So, Kolob and Jewish Native Americans

[Tarquin]

Though you didn’t specifically say so, you seem to infer that Brigham Young’s quote must be interpreted to mean that a literal sexual union took place between God the Father and Mary. The LDS position is that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and God the Father was Jesus’ literal father. It seems easy enough to read BY’s quote through that LDS lens.

No, I am not saying it must be interpreted that way. I am saying, that is what he said. I had posted

… Brigham Young … made it clear that Jesus was “not born by the Holy Ghost” but by the Father, as naturally as BY was born.

Now I confess that Mormon doctrines have changed over time. The question of Jesus’ paternity is one such change. Since you question it, I should provide further evidence from the teachings of the Prophets themselves, so you will know what they, not some seminary or Sunday School teacher, taught.

Brigham Young was especially clear. “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” – BY, February 16, 1849.

“When the time came that His firstborn, the Savior, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favored that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Savior was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.” BY February 8, 1857

“This matter was a little changed in the case of the Savior of the world, the Son of the living 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. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father.” – BY August 19, 1866.

The Prophet Joseph F. Smith wrote, “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 …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” (Family Home Evening Manual, 1972). He also writes in Doctrines of Salvation, “Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost …Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!”
The First Presidency and Apostles issued a statement in 1916: “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.”
There is no question – prior to the 21st century Mormons taught that God was the literal father of Jesus’ physical body. If you now deny that Mormonism has taught that there was a sexual union between God and Mary, then you disagree with the Prophet Brigham Young on this point, and undoubtedly on many others that relate to it, for he had said (July 8, 1860), “The birth of the Savior was as natural as 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.”

A Mormon Prophet nearer our time, Ezra Benson, wrote, “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.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson).

Church Sunday School and Priesthood materials also teach that Jesus’ physical body was sired by God: “… he was actually, literally, **biologically **the Son of God in the flesh” (Messages for Exaltation)

“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” – Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine.

“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh …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, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father …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” – Orson Pratt

“…he was conceived and begotten in the normal way; that he took upon himself mortality by the natural birth processes; that he inherited the power of mortality from his mother and the power of immortality from his Father—in consequence of all of which he was able to work out the infinite and eternal atonement.” – James E. Talmage (Jesus the Christ)

For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman (see Virgin Birth). Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title “the Only Begotten Son of God” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ, Fatherhood And Sonship)

I expect these facts to change no one’s opinions or beliefs, but they should silence the counterfactual denial.

 

[Tarquin]

LDS do not believe that the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus. Jesus never called Himself the Son of the Holy Spirit.

If you are still responding to my post, I never said he was fathered by the Holy Spirit, nor that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith said he was.

Luke 1:35 (NABRE) And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

While the Holy Spirit was clearly instrumental in the conception, here’s nothing here stating that the Father’s chromosomes couldn’t have been implanted by the Holy Spirit.

There’s nothing saying that his chromosomes couldn’t have been imparted by bumble bees either. The verse says nothing about bumblebees, chromosomes, the Holy Spirit planting chromosomes. But what is said by Mormonism’s Prophets is that whatever was implanted, was done so “naturally”, “in the normal way”, “literally” and “biologically”, in “the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Besides, the Mormon Articles of Faith warn that the verse you quote may have been translated incorrectly.

Matthew 1:18 (NABRE) Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

This verse again indicates the instrumentality of the holy Spirit. If someone is paid by a salary by mail, it doesn’t mean that the payment necessarily originated with the Postal Service.

Another irrelevant passage and comment. The issue is the Mormon concept of Jesus’ paternity, not the Bible’s. Mormon teachings often refute the Bible. Mormon prophets clearly taught that Jesus’ paternity – his physical body – was the result of the same “natural” relation between his parents, as occur between all parents when they conceive a child.

And straight from the Book of Mormon…
1 Nephi 11:18-21
And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. [gazelam comment - here before conception Mary is described as a virgin]
And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! [gazelam comment - The Holy Spirit is instrumental in the conception]

I don’t see your point. This is a vision Nephi had. How can we discern the line between the parts that are literal and the parts that are symbolic (“which waters are a representation”, “the tree of life was a representation”, “the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God”, “the multitude of the earth was gathered together … in a large and spacious building”), or was it all symbolic, a “representation” but not truth itself? Anyway, 1 Nephi 11 in no way negates or trumps the words of the Living Prophets who have spoken since those words were written.

And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. [gazelam comment - after bearing Jesus, Mary is still described as a virgin]
And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! [gazelam comment - Jesus is considered the Son of the Eternal Father, not of the Holy Spirit]
I’m fairly certain Brigham Young is in agreement with this passage. Take care.

Whether Brigham Young is in agreement that Mary was a virgin or not, he did teach that God the Father sired and begat the physical body of Jesus through the natural processes in which fathers and mothers engage in order to create their children. If the perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine of the Mormon Church, it seems irrelevant to anything else in Mormonism. If it is true, it seems to be an isolated fragment unrelated to anything of significance in Mormon doctrines.