What do Mormons Think of Mary - Mother of Jesus

[ben_dy]

amgid:

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

amgid,

Didn’t Brigham Young dismiss the idea of the virgin birth and conception by the Holy Spirit in various places in Journal and Discourses?

“Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.51).

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9599
Brigham Young:

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea — ”if the Son was begotten by 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 upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.51).

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9604

I also have a quote from Orson Pratt concerning Mary as the “Mother of Jesus” but the only reference is that it is from Pratt’s “The Seer” - which I’ve read both was a compilation of sermons in two volumes that he “edited” but have also found a notation that there was originally a pamphlet by Pratt called “The Seer”. So I’m uncertain if the following is from a single pamphlet or a transcribed sermon was his own or BY’s (or someone else entirely - and I also just found that there is a reprint up for auction at deseretbook.com/auctions/show-auction?auction_id=346287 !)

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.

So it’s obvious that at one time it was taught that Christ was conceived not by the Holy Ghost, but by the physical body of God but should I assume, now, that that which is in the standard works the accepted current doctrine? Or that which was taught by BY?

By the way, I think those links will take you to the correct volume number, then you have to find the page number in the frame on the left and then click on the page number, then click “Click here to view item” at which point you can view the pdf image file or download it. I do think that it is very nice to have the entire JoD available online but I wish I could find it in text format - do you know if it’s available in plain text format rather than in pdf image files? The only little trick that I’ve been able to pull off to retrive text from the image file is to download the image files, converted the image to black and white, saved as TIFF, and batch processed the pages using OCR software - I manage to finish with a document that’s about 85% correct so I have to clean it up manually - I can’t afford a full set of the JoD (and Deseret Book, the last time I checked, had none in stock) but I also don’t want my life’s work to be downloading, manipulating, OCRing, and cleaning up text to get a ‘complete’ text version!

Thanks,

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

Didn’t Brigham Young dismiss the idea of the virgin birth and conception by the Holy Spirit in various places in Journal and Discourses?

Quote:
“Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.51).

First of all, neither Brigham Young nor Orson Pratt defines LDS doctrine; only LDS scriptures do. Secondly, I quite agree with Brigham that Jesus was not “begotten by the Holy Ghost”. The scriptures say that Jesus was “conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost,” which is not the same thing.

So it’s obvious that at one time it was taught that Christ was conceived not by the Holy Ghost, but by the physical body of God but should I assume, now, that that which is in the standard works the accepted current doctrine? Or that which was taught by BY?

“That which is in the standard works” is, should always be, the “accepted current doctrine”.

By the way, I think those links will take you to the correct volume number, then you have to find the page number in the frame on the left and then click on the page number, then click “Click here to view item” at which point you can view the pdf image file or download it. I do think that it is very nice to have the entire JoD available online but I wish I could find it in text format - do you know if it’s available in plain text format rather than in pdf image files? The only little trick that I’ve been able to pull off to retrive text from the image file is to download the image files, converted the image to black and white, saved as TIFF, and batch processed the pages using OCR software - I manage to finish with a document that’s about 85% correct so I have to clean it up manually - I can’t afford a full set of the JoD (and Deseret Book, the last time I checked, had none in stock) but I also don’t want my life’s work to be downloading, manipulating, OCRing, and cleaning up text to get a ‘complete’ text version!

Once upon a time I discovered a searchable version of the JoD on the Internet; and it was actually very good. I was looking for something very specific, and I was able to find it quite quickly. But I didn’t make a note of the URL, and have since not been able to find it on the Internet again. If you discover it, tell me! There may also be CD versions of it available too, but I don’t have one, and I haven’t checked for sure. Ask Deseret if they have one.

But why are you so keen on the JoD? The Book of Mormon is a lot better!

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear Amgid;

You said:

Amgid:

…I quite agree with Brigham that Jesus was not “begotten by the Holy Ghost”. The scriptures say that Jesus was “conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost,” which is not the same thing.

So what you believe is that God the Heavenly Father had actual physical intercourse with Mary, and that the Holy Sprit participated in a spiritual way to cause the conception of Jesus? Is that the accepted LDS doctrine?

