Did God the Father have literal physical sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary?
Bart Burk
reasons why you believe what you do. I'm just trying to generally
figure out what Mormons think.
I say He didn't.
Peggy Tatyana
Speaking from my LDS persona (since my current belief is actually that the
historical Jesus did not have a non-human father) I would say that the
details are none of my business. (That is, maybe, maybe not -- I don't see
it as something worth bothering about.) But that could be only my holdover
Victorian prudery speaking. ;-P
Peggy
--
WWSD ***** What Would Samwise Do?
John S. Colton
Neither I, nor AFAIK any LDS with whom I'm acquainted, believe
this.(*)
John
(*) Not to belabor the obvious, but Mary was a *virgin*.
*****
John's newsgroup motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
James C. Miller
As a bemused athiest exmormon, I think that LDS belief spans a
spectrum here wfrom yea to nay.
The LDS Yea-sayers tend to base their belief on GC talks by Brigham
Young who I'm convinced thought he was preaching revealed truth from
God. After all, he made several statements that his speeches are the
same as scripture so I think he thought they were.
Those LDS Nay-sayers tend to reject Brigham Young's statements with
the standard suspects (1) out of context, (2) misreported, or (3)
speaking only as a man and not a prophet.
The tricky part is that this belief in actual sexual intercourse tends
to be connected to the equally controversial Adam/God doctrine.
While those topics are in themselves highly interesting and often
generate heated debate, it might prove equally interesting to have you
tell us what prompts your question to us.
Jimbo
miller...@cox.net
James C. Miller
<snip>
> Speaking from my LDS persona (since my current belief is actually that the
> historical Jesus did not have a non-human father) I would say that the
> details are none of my business.
Interesting response, Peggy. But help me here, what do you mean by
non-human father? The potential answers I see here could be even more
interesting than your response.
Jimbo
miller...@cox.net
Scott
I've heard this idea, it's based on a twisting of a BY clearification
that God is the Father of Jesus, not the Holy Ghost. I've even heard
it allued to in an Institute class, I beleive it is false doctrine.
BY was making the point that God is the Father of Jesus, and that
through the power fo the Holy Ghost his son was concieved, and that
Jesus is not the son of the HG.
BTW, Mary was a vigrin until after Christ was born if you beleive the
scriptures.
Regards,
Scott
Bart Burk
that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. I don't think
most of us believe that. I think most of us accept the idea that Mary
conceived without sexual intercourse. I thought I would actually ask
my fellow Mormons what they really thought. The antis never seem to
do this, but rely on some old talk by Brigham Young or some other dead
leader to prove their point. Even if you look at what the dead
leaders taught, it is not obvious they were saying sexual intercourse
was involved.
miller...@cox.net (James C. Miller) wrote in message
David Bowie
: Speaking from my LDS persona (since my current belief is actually
: that the historical Jesus did not have a non-human father) I would
: say that the details are none of my business. (That is, maybe, maybe
: not -- I don't see it as something worth bothering about.) But that
: could be only my holdover Victorian prudery speaking. ;-P
PRUDE HATCH!!
PRUDE HATCH!!
PRUDE HATCH!!
David, keeper of ancient threads
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
just wondering
only that Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, only that Mary was a virgin prior to Jesus' conception.
On the main theme: No one really knows, so anything said on the subject is speculation. But, suppose God and Mary did
conceive Jesus together in the "usual way." If they did, so what? Isn't God omnipotent? Are those saying it didn't
happen putting limits on God? Or are they just uncomfortable with the implications if Jesus was conceived that way?
James C. Miller
> I've heard some anti-Mormons making the comment that Mormons believe
> that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. I don't think
> most of us believe that. I think most of us accept the idea that Mary
> conceived without sexual intercourse. I thought I would actually ask
> my fellow Mormons what they really thought.
What did you find?
> The antis never seem to
> do this, but rely on some old talk by Brigham Young or some other dead
> leader to prove their point. Even if you look at what the dead
> leaders taught, it is not obvious they were saying sexual intercourse
> was involved.
As an atheist exmormon, I don't personally belive that God the Father
had sexual intercourse with Mary, and I suspect that most contemporary
LDS don't believe that, either. But I have personally spoken with
some current LDS who *DO* believe that. My personal impression was
that those who believed there was sexual intercourse tend to be those
whose beliefs I'd characterize as leaning to the fundamentalist side.
I am also aware from web sites, that several fundamentalist Mormon
polygamist groups strongly believe that sexual intercourse ocurred and
this seems to corrolate to a belief in the Adam/God doctrine,
something neither I nor most contemporary LDS believe in.
