Question for LDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Melchior_1

Guest
Something random that my wife brought up, which has me pondering. As odd as the question may be, it is a sincere one.

We we are all the spirit children of Elohim, but would make Mary one too, yes? With the belief that Mary is a “spiritchild” of Elohim, wouldn’t that make Jesus the product on incest, since a father had intercourse with a daughter?
 
We we are all the spirit children of Elohim, but would make Mary one too, yes? With the belief that Mary is a “spiritchild” of Elohim, wouldn’t that make Jesus the product on incest, since a father had intercourse with a daughter?
Let’s role through this step by step:
  1. Yes, Mary is a spiritual daughter of the Father, but He is not her biological father.
  2. Yes, Christ is a spiritual son of the Father, and He is also Christ’s biological father.
  3. That does NOT mean that the Father had sex with Mary-- even we puny mortals can have a child conceived without sex, let alone what God can do.
  4. Mary was a virgin when Christ was born, it’s right there in the Bible.
  5. Don’t forget: the Father is perfectly righteous, again that’s right there in the Bible.
 
I’m content that Mary was physically a virgin when Christ was born, just like the Bible says.
 
  1. That does NOT mean that the Father had sex with Mary-- even we puny mortals can have a child conceived without sex, let alone what God can do.
The Mormon church has taught for years that the Father did have relations with Mary. Has that changed?
 
Below are two very interesting articles about this issue. Note in the second one the LDS once again change the definition of a Christian belief.

religioustolerance.org/ldsvirgin.htm
*Some Mormons have taught that God the Father, and not the Holy Spirit, is the Father of Yeshua.

bullet Brigham Young (1801-1877) was a successor to Joseph Smith, the founder of the church.
He delivered a sermon in 1852 which stated, in part:

"When the Virgin Mary conceive the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. 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. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." 1

He delivered a speech in 1860 which said, in part:

“The birth of the Savior 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.” 2

bullet Prophet Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918) was the 6th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He wrote:
bullet “Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father.” Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, Page 18-20.
bullet “…how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ…God the Eternal Father is literally the father of Jesus Christ.” Box Elder Stake Conference, 1914-DEC-20, as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 1915-JAN-28, Page 1 & 2.

bullet President Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of the Church (1899-1994) stated:
“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.” 3

bullet Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Ordained Apostle and sustained to the Twelve, (1915-1985) said:
bullet “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.” Mormon Doctrine, (1979) Page 742.
bullet “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Mormon Doctrine, (1979) Page 546. 4
bullet According to author Michael Davis: “This is the standard LDS guide to church doctrine, found in nearly every active Mormon household.” 5
mrm.org/virgin-birth
*
The problem with Mormonism saying that God had sex with Mary is that it comes from a worldview that says divinity isn’t so different from humanity. The whole point of the virgin conception is that it is the event where God added an entirely different nature to himself: humanity. God became a man. The ironic, pagan heresy of Mormonism’s suggestion that God had sex with Mary is that it collapses the God/man divide and reverses the larger narrative: man became a God.

Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, in perhaps the most explicit denial of the virgin birth, wrote,

“Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)

You might ask, “How can Mormons who believe this say that Christ was born of a virgin?” This is done by changing the definition of the word “virgin”. The virgin Mary did not have sexual relations with a mortal man, they say, but instead was impregnated by an immortal man. Bruce McConkie wrote,

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 822)*
 
I’m content that Mary was physically a virgin when Christ was born, just like the Bible says.
But God is an exalted man, not a spirit, correct? How would this be possible if God is a man with a physical body?
 
I would ask another slightly different question. Is it possible God could have conceived Christ via natural means (by use of his flesh and bone body)?

I know speculation is something Mormons try to stay away from, but the above quotes seem to imply the obvious concerning past Mormon views of the conception of Christ.

So though most Mormons might reject the idea entirely, is it permissible within Mormonism to hold to such a view?
 
I would ask another slightly different question. Is it possible God could have conceived Christ via natural means (by use of his flesh and bone body)?
The “Mormon” story of Christ’s conception is in the NT. Feel free to read it. 🙂
 
I would ask another slightly different question. Is it possible God could have conceived Christ via natural means (by use of his flesh and bone body)?

I know speculation is something Mormons try to stay away from, but the above quotes seem to imply the obvious concerning past Mormon views of the conception of Christ.

So though most Mormons might reject the idea entirely, is it permissible within Mormonism to hold to such a view?
I’m guessing it may be like polygamy, a belief held but not spoken of because they know exactly how much it differs from Christianity.
 
The “Mormon” story of Christ’s conception is in the NT. Feel free to read it. 🙂
I’ll assume you are not deliberately misunderstanding me. There was a series of quotes provided by LDS leaders which clearly imply Christ was conceived naturally. You seem of the opinion that Jesus was conceived via the holy Spirit without the need for sex. The people quoted seem to think differently. Is this therefore an acceptable position for a Mormon to hold?
 
