LDS church has not historically taught Christian belief of the Virgin Birth...

  • Thread starter Thread starter usingreason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usingreason

Guest
I’ve observed Mormons in this forum stating that their church believes in the ‘virgin birth’—in light of the following, I find this to be disingenuous at best; I’m hoping this is more of a "same word, different dictionary’ problem we often run into w Mormon vs. Christian definitions. 🙂 To deny that many Mormons (including one’s I personally know) believe God the Father literally had sex with Mary (who temporarily became one of his wives) and that this has been historically taught AND that this belief has been stated by the following prophets and apostles, is to deny history and further muddy the waters…
**
**Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., made this plain in his book, Religious Truths Defined, page 44: “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit.”
President Joseph Fielding Smith declared: “Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, page 18)
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie did not hesitate to make this matter crystal clear:
“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 the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)
“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… Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man.” (Ibid., page 742)
It would be extremely difficult to side-step the serious implications of Apostle McConkie’s statement. When he states that Christ was “begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,” this could only mean that he was conceived by a sexual act with Mary, not through a miraculous operation of God.
Mormon writer Carlfred B. Broderick discussed the sexual element regarding the birth of Jesus:
"There are two basic elements in the Gospel view of sexuality as I interpret it from the scriptures. The first is that sex is good – sexuality, far from being the antithesis of spirituality, is actually an attribute of God…
"In the light of their understanding that God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone, latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus… The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone, and was literally what Nephi said he was, ‘Son of the Eternal Father.’ " (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, pp. 100-101)

Continued on next page…****
 
President Brigham Young implied that Mary was actually the wife of God: “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.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866) Apostle Orson Pratt confirmed that Mary was, in fact, the “wife of God” and also went on to try to justify what would seem to be an immoral act:
“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 Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with his own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.” (The Seer, Oct. 1853, page 158)
Brigham Young maintained that “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.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)
Some Mormons, who are either not well informed on church doctrine or are so ashamed of the church’s doctrine on the birth of Jesus that they try to deny its existence. Unfortunately for these apologists, President Ezra Taft Benson, the thirteenth prophet of the church, came down firmly on the side of Brigham Young and the other prophets and apostles. In The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, a book published in 1988, President Benson steadfastly maintained that God was the father of Christ “in the most literal sense”:
"A fundamental doctrine of true Christianity is the divine birth of the child Jesus. This doctrine is not generally comprehended by the world. The paternity of Jesus Christ is one of the ‘mysteries of godliness’ comprehended only by the spiritually minded…
“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.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, pages 6-7)
 
Agreed. I have been mormon for over 20 years. This is exactly what is taught. Having said this, it is not taught openly in Sunday School or to new members, but it certainly is not hidden.

However, it is just another example of mormonism attempting to re-make God in the image of man.

It was not adultery, they say, because Elohim (God the Father) was not a “man”, He was the “Man”. He makes the rules, and can Himself abide by “higher laws” - such as in this instance.

Of course in ealry LDS history there were cases of some women having more than one husband. Agreed this was rare and probably more a case of a man taking a polygamous wife, before she was divorced.

It is an odd god that LDS worship, more akin to an ancient Greek god, such as Zeus, with all of his human passions.

If LDS members have any problems with the doctrine, they are counselled to hold it to one side and it will be answered later in their lives or in the next. It is not spoken of openly so as to show respect to Elohim.

It’s an odd religion that really does require you to amend logic - but then to mormons that is the exercise of faith, i.e. to believe something that is logically, morally and theologically incorrect, because the church leadership says so - faith. And of course the wackier the doctrine, the greater faith that is being shown.

Doctrines like this make me want to stand in front of Mary to shield her from such an insult - figuratively speaking of course.

God bless,

Hal.
 
Prince_Hal said:
Agreed. I have been mormon for over 20 years. This is exactly what is taught. Having said this, it is not taught openly in Sunday School or to new members, but it certainly is not hidden.