I take it from the above poster that he is uncomfortable with the
thought that LDS belief spans a spectrum so I'm not surprised that he
finds it hard to believe that, contrary to his mistaken assertions
above, I and other "anti-Mormons" *DO* ask active Mormons what they
really think. I also have twenty years experience as an active LDS
myself - and in the Utah Corridor, to boot -- which shouldn't be
discounted.
If the poster participates long enough in this newsgroup, and I
strongly recommend that he does, I think he'll find what the rest of
us have -- that contemporary LDS belief varies significantly on some
subjects. I refer the poster to the current s.r.m. thread, "The
Disparate Five" for comments about how hard it is to get everyone to
agree on what is LDS doctrine. I also refer the poster to this thread
for the high quality of Craig's depiction of the individual Disparate
Five, though I recommend that he not have his mouth full of any
beverage when it reads it so he can avoid what I did with that
mouthfull when I laughed reading it.
Incidentally, and admittedly off-topic, last night, my teen daughter
read Craig's adventure story, but insisted on deliberately pronouncing
the group's title as the "Desperate Five" instead of the "Disparate
Five." Ah, years ago she was Daddy's Little Girl and now she's
Daddy's Little Handful. I would have discussed the story with her,
but just then she got a phone call from a boy with a deep voice
strongly suggesting to my fatherly mind that he was experiencing
ongoing spermatogenesis and she suddenly lost all interest in the
story. Ah, teens. Sorry, Craig.
Back on topic. Not only is there documentable variance in some topics
in contemporary LDS belief by TBMs, there is documentable variance in
what earlier LDS Prophets believed and what contemporary ones believe.
The early LDS Church was quite different in many respects (speaking
in tongues; singing in tongues; women performing healing ceremonies;
smoking and tobacco chewing in the congregation and in the Temple; the
use of actual fermented wine in the sacrament; wine in the Temple,
etc.) from the contemporary ones. I suspect that if the poster were
to go back in a time machine and attend an LDS worship service where
Joseph Smith himself talked, the poster might not recognize the
meeting as an LDS meeting. He certainly wouldn't recognize the Temple
ceremony in the Kirtland Temple, and he might be surprised at some of
what he heard in the Nauvoo Temple ceremony.
There are several possible interpretations of LDS leaders' comments
about sexual intercourse with Mary by "dead prophets' as the poster
put it, but in context, a defendable position is that Brigham Young
and others probably actually believed that God the Father had sexual
intercourse with Mary. One such GC talk by one of the Apostles (I
would think one of the Pratt brothers) available in the Journal of
Discourses described how God the Father had married Mary as one of his
plural wives so intercourse was perfectly allowable. The poster can
accept or reject this interpretation as he pleases in accordance to
with what he is comfortable. There's nothing wrong with being in the
"milk" stage, as LDS sometimes call it.
Other LDS, however, who are ready to move onto the "meat," may wish to
be aware that early LDS leaders had some views at variance with
contemporary beliefs. Such thoughtful LDS can probably accommodate
such variances by understanding that LDS doctrine has evolved over
time, i.e. line upon line, precept on precept.
Jimbo
miller...@cox.net
father of peace
>I don't want to hear what Brigham Young thought. I don't want to hear
>reasons why you believe what you do. I'm just trying to generally
>figure out what Mormons think.
I was taught while growing up in a 100% mormon community
that God and Mary had physical intercourse.
My first post to a.r.m. was to share what I was taught.
Many posters to the forum, who claim to be LdS, called
me apostate, and all sorts of other vile names. I decided
that LdS ain't mormon no more man.
I think that many LdS care more about image and good
media attention than they care about the truth. I was
honestly taught my whole life that God and Mary had
sexual intercourse. But it brings bad media coverage
so we have to deny it on the internet.
Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon
father of peace
>BTW, Mary was a vigrin until after Christ was born if you beleive the
>scriptures.
You can't quote a scripture that says that Mary was a
virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. The best you can do
is that a 'young woman' conceived....
Scott
> conceive Jesus together in the "usual way." If they did, so what? Isn't God omnipotent? Are those saying it didn't
> happen putting limits on God? Or are they just uncomfortable with the implications if Jesus was conceived that way?
Saying that God would "have" to do it this way put a limit on God. But
you're right, no one really knows except for what's in the scriptures,
where it says that Christ was born to a virgin and concieved through
the power of the Holy Ghost, to me that means no, God did not have
"literal" sex with Mary.