If that’s not what you mean, can you explain for me your understanding of the difference between “conceived” and “begotten”

Thanks,

 

[Mom_of_5]

An LDS friend explained that Mary was a good person that Heavenly Father chose for the mother of His son, Jesus. Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with Mary which brought about the birth of Jesus. LDS believe that God is flesh and bone. Now one really big problem with this theory (as I see it) is that if Mary was a spirit baby of Heavenly Father and one of His wives, who took a body here on earth to progress and to learn lessons on earth to go back to live in the spirit world and if Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with Mary ( one of His spirit children), wouldn’t this be incest? My friend
could not explain this away.

Love and peace

Mom of 5

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Mom of 5:

An LDS friend explained that Mary was a good person that Heavenly Father chose for the mother of His son, Jesus. Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with Mary which brought about the birth of Jesus. LDS believe that God is flesh and bone. Now one really big problem with this theory (as I see it) is that if Mary was a spirit baby of Heavenly Father and one of His wives, who took a body here on earth to progress and to learn lessons on earth to go back to live in the spirit world and if Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with Mary ( one of His spirit children), wouldn’t this be incest? My friend
could not explain this away.

Love and peace

Mom of 5

Wow! Great point. How do the LDS members counter this argument?

Also, the Heavenly Father apparently cheated on his Heavenly wife with his spiritual daughter if he had actual sexual intercourse with Mary.

Wouldn’t Mary also be guilty of the sin of adultery if she had actual physical sexual intercourse with another man (even if he was exalted), while she was betrothed to Joseph?

 

[jediliz]

Robert in SD:

Wow! Great point. How do the LDS members counter this argument?

Also, the Heavenly Father apparently cheated on his Heavenly wife with his spiritual daughter if he had actual sexual intercourse with Mary.

Wouldn’t Mary also be guilty of the sin of adultery if she had actual physical sexual intercourse with another man (even if he was exalted), while she was betrothed to Joseph?

With information like this, it makes me even gladder that I am a Catholic.

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

So what you believe is that God the Heavenly Father had actual physical intercourse with Mary, and that the Holy Sprit participated in a spiritual way to cause the conception of Jesus? Is that the accepted LDS doctrine?

No, that is not correct LDS doctrine.

If that’s not what you mean, can you explain for me your understanding of the difference between “conceived” and “begotten”

Both the NT and the Book of Mormon affirm that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost

Matthew 1:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
By that I understand that He was miraculously conceived by the divine power of God. If it had said, “begotten by the Holy Ghost,” that would mean that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost. The scriptures, however, describe Him as the “Only Begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), not of the Holy Ghost. So Brigham was right on that assertion.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Let’s look at what the LDS church teaches on this from their “prophets of the Lord whose revelations were given them of God. reject them at your peril.”

*# “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).

“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).​

“[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh” (Messages for Exaltation, pp.378-379).​

“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” (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158).​

“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, Brigham Young, 8:115).​

“…I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it” (Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball, 8:211).​

“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, Joseph F. Smith, pp.125,126).​

“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!” (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).​

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

“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, 1966, pg.742).​

“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).​

“The Father had a Son, a natural Son, his own literal Seed, the Offspring of his body” (Bruce McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pg.355).​

“There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” (The Promised Messiah, pg.468).​

“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 …” (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, pg.150).​

“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).*​

 

[majick275]

(continued)

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. (1 Ne. 11.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.742 Son Of God, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM) Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.468 - p.469 And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son.​

The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring of an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the womb from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacled in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord’s coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God—the Only Begotten of the Father. (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.67-68, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM) 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” (John 3:16; Benson, p. 3; see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). He was not the son of the Holy Ghost; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35; 1 Ne. 11:19). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ, Fatherhood And Sonship) The scriptures plainly and repeatedly affirm that God is the Creator of the earth and the heavens… 1. “Father” as Literal Parent. Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification—literally that of Parent—are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "​

Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race. Elohim is the Father in every sense in which Jesus Christ is so designated, and distinctively He is the Father of spirits. … 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, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title “Son of God” as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary. (James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.5, p.26-27 The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and the Twelve, June 1916, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM) There is no lack of clarity about Christ’s sonship. Jesus is the Son of God in at least three ways. First, he is the firstborn spirit child of God the Father and thereby the elder brother of the spirits of all men and women as God the Father, known also by the exalted name-title Elohim, is the father of the spirits of all mankind (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9; John 20:17). Thus, when Christ is called the Firstborn (e.g., Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21), Latter- day Saints accept this as a possible reference to Christ’s spiritual birth.​

 

[majick275]

(continued)