However, it is just another example of mormonism attempting to re-make God in the image of man.

It was not adultery, they say, because Elohim (God the Father) was not a “man”, He was the “Man”. He makes the rules, and can Himself abide by “higher laws” - such as in this instance.

Of course in ealry LDS history there were cases of some women having more than one husband. Agreed this was rare and probably more a case of a man taking a polygamous wife, before she was divorced.

It is an odd god that LDS worship, more akin to an ancient Greek god, such as Zeus, with all of his human passions.

If LDS members have any problems with the doctrine, they are counselled to hold it to one side and it will be answered later in their lives or in the next. It is not spoken of openly so as to show respect to Elohim.

It’s an odd religion that really does require you to amend logic - but then to mormons that is the exercise of faith, i.e. to believe something that is logically, morally and theologically incorrect, because the church leadership says so - faith. And of course the wackier the doctrine, the greater faith that is being shown.

Doctrines like this make me want to stand in front of Mary to shield her from such an insult - figuratively speaking of course.

God bless,

Hal.
Click to expand...
Thanks Hal- getting LDS on this forum to admit this results in a game of mental gymnastics–very frustrating!
 
Prince Hal,
Oh, bother–you have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
Except for the supposed “sex act”…don’t Catholics claim that Mary is the spouse to the Holy Spirit?
 
Publisher said:
Except for the supposed “sex act”…don’t Catholics claim that Mary is the spouse to the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
That is an excellent question. Can anyone give an answer from the Catholic perspective ?
 
Why would one expect the Restorationist to conform to the belief of the apostate? For the LDS, these quoted comments from former LDS Apostles of the 19th or even 20th Century carry less authority than the canon of Scripture which over time has come to be interpreted so as to allow both schools of thought with regard to the conception of God’s Son.

As a Catholic, I understand that Mormons are inconsistent with Catholic principles. But as a Catholic, I also understand that Mormons have no obligation to Catholic principles. They are consistent with LDS principles, which permits reevaluation of everything Catholics believe. Why should we expect a Restoration to conform to what was apostate?
 
Prince_Hal said:
If LDS members have any problems with the doctrine, they are counselled to hold it to one side and it will be answered later in their lives or in the next. It is not spoken of openly so as to show respect to Elohim.
Click to expand...
The Emperor’s New Clothes comes to mind here…😛
 
ParkerD said:
Prince Hal,
Oh, bother–you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
ParkerD-

You have taken exception to Prince Hal’s comments, but you’re silent on Usingreason’s OP?

That is very interesting… :hmmm:

Silence means consent?
 
Publisher said:
Except for the supposed “sex act”…don’t Catholics claim that Mary is the spouse to the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Yes…and that she remained ever-virgin.

Mormons (apparently) claim that Mary was the spouse of the Father, and she apparently lost her virginity one night. :eek:
 
usingreason said:
I’ve observed Mormons in this forum stating that their church believes in the ‘virgin birth’—in light of the following, I find this to be disingenuous at best; I’m hoping this is more of a "same word, different dictionary’ problem we often run into w Mormon vs. Christian definitions. 🙂 To deny that many Mormons (including one’s I personally know) believe God the Father literally had sex with Mary (who temporarily became one of his wives) and that this has been historically taught AND that this belief has been stated by the following prophets and apostles, is to deny history and further muddy the waters…
Click to expand...
It is indeed a same-word-different-dictionary problem. Mormon General Authorities frequently teach the “Virgin Birth” in contexts that establish it as official, revealed LDS teaching. Nevertheless, every Mormon General Authority who has ever commented on whether God and Mary conceived Jesus by physical union has answered this question in the affirmative. How does this square? The answer is that in Mormon theology a “virgin” is someone who has never had intimate relations with a mortal. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie writes in “The Promised Messiah”:
*
For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being.*