Regards,
Scott
Jeff Shirton
news:10g23qe...@news.supernews.com...
>
> >BTW, Mary was a vigrin until after Christ was born
> >if you beleive the scriptures.
>
> You can't quote a scripture that says that Mary was
> a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.
Mat 1:23 Behold, a *VIRGIN* shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.
> The best you can do is that a 'young woman' conceived....
Matt. 1:23 contains the word, "parthenos" (where we get,
"Parthenon"), which explicitly and undeniably means,
"virgin".
And yes, I know you're going to point out that Matt. 1:23
is a quote if Isa. 7:14, but that doesn't change the facts
that (1) Matthew is Scripture, and (2) Matt. 1:23
undeniably says "virgin".
Your "young woman" quote obviously comes from Isa. 7:14,
and even it denies the fact that the Hebrew word used there,
"almah", actually means "maiden", and has all the connotations
of *virginity* as well (sheltered, hiddened, protected, pure, etc.)
> Absalom
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
Joatman71
You are probably familiar with the expression "teach them correct
principles and let them govern themselves". What about the scripture
section "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line,
line upon line, here a little, there a little " and finally from A few
Good Men, "you can't handle the truth".
Gene Fuller
"Joatman71" <joat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10g5rnk...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> > I was taught while growing up in a 100% mormon community
> > that God and Mary had physical intercourse.
Some "Moromons" insist on that. It is not a matter of Latter-day Saint
doctrine.
> > My first post to a.r.m. was to share what I was taught.
> > Many posters to the forum, who claim to be LdS, called
> > me apostate, and all sorts of other vile names. I decided
> > that LdS ain't mormon no more man.
I truly hope that the Latter-day Saints are not Mormon. That would make them
members of the Church of Mormon, rather than members of the Church of
Christ.
False interpretation of reason for not accepting that we teach what we do
not teach, snipped.
Snip again, what appears to be a non-sequitur.
Scott
> >BTW, Mary was a vigrin until after Christ was born if you beleive the
> >scriptures.
>
> You can't quote a scripture that says that Mary was a
> virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. The best you can do
> is that a 'young woman' conceived....
>
> Love,
> Absalom
Isiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matt 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and
they shall call his cname Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
with us.
1 Nephi 11
13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of
Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth;
and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly
fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came
down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest
thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all
other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children;
nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 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.
19 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!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her
arms.
Note that verse 20 is post-birth
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.
Seems to me that she was a virgin up until Christ was born, then
probabaly for a few months after that :)
Regards,
Scott
Gene Fuller
"Scott" <scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10g7tkj...@news.supernews.com...
> abs...@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in message
news:<10g23qe...@news.supernews.com>...
> > >BTW, Mary was a vigrin until after Christ was born if you beleive the
> > >scriptures.
> >
> > You can't quote a scripture that says that Mary was a
> > virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. The best you can do
> > is that a 'young woman' conceived....
> >
> > Love,
> > Absalom
Man, I hate to agree with Absalom! <G> But when he is right, I have little
or no choice. Here, I bellieve he is, at least in part, right. From what I
have read, the word used in Isaiah and translated as "Virgin" in the King
James Version is a word that more generally means "young woman". I looked at
the Isaiah passage, (7:14), and found that most translations on Bible
Gateway indeed say that a virgin shall conceive, but significantly, perhaps,
they do not say whe will remain a virgin. I suspect a significant number of
young women, formerly virgins, conceive each year.
But here is the entry for the "Contemporary English Version"
Quote
Isaiah 7:14 :: Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Isaiah 7
14But the LORD will still give you proof. A virgin [1] is pregnant;
she will have a son and will name him Immanuel. [2]
Footnotes
1.. 7.14 virgin: Or "young woman." In this context the difficult
Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation
made about 200 (B.C. )and used by the early Christians, the word parthenos
had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman,"
Matthew understood it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1.23)
because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
2.. 7.14 Immanuel: In Hebrew "Immanuel" means "God is with us."
End Quote
If this is to be applied to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus Christ, it is
possible, of course, that the reference is accurate. It is even possible,
that, although he was not named Immanuel, the Greek name brought into
English as Jesus is equivalent. But it is not obvious.
> Matt 1:23
> Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and
> they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
> with us.
Of course, the footnote referenced above shows another way of understanding
this.
> 1 Nephi 11
> 13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of
> Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth;
> and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly
> fair and white.
At this point, Mary could well have been still a virgin, and yet not at the
time of the birth of Jesus.
> 14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came
> down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest
> thou?
>
> 15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all
> other virgins.
How would Nephi have known that the person he "beheld" was a virgin" That he
could see she was a young woman, I will not dispute.
> 16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
>
> 17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children;
> nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
I actually believe that verse 17 is the most important in this passage.
> 18 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.
Does this mean that Jesus had already been born? He had not yet at this
time, since verse 19 follows in time as well as sequence.
> 19 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!
>
> 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her
> arms.
And again, how would Nephi have known that she was "still" a virgin,
although he could easily tell, maybe, that it was the same "young woman".
> Note that verse 20 is post-birth
And note Nephi still had no way to know that she was "still" a virgin. And
there was no record of his receiving a revelation to that effect.
> 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.
Yes, according to the angel, Mary was still a virgin at that time, but she
was yet to be "overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and
bring forth a son, ..." I declare that even this is not proof positive that
she was still a virgin (although she was a young woman, when Jesus who was
not generally called "immanuel" so far as I know, was born.
> Seems to me that she was a virgin up until Christ was born, then
> probabaly for a few months after that :)
Well, of course the Isaiah passage says within the previous verses that it
was to reassure King Ahaz that he need not fear attack by Syria and Israel.
The sign was to assure him that God was telling the truth, or that the
prophecy was from God.
All my life in protestant churches (before I became a member of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) I heard the interpretation that it
applied to Mary and Jesus, but I have never heard of its being fulfilled for
the apparent purpose. Have you?
I do not proclaim that Mary was not a virgin at the time of the birth of
Jesus, nor do I even deny that Mary remained a "Blessed Virgin" for the rest
of her life. But I do not really believe it is necessary for me to accept
either claim to be a Christian.
Gene
Scott
> or no choice. Here, I bellieve he is, at least in part, right. From what I
> have read, the word used in Isaiah and translated as "Virgin" in the King
> James Version is a word that more generally means "young woman". I looked at
> the Isaiah passage, (7:14), and found that most translations on Bible
> Gateway indeed say that a virgin shall conceive, but significantly, perhaps,
> they do not say whe will remain a virgin. I suspect a significant number of
> young women, formerly virgins, conceive each year.
>
All of your suggestions make sense, so I suppose we need to turn to
modern day revelation to clearify the scriptures :)
-------------
April 1976 Conference
Elder Eldred G. Smith
Patriarch to the Church
"He was truly no novice, no amateur, in the art or skill of a creator.
"Worlds without number" he has created.
It was he, then, who came to this earth in the meridian of time, born
of the virgin Mary葉he literal Son of God the Father, "the Only
Begotten Son."
-----------
April 1982 Conference
President Marion G. Romney
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John 10:17-18.)
This power was inherently his by virtue of his being born of the
virgin Mary (a mortal), and being the Son of God (an immortal,
celestialized being).
-------------
Ensign 1991
By President Ezra Taft Benson
Yes, God was the Father of His fleshly tabernacle, and Mary預 mortal
woman and a virgin謡as His mother. He is, therefore, the only person
born who rightfully deserves the title "the Only Begotten Son of God."
-------------
There are others, and I found nothing specifically about virgin
meaning young woman when referring to Mary.
> And again, how would Nephi have known that she was "still" a virgin,
> although he could easily tell, maybe, that it was the same "young woman".
Revelation, the same way he knew anything.
> > Note that verse 20 is post-birth
>
> And note Nephi still had no way to know that she was "still" a virgin. And
> there was no record of his receiving a revelation to that effect.
Revelation. Does one need a record to say "on this day I received the
revelation, and here it is"?
> > Seems to me that she was a virgin up until Christ was born, then
> > probabaly for a few months after that :)
>
> Well, of course the Isaiah passage says within the previous verses that it
> was to reassure King Ahaz that he need not fear attack by Syria and Israel.
> The sign was to assure him that God was telling the truth, or that the
> prophecy was from God.
>
> All my life in protestant churches (before I became a member of The Church
> of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) I heard the interpretation that it
> applied to Mary and Jesus, but I have never heard of its being fulfilled for
> the apparent purpose. Have you?
>
> I do not proclaim that Mary was not a virgin at the time of the birth of
> Jesus, nor do I even deny that Mary remained a "Blessed Virgin" for the rest
> of her life. But I do not really believe it is necessary for me to accept
> either claim to be a Christian.
I agree.
Regards,
Scott
father of peace
>> You can't quote a scripture that says that Mary was
>> a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.
>
>Mat 1:23 Behold, a *VIRGIN* shall be with child,
> and shall bring forth a son, and they shall
> call his name Emmanuel, which being
> interpreted is, God with us.
>
>> The best you can do is that a 'young woman' conceived....
Even in English Virgin does't necesarily mean
"Never had sex".
father of peace
>All of your suggestions make sense, so I suppose we need to turn to
>modern day revelation to clearify the scriptures :)
Then you had best do your research and include
the quotes by Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young which
say that God and Mary had intercourse.
>It was he, then, who came to this earth in the meridian of time, born
>of the virgin Mary葉he literal Son of God the Father, "the Only
>Begotten Son."
"virgin Mary" is a title ripped off from the Catholics, it is
not a modern day revelation.
Begotten tends to imply intercourse...
>Ensign 1991
>By President Ezra Taft Benson
>
>Yes, God was the Father of His fleshly tabernacle, and Mary預 mortal
>woman and a virgin謡as His mother. He is, therefore, the only person
>born who rightfully deserves the title "the Only Begotten Son of God."
>There are others, and I found nothing specifically about virgin
>meaning young woman when referring to Mary.
It is a very common thing for the LdS to do, redefine words
so that they have a special LdS meaning.... Get out your
English dictionary. There are plenty of definitions for the
word "virgin" which do not say "never had intercourse".
>> And again, how would Nephi have known that she was "still" a virgin,
>> although he could easily tell, maybe, that it was the same "young woman".
>
>Revelation, the same way he knew anything.
Supposing I was watching a different movie, lets say
for the purposes of exploration that we are watching the
goings on at a slaughter house....
What do you see?
I see a cow...
We watch the slaughter process....
What do you see?
I see the cow...
Even though it has been cut up and packaged, it
is still the same cow.
>> And note Nephi still had no way to know that she was "still" a virgin. And
>> there was no record of his receiving a revelation to that effect.
>
>Revelation. Does one need a record to say "on this day I received the
>revelation, and here it is"?
Besides, since the BoM authors are quoting Isaiah when they
mention the term "young woman", I presume that they are using
it in the same sense as the authors of Isaiah used it.
I am very reluctant to attribute the status of revelation to
opinions which do not even claim to be revelation, (for
example the quotes which were provided at the top of the
post)
father of peace
>You are probably familiar with the expression "teach them correct
>principles and let them govern themselves". What about the scripture
>section "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line,
>line upon line, here a little, there a little " and finally from A few
>Good Men, "you can't handle the truth".
Are you implying that it would be a good thing for the church
to teach multiple theologies? Perhaps one that we publish in
the media, and another truer theology that we only talk
about around the campfire, after we have assured ourselves
that there are no weak members around?
father of peace
>Saying that God would "have" to do it this way put a limit on God. But
>you're right, no one really knows except for what's in the scriptures,
>where it says that Christ was born to a virgin and concieved through
>the power of the Holy Ghost, to me that means no, God did not have
>"literal" sex with Mary.
To me it is even more offensive to think that God would
impregnate one of his creations by artificial insemination than
to think that he might have sex with a mortal woman.
James C. Miller
<snip>
> Does one need a record to say "on this day I received the
> revelation, and here it is"?
Oh, absolutely one does. Many discussions on this newsgroup have
established that a serious, all too often unanswered question concerns
whether a specific quoted GA was speaking for God or merely expressing
his personal opinion not from revelation. On top of that, to be
accepted as dectrine, this pronouncement not only needs to say "Thus
saith the Lord," but it has to be issued in a statement by the First
Presidency, approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, and accepted by the
Church as a whole in General Conference.
Jimbo
miller...@cox.net
Gene Fuller
Snip
> All of your suggestions make sense, so I suppose we need to turn to
> modern day revelation to clearify the scriptures :)
Snip
> > I do not proclaim that Mary was not a virgin at the time of the birth of
> > Jesus, nor do I even deny that Mary remained a "Blessed Virgin" for the
rest
> > of her life. But I do not really believe it is necessary for me to
accept
> > either claim to be a Christian.
>
> I agree.
Good. All of the logic or appeal to revelation etc, was not needed. We agree
one what is important.
Scott
> > revelation, and here it is"?
>
> Oh, absolutely one does. Many discussions on this newsgroup have
> established that a serious, all too often unanswered question concerns
> whether a specific quoted GA was speaking for God or merely expressing
> his personal opinion not from revelation.
I'm speaking in terms of the scriptures. Does it need to be stated
"the is a revelation" for it be counted as such? I was reffering to
Gene's statement about Nephi..
> And note Nephi still had no way to know that she was "still" a virgin. And
> there was no record of his receiving a revelation to that effect.
