson and Ricks, Dr. Stephen Robinson, likewise downplays this doctrine. In How Wide the Divide? Robinson makes these comments:
Unfortunately, popular speculations on the LDS side have sometimes also been tasteless and indelicate. . . . While it is true that certain LDS leaders (mostly in the nineteenth century) have offered their opinions on the conception of Jesus, those opinions were never included among the official doctrines of the church and have, during my lifetime at least, not appeared in official church publications lest they be taken as the view of the church. Yet those who would misrepresent the LDS Church (and also a vocal minority of its own eccentrics) continue to insist on the unofficial speculations of nineteenth-century members rather than on the official views of the church then or now. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 135-136.
We can add, then, to the conclusions of Peterson and Ricks, the following from Robinson: this doctrine is again a speculation, based primarily in the nineteenth century opinions of certain unnamed LDS leaders and members.These opinions have never been included among the official doctrines of the LDS faith, and have not appeared in any official church publications during the lifetime of Stephen Robinson. Those who say otherwise (which would include this author) are misrepresenting Mormonism.
For most Mormons, and for most Christians who have not read widely in LDS sources, such should be sufficient. Three LDS scholars, Ph.D.s all, have pronounced the idea that God the Father literally and physically begat the Son in the flesh a mere nineteenth century speculation. What more could be said?
The problem is, history stands unalterably opposed to every single claim made by all three authors. As we will now document, this doctrine has been taught consistently by every single General Authority of the LDS Church who has addressed this topic up to this present day! What is more, we will find numerous official LDS publications written within the past thirty years that likewise teach this very doctrine. And just as important, we will not find a single LDS General Authority denying this doctrine. I will leave the reader to determine the issue of motivations, misrepresentation, and simple honesty in debate, that arise when faced with the kind of documentation that follows.
( continued tomorrow! )

 

[TheExorcist]

I have a dirty mind?:tsktsk:

Really - it was ME that made this stuff up - I couldn’t have come up with this if I wanted to.

In their 1992 book, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints, BYU professors Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks attempt to respond to the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the **physical parentage **of Christ. Note their own words:

We will ignore the fact that **these scattered nineteenth-century speculations were never **canonized by the Mormon Church, and that no comparable statements occur in Latter-day Saint scripture. **We will pass over the unfairness of holding Mormons to statements that they and their own leaders have never deemed authoritative and binding **(and we will deprive ourselves of the great entertainment that would ensue were we to call our Protestant critics to account for every speculation advanced by their pastors and reformers of the past five centuries). . . . The speculations that most incense the critics are simply literalistic interpretations of the divine paternity alluded to in the title, Son of God.While **certain early Mormon leaders may occasionally have reinterpreted the concept ****of virgin birth,they never for a moment suggested that Jesus was begotten by **a mortal man, nor that his father was any other personage than God. . . . And for a denial, it cannot be repeated too often, that the Latter-day Saints have never accepted as official doctrine. (129-131)

In a footnote Peterson and Ricks cite numerous Christian critiques of Mormonism that note this doctrine. They focus upon Walter Martin, saying he finds these rare and isolated speculations shocking and vile,and makes the obligatory allusions to Greek mythology. From the above citation, then, we can conclude that the idea that God the Father physically begat Jesus Christ is a mere scattered nineteenth century speculation that was never canonized by the Mormon Church. These speculations have never been considered authoritative and binding. They were merely literalistic interpretations of the divine paternity based upon the title Son of God. They amount only to a reinterpretation of the virgin birth, and have never been accepted as official doctrine.