Second, he is the literal physical son of God, the Only Begotten in the Flesh (e.g., John 1:14; 3:16; 2 Ne. 25:12; Jacob 4:11; D&C 29:42; 93:11; Moses 1:6; 2:26). Third, spiritually he is also a son by virtue of his submission unto the will of the Father (Heb. 5:8). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ, Names And Titles Of Son Of God.) Jesus was not the son of any mortal man.​

His biological father was God, the Father. As Son of God, Jesus represents the Father and acts as his agent in all things. (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Restoration of All Things, p.61) The Latter-day Saints unite with the people of every creed and tongue and race in the general commemoration of the day observed throughout Christendom as the anniversary of the God-Man’s earthly birth. … We bow to Him as the veritable Son of the living God in the fullest sense of the hallowed term. As Mary was His saintly mother, so the Mighty God was His everlasting and​

literal Father. He was “the only begotten” of Deity, in the flesh, to die that man may live. This we once more affirm and declare as a glorious truth and a fundamental of “Mormon” faith. (James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.318 - p.319 A Christmas Greeting From The First Presidency, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM) He is the Son of God. All men (Christ included) were born as the sons of God in the spirit; one man (Christ only) was born as the Son of God in this mortal world.​

He is the Only Begotten in the flesh. God was his Father; Mary was his mother. His Father was an immortal man; his mother was a mortal woman. He is the Son of God in the same literal, full, and complete sense in which he is the son of Mary. There is nothing symbolic or figurative about it. He is God’s Almighty Son and as such is distinguished from the Father in the same way any son is a separate person from his father. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ) Jesus was more, however, than sinlessness, goodness, and love. He was more than a model and teacher, more than the embodiment of compassion. He was able to accomplish his unique ministry—a ministry of reconciliation and salvation—because of who and what he was. President Ezra Taft Benson 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 fathered 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!" (Benson, p. 4). From Mary, a mortal woman, Jesus inherited mortality, including the capacity to die. From his exalted Father he inherited immortality, the capacity to live forever. The Savior’s dual nature—man and God—enabled him to make an infinite Atonement, an accomplishment that no other person, no matter how capable or gifted, could do (cf. Alma 34:9-12). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ) The strangest part of this modern doctrine of God is the fact that Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father, was born in Bethlehem, grew to manhood, mingled among men for thirty-odd years and was seen of men. … In most of the churches he is recognized as God. He was sent into the world for the definite purpose of redeeming men from the power which death had obtained over them through the transgression of Adam. The reason this mission was given to him by his Father is that no one else could perform it. It required an infinite sacrifice, that of a God. This is quite generally conceded. Throughout the scriptures he is spoken of as the Son of God. The story of his birth is plain and free from mystery, insofar as the fact is made that he is in very deed the Son of God. We are emphatically informed that he was begotten by the Father. He recognized God as his Father. He referred to himself as being the Son of God. This is not a mystery. But strange to say, because of the great spiritual darkness which has covered the earth and blinded the minds of men, these simple, plainly stated truths are turned into a mystery without warrant or reason. It is true of Jesus Christ, as it is of any other son, he was begotten in the image of his Father and in his case his Father is the Eternal God, and the scriptures inform us that Jesus was the express image of his Father. And why not? Other sons are frequently in the express image of their fathers. So it is recorded of Seth. Naturally it would be true of Jesus Christ. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.6-8)​

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. (See 1 Timothy 3:16; D&C 19:10.)​

 

[majick275]

(continued)

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. (Come unto Christ, p. 4.) He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.) (“Joy in Christ,” Ensign 16 [March 1986]: 3-4.)​

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and power of His Eternal Father. As the Son of God, He inherited powers and intelligence that no human has ever had before or since. He was literally Immanuel, which means “God with us.” (Come unto Christ, p. 128.)​

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.465 To have a testimony of Jesus is to possess knowledge through the Holy Ghost of the divine mission of Jesus Christ. A testimony of Jesus is to know the divine nature of our Lord’s birth—that He is indeed the Only Begotten Son in the flesh. (Burton, ed., We Believe, God Melvin J. Ballard)​

One of the great questions that I have referred to that the world is concerned about, and is in​

confusion over, is as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that Jesus Christ told the absolute truth, as did those who testify concerning him, the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, wherein he is declared to be the very Son of God. And if God the Eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then are we in confusion; then is he not in reality the Son of God. But we declare that he is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God, and had come to be worthy of the fulfilment of the promises heretofore made, to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said: “God hath done wonderful things unto me.” “And the Holy Ghost came upon her,” is the story, “and she came into the presence of the highest.” No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.472 - p.473) But perhaps Isaiah’s query “Who shall declare his generation?” has a greater Messianic meaning than is found in a mere attempt to trace genealogical ancestry. It is a true principle that “no man can say [or, rather, know] that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor. 12:3.) The testimony of Jesus, which is also the spirit of prophecy is to know by personal revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. In the full and complete sense of the word no one ever knows that Jesus is Lord of all except by personal revelation; and all persons to whom that testimony or revelation comes are then able to declare His generation, to assert from a standpoint of personal knowledge that they know that Mary is his mother and God is his Father. And so, in the final analysis it is the faithful saints, those who have testimonies of the truth and divinity of this great latter-day work, who declare our Lord’s generation to the world.​

 

[majick275]

(continued)

Their testimony is that Mary’s son is God’s Son; that 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. This is their testimony as to his generation and mission. (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.5, p.43) It is significant that this assurance of eventual victory over sin and its inevitable effect, death, both of which were introduced to earth through Satan the arch-enemy of mankind, was to be realized through the offspring of woman; the promise was not made specifically to the man, nor to the pair. The only instance of offspring from woman dissociated from mortal fatherhood is the birth of Jesus the Christ, who was the earthly Son of a mortal mother, begotten by an immortal Father. He is the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father in the flesh, and was born of woman. (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.7, p.81)​

His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all.​

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 Christ was to be born of mortal woman, but was not directly the offspring of mortal man, except so far as His mother was the daughter of both man and woman. ( J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Behold the Lamb of God, p.356)

sorry so lengthy but I felt that we needed everything on the table so that we could examine just what is being taught and how this teaching is being received.

 

[arieh0310]

quote=majick275

Their testimony is that Mary’s son is God’s Son; that he was conceived and begotten in the normal way​

[/quote]

So, Mary was only a virgin until the Father had sex with her? If Christ was born of a virgin in this way then I guess my older brother was born of a virgin too since he was my mother’s first child.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

No, that is not correct LDS doctrine.

Both the NT and the Book of Mormon affirm that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost

Matthew 1:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
By that I understand that He was miraculously conceived by the divine power of God. If it had said, “begotten by the Holy Ghost,” that would mean that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost. The scriptures, however, describe Him as the “Only Begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), not of the Holy Ghost. So Brigham was right on that assertion.

amgid

Dear Amgid;

You have not addressed the inconsistency.

(1) Again and again (thank you Majick275) we see LDS prophets stating that God is a flesh and blood exalted man with an exalted wife who together are the parents of all of us, their spirit children.

(2) We also hear again and again that Jesus was physically conceived by Mary through a physical act with the Heavenly Father.

(3) This seems to lead to a moral and logical morass. Was Mary really the Heavenly Father’s god-wife who came to earth to help bring Jesus into the flesh, in which case God simply had intercourse with His Heavenly wife? Or was Mary made one of many god-wives that the Heavenly Father takes where necessary for His plan, (in which case God “uncovered the nakedness of Joseph” by doing so)? Or was she a spirit child just like the rest of us, that the Heavenly Father simply used for His greater plan?

(4) Answers from LDS members on this forum suggest the latter response - i.e that Mary was simply a normal human being that our Heavenly Father used to bring Jesus into the flesh. But from this one must conclude that the Heavenly Father had intercourse with one of his own spirit children, while she was betrothed to Joseph, another one of his spirit children. That does not seem like the act of a God who is infinitely just.

I’m really lost? Do I have this right or am I just way off base when it comes to understanding LDS doctrine?

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

You have not addressed the inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency. The inconsistency was addressed by me on this board several times before. LDS doctrine is that which is taught in LDS scripture. Anything outside that cannon that cannot be confirmed by it is speculation and is not to be regarded as authoritative LDS doctrine. What is there about that statement which you find difficult to understand?

I’m really lost?

You needn’t be.

Do I have this right or am I just way off base when it comes to understanding LDS doctrine?

See above.

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

amgid:

There is no inconsistency. The inconsistency was addressed by me on this board several times before. LDS doctrine is that which is taught in LDS scripture. Anything outside that cannon that cannot be confirmed by it is speculation and is not to be regarded as authoritative LDS doctrine. What is there about that statement which you find difficult to understand?