There are really only three schools of thought about how Jesus was conceived. The **first **is the old-school version, where Jesus is conceived by sex. The **second **(and I suspect more popular) theory claims that Jesus was conceived “naturally” but not necessarily by sexual union. This one is popular because the LDS Prophets and Apostles never actually specify “sexual relations” in so many words. They always say something more indirect like “He was conceived just the way you and I were.” Obviously, they speak that way for reasons of propriety, but many Mormons read it as a warrant to suppose that Jesus was conceived just like us in the sense that he got half his chromosomes from Mary and half from Heavenly Father. That counts as natural, but does not indicate sex per se. The **third **theory takes “virgin birth” to mean just what is sounds like. Ignorance alone accounts for those who hold this position.

For these reasons, you should not assume that a Mormon who claims to believe in the virgin birth is deceiving you or even that he has been intentionally deceived by someone else. Although the nature of Mormon teaching is clear from the evidence, the terminology makes it obscure, even to many of them.
 
soren1 said:
It is indeed a same-word-different-dictionary problem. Mormon General Authorities frequently teach the “Virgin Birth” in contexts that establish it as official, revealed LDS teaching. Nevertheless, every Mormon General Authority who has ever commented on whether God and Mary conceived Jesus by physical union has answered this question in the affirmative. How does this square? The answer is that in Mormon theology a “virgin” is someone who has never had intimate relations with a mortal. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie writes in “The Promised Messiah”:
*
For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being.*

There are really only three schools of thought about how Jesus was conceived. The **first **is the old-school version, where Jesus is conceived by sex. The **second **(and I suspect more popular) theory claims that Jesus was conceived “naturally” but not necessarily by sexual union. This one is popular because the LDS Prophets and Apostles never actually specify “sexual relations” in so many words. They always say something more indirect like “He was conceived just the way you and I were.” Obviously, they speak that way for reasons of propriety, but many Mormons read it as a warrant to suppose that Jesus was conceived just like us in the sense that he got half his chromosomes from Mary and half from Heavenly Father. That counts as natural, but does not indicate sex per se. The **third **theory takes “virgin birth” to mean just what is sounds like. Ignorance alone accounts for those who hold this position.

For these reasons, you should not assume that a Mormon who claims to believe in the virgin birth is deceiving you or even that he has been intentionally deceived by someone else. Although the nature of Mormon teaching is clear from the evidence, the terminology makes it obscure, even to many of them.
Click to expand...
It is not obscure.

I have written on this several times. I’ll try it one more time, though I don’t expect that it will do me any more good this time than it has at any other, but hey; someone may pay attention. Who knows? I do believe in miracles, after all.

Yes. Mormons believe in the virgin birth. We always have. There have been no, repeat, NO quotes from any leader that says that ‘God had sex with Mary.’ None. Now it has been claimed that this is obvious 'by reasons of propriety," but that’s not so. In every single one of those quotes, when the context is examined, we find that the speakers are not referring to sexual intercourse; they were adressing the Trinity. As in, God the Father is the Father of Christ, and the Holy Ghost is NOT. In other words, it is a trinitarian issue, not a sexual mechanics issue. Believe me, none of the leaders of the church, if they intended to say 'God had sexual intercourse with Mary," would have been measly mouthed about it. They would have come right out and said so.

They didn’t…and the reason was that they were talking about (for lack of a better term) genetics, not mechanics.

ONE reason that we know this is because of the Book of Mormon. Yep, that book that non-Mormons think is nutty and false…but the thing is, WE don’t. We believe that it was translated by the gift and power of God, and when the birth of Christ is related in THAT, the word used is “virgin.” As in, the English word ‘virgin,’ which means 'maiden." or 'woman who has not had sexual intercourse."

Therefore we believe in the virgin birth. Always have. That’s what was taught.

That said, have there been Mormons who thought that there was sex involved? Yep, I"m afraid that’s true too. Takes all kinds. However, the fact is, the church does not now, and never has, had as doctrine that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. No matter WHAT tickles the ears of the non and anti Mormons.
 
soren1 said:
It is indeed a same-word-different-dictionary problem. Mormon General Authorities frequently teach the “Virgin Birth” in contexts that establish it as official, revealed LDS teaching. … Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie writes in “The Promised Messiah”:
*
“For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being.”*

There are really only three schools of thought about how Jesus was conceived. The **first **is the old-school version, where Jesus is conceived by sex. The **second **(and I suspect more popular) theory claims that Jesus was conceived “naturally” but not necessarily by sexual union. This one is popular because the LDS Prophets and Apostles never actually specify “sexual relations” in so many words. They always say something more indirect like “He was conceived just the way you and I were.” Obviously, they speak that way for reasons of propriety, but many Mormons read it as a warrant to suppose that Jesus was conceived just like us in the sense that he got half his chromosomes from Mary and half from Heavenly Father. That counts as natural, but does not indicate sex per se. The **third **theory takes “virgin birth” to mean just what is sounds like. Ignorance alone accounts for those who hold this position.

For these reasons, you should not assume that a Mormon who claims to believe in the virgin birth is deceiving you or even that he has been intentionally deceived by someone else. Although the nature of Mormon teaching is clear from the evidence, the terminology makes it obscure, even to many of them.
Click to expand...
Soren1,
If a young woman is a virgin when the baby is born, then that means she did not have a physical relationship that brought the loss of her virginity. This is basic education–surely people know this. The Book of Mormon states that Christ was born of a virgin, Mary.

People have to be able to understand that if Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical resurrected body (which they do believe), then there is no physical way possible for Him to have had a physical relationship with Mary and her to have remained a virgin. (Sorry to even have to talk about that–it is so elementary.)

There are people who don’t think, but thinking people ought to be able to figure this one out. God could place His half of the embryo that is to become the Son of God, into the womb of Mary and it be united with an egg and begin cell division to form the body of the Son of God in the flesh. God could do that–it is not impossible science. Think!
 
ParkerD said:
Soren1,
If a young woman is a virgin when the baby is born, then that means she did not have a physical relationship that brought the loss of her virginity. This is basic education–surely people know this. The Book of Mormon states that Christ was born of a virgin, Mary.

People have to be able to understand that if Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical resurrected body (which they do believe), then there is no physical way possible for Him to have had a physical relationship with Mary and her to have remained a virgin. (Sorry to even have to talk about that–it is so elementary.)

There are people who don’t think, but thinking people ought to be able to figure this one out. God could place His half of the embryo that is to become the Son of God, into the womb of Mary and it be united with an egg and begin cell division to form the body of the Son of God in the flesh. God could do that–it is not impossible science. Think!
Click to expand...
The opening post quoted this from Bruce R:

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 the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)

can this really be interpreted any other way than a physical sexual union? I have 5 children and know how they were created, which is normal and natural. Sorry but Bruce R was probably being more genuine than you in this.

Hal
 
Prince_Hal said:
The opening post quoted this from Bruce R:

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 the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)

can this really be interpreted any other way than a physical sexual union? I have 5 children and know how they were created, which is normal and natural. Sorry but Bruce R was probably being more genuine than you in this.

Hal
Click to expand...
Hal,
I suppose that in 1979, Bruce R McConkie may have had the personal belief that you have implied, but his statement appears to be deliberately ambiguous to me. Not only that, I and others disagree with it other than the understanding that Christ was the Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father–not such a big deal, since I disagree with other things Bruce R McConkie wrote. Nor have I ever seen such a teaching in an LDS lesson manual. (But if you have, let me know and I’ll look up the manual and be able to see for myself.)

Physiology allows for a virgin birth by Mary, but not for a resurrected physical Being to have a physical union and Offspring from that union and yet the woman remain a virgin. That is physically impossible, but it is physically possible for God to have placed the source of the divinity of Jesus into Mary’s womb for uniting with an egg and beginning cell division and development in her womb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top