A colleague of Peterson and Ricks, Dr. Stephen Robinson, likewise downplays this doctrine. In How Wide the Divide? Robinson makes these comments:
Unfortunately, popular speculations on the LDS side have sometimes also been tasteless and indelicate. . . . While it is true that certain LDS leaders (mostly in the nineteenth century) have offered their opinions on the conception of Jesus, those opinions were never included among the official doctrines of the church and have, during my lifetime at least, not appeared in official church publications lest they be taken as the view of the church. Yet those who would misrepresent the LDS Church (and also a vocal minority of its own eccentrics) continue to insist on the unofficial speculations of nineteenth-century members rather than on the official views of the church then or now. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 135-136.
We can add, then, to the conclusions of Peterson and Ricks, the following from Robinson: this doctrine is again a speculation, based primarily in the nineteenth century opinions of certain unnamed LDS leaders and members.These opinions have never been included among the official doctrines of the LDS faith, and have not appeared in any official church publications during the lifetime of Stephen Robinson. Those who say otherwise (which would include this author) are misrepresenting Mormonism.
For most Mormons, and for most Christians who have not read widely in LDS sources, such should be sufficient. Three LDS scholars, Ph.D.s all, have pronounced the idea that God the Father literally and physically begat the Son in the flesh a mere nineteenth century speculation. What more could be said?
The problem is, history stands unalterably opposed to every single claim made by all three authors. As we will now document, this doctrine has been taught consistently by every single General Authority of the LDS Church who has addressed this topic up to this present day! What is more, we will find numerous official LDS publications written within the past thirty years that likewise teach this very doctrine. And just as important, we will not find a single LDS General Authority denying this doctrine. I will leave the reader to determine the issue of motivations, misrepresentation, and simple honesty in debate, that arise when faced with the kind of documentation that follows.
( continued tomorrow! )

Sounds like mealy-mouth backpedaling to me. Its hard to believe I actually believed this concept at one time.

 

[twopekinguys]

Wilford Woodruff - 4th President 1887-1989
“And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. **Jesus, our elder brother, was **begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Brigham Young - 2nd President 1847-1877
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

Ezra Taft Benson - 13th President 1985-1994
“**The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh **was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not **the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.”

Joseph Fielding Smith - 10th President 1970-72
“Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of man, and that man was God! They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge this statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible.”

Joseph F. Smith - 6th President 1901-1918
"You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers, 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 the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was **]begotten of his father

. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overhsadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it?"

:thumbsupitto!!

 

[lax16]

Sounds like mealy-mouth backpedaling to me. Its hard to believe I actually believed this concept at one time.

And to be told that anyone who reminds people of those teachings -albeit 19th century ones - is a dirty-minded liar.

Really, I don’t get it. Just admit that yes, this was our teaching but not anymore - or - we had a new revelation. But why shoot the messenger?

 

[lax16]

Sounds like mealy-mouth backpedaling to me. Its hard to believe I actually believed this concept at one time.

So, YOU WERE TAUGHT THIS AS AN LDS??

 

[Peter_John]

I cannot express how disappointed I am that Christians so foten misunderstood for their beliefs regarding such things as statues in worship, practices of praying to Saints and to the Virgin Mother, beliefs about transubstantiation, confession (most non-Catholics think we believe that we get absolution through confession without repentance), etc would be so stubbornly closed-minded about understanding these LDS expressions from an LDS perspective.

I find it shameful.

In posts regarding any other topics: statements about belief in Father , Son, and Holy Spirit, or that Jesus is the Son of God, you would all quckly affirm that they define these terms differently. In this case you apply your definitions to what they say, and will not accept their definitions simply because then it does not mean what it must to look like Mormons believe God had sex with Mary.

The simple fact is: None of these statements affirm that God and Mary had sex. Inferring it means so is not justified either in light of the body of the rest of their doctrine, or in light of it specifically. We have had LDS members affirming that it does not mean this without equivocation.

I can perhaps be more critical of the LDS Church than most other former Mormons, but I can assure you it does not mean this. It is not and has never been part of the LDS teachings.

I am going top compare it to the perception other denominations have that Catholics believe unbaptized infants go to hell because it was not until recently the Church affirmed that there might be foundation to believe they go to heaven.

Mormonism teaches 1) Jesus was literally begotten of God the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit, making it simultaneously a literal physical conception of two parents (God and Mary) and a miraculous conception 2) This was done in sanctity and in purity, meaning it was not through a sexual act.

Wrestle with the words all you want. It is what they teach.