Here’s my problem: LDS Scriptures = BoM, KJV Bible, D&C, PoGP.

From what I’ve seen here, D&C seems to clarify that God was once a human and is now and exalted man. Is that not LDS doctrine? If it is not, it sure seems to be perceived as doctrine by many many LDS members. Similarly, D&C confirms the existence of a Heavenly mother who, with Heavenly Father gives birth to spirit children that come to earth. My brother - an LDS says that this too is understood by the LDS church to be an accurate statement.

So, if God the Heavenly Father has a wife in heaven and together they give birth to spirit children that become us on earth, then where does that place the Heavenly Father’s relationship with Mary?

amgid:

You needn’t be.

See above.

amgid

Your response is to simply deny the inconsistency? Thanks for the help.

BJ, maybe you can help me out here? Or TOmNossor?

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

Here’s my problem: LDS Scriptures = BoM, KJV Bible, D&C, PoGP.

Correct.

From what I’ve seen here, D&C seems to clarify that God was once a human and is now and exalted man.

I don’t read that anywhere in the D&C. Show me where.

Is that not LDS doctrine?

No, it is not.

If it is not, it sure seems to be perceived as doctrine by many many LDS members.

It has been widespread in the past, but it has been repudiated by current leadership.

Similarly, D&C confirms the existence of a Heavenly mother who, with Heavenly Father gives birth to spirit children that come to earth.

D&C confirms no such thing. Show me where.

My brother - an LDS says that this too is understood by the LDS church to be an accurate statement.

The leadership have affirmed the existence of a “Heavenly Mother,” but nothing has been said about “giving birth to spirit children”. Your brother does not appear to be well-informed.

So, if God the Heavenly Father has a wife in heaven and together they give birth to spirit children that become us on earth, then where does that place the Heavenly Father’s relationship with Mary?

Your statement is extremely confused. It is based on too many incorrect assumptions.

Your response is to simply deny the inconsistency? Thanks for the help.

How else did you expect me to respond to your post, when you had provided no information, but simply made unsubstantiated assertions?

BJ, maybe you can help me out here? Or TOmNossor?

What were you expecting them to tell you?

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear amgid;

majick275:

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. (1 Ne. 11.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.742 Son Of God, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM) Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.468 - p.469 And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son.​

How can LDS theologians make statements like this if they are not supported by doctrine.

So, now you’re telling me that it is not LDS doctrine that God was once a man, when every other LDS member I’ve spoken with seems to disagree with you?

Where has this doctrine of God as exalted man been repudiated? YOU show ME, please.

So, now you are saying that, contrary to what is perceived by many to be the LDS belief in a spiritual mother and a spiritual father, that is not the case?

I don’t think my statement is based on incorrect assumptions. It is based upon the statements made by LDS members who visit this forum. God = exalted man. God has female exalted wife. (Good LDS members who go to the LDS temple will become exalted like this.) And, Heavenly Father “begat” Jesus with Mary in the usual way.

If that’s the case, then what is Mary, the mother of Jesus, and how do LDS members understand her relationship with the Heavenly Father. Is she exalted now, in accordance with LDS doctrine? If so, is she our Heavenly Father’s counterpart. Is she the counterpart to St. Joseph? Does she have some unique role in the LDS church as she does in Catholicism.

You have done a very good job at telling me if you think I’m wrong, but you are doing nothing to clarify LDS doctrine for me.

 

[paul_barlow]

somebody posted that in mormon doctrine by bruce r. mcconkie. that he states that mary had sex with god. who ever it was can not read they are wrong he states the opposite. so don’t try to invent our doctrine for us. and impose a falsehood on this forum.

 

[ben_dy]

paul barlow:

somebody posted that in mormon doctrine by bruce r. mcconkie. that he states that mary had sex with god. who ever it was can not read they are wrong he states the opposite. so don’t try to invent our doctrine for us. and impose a falsehood on this forum.

Paul,

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

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 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.” (Mormon Doctrine, p.742)

Doesn’t leave a lot of room for any misreading! Many of us have read it - and many have posted it. If you can show where he “states the opposite” I’m sure we’d all like to read that as well. But we’re not trying to invent doctrine for you - as amgid is wont to remind us, and we now realize, there is no true Mormon doctrine outside of the standard works - this is (was), no doubt, purely speculative on the part of Apostle McConkie.