I’ll assume you are not deliberately misunderstanding me. There was a series of quotes provided by LDS leaders which clearly imply Christ was conceived naturally. You seem of the opinion that Jesus was conceived via the holy Spirit without the need for sex. The people quoted seem to think differently. Is this therefore an acceptable position for a Mormon to hold?
🤷 A through explanation of this involves explaining how not everything that comes out of an LDS leader’s mouth is straight from God (forgive me, I don’t have time for that right now).

The only scriptural account is the NT, plus several other LDS scriptures that describe Mary as a virgin. And yes, LDS and do hold different speculative opinions on the mechanics (speculation is not scripture).
 
The “Mormon” story of Christ’s conception is in the NT. Feel free to read it. 🙂
This is NOT in the Christian NT:
*President Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of the Church (1899-1994) stated:
“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.”
*
Bolding mine. This isn’t in any NT I’ve ever read. Again bolding mine

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Ordained Apostle and sustained to the Twelve, (1915-1985) said:
“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.” Mormon Doctrine,


So who is right? Several LDS church leaders proclaiming LDS doctrine or Jane Doe?
 
One thing one has to keep in mind when it comes to Mormon teachings is that what was taught by Smith and Young and the other Mormon apostles of the 19th century is not what is taught now, or in the latter part of the 20th century. Mormons point to the Early Church and claim that it fell away from the original teachings of the Apostles and thus the “great apostasy” ensued. That is exactly what happened with Mormonism. The LDS church of today does not teach what was originally taught be Smith et al. So, by their own definition, they are in a state of apostasy. One would have to look at the fundamentalist off shoot groups to see lived out what Smith et al., taught.

Present day LDS teaching is in a state of apostasy from it’s original teaching of Smith et al.
 
So who is right? Several LDS church leaders proclaiming LDS doctrine or Jane Doe?
Jane_Doe is either not aware of what the LDS Church leaders have taught over the years, or if she does, she rejects those leaders teachings.

But those teachings from those leaders are very clear.

(If I recall correctly, Jane is not married to a Mormon, so her belief system is not orthodox Mormonism. She does have the influence of a non-LDS husband in her life 🙂 )
 
One thing one has to keep in mind when it comes to Mormon teachings is that what was taught by Smith and Young and the other Mormon apostles of the 19th century is not what is taught now, or in the latter part of the 20th century. Mormons point to the Early Church and claim that it fell away from the original teachings of the Apostles and thus the “great apostasy” ensued. That is exactly what happened with Mormonism. The LDS church of today does not teach what was originally taught be Smith et al. So, by their own definition, they are in a state of apostasy. One would have to look at the fundamentalist off shoot groups to see lived out what Smith et al., taught.

Present day LDS teaching is in a state of apostasy from it’s original teaching of Smith et al.
It was taught in the 1980’s.

You are right about the current LDS church being in a state of apostasy as they have completely distanced themselves from the teachings of their prophets.
 
Jane_Doe is either not aware of what the LDS Church leaders have taught over the years, or if she does, she rejects those leaders teachings.

But those teachings from those leaders are very clear.
)
Marie, with all do respect, you are not the Judge of my faith and I don’t feel the need to justify my beliefs to you.
 
🤷 A through explanation of this involves explaining how not everything that comes out of an LDS leader’s mouth is straight from God (forgive me, I don’t have time for that right now).

The only scriptural account is the NT, plus several other LDS scriptures that describe Mary as a virgin. And yes, LDS and do hold different speculative opinions on the mechanics (speculation is not scripture).
You’ve made this clear on past occasions and I took it for granted. I didn’t suggest that those statements were definitive, I only asked whether or not it is currently permissible to hold to such ideas. Has the Mormon church ever spoken definitively on the matter like they have with polygamy or a black priesthood?

Can you think of strong theological reasons to be against a physical conception?
 
Marie, with all do respect, you are not the Judge of my faith and I don’t feel the need to justify my beliefs to you.
Im am neither judging your faith nor do you need to justify your beliefs.

Im just pointing out the honest and object reality that your beliefs are not in line with LDS leadership over the years.

The various teaching of various leaders, and by leaders I mean those that are sustained by the LDS faithful as “prophets, seers and revelators” every year in General conference, and I believe in stake and ward conferences as well, are plainly there for all to read. Those teachings are very clear.

Some of the beliefs that you have posted are not in line with their teachings.

That is just a factual reality. Not a judgement.

There is a First Presidency Message from August 1979 by N. Eldon Tanner (counselor in the 1st Presidency) entited, “The Debate is over” and it starts off with the quote, “When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over”

Tanner is one of those who was sustained by the LDS faithful as a prophet seer and revelatory, and the Ensign is the official publication
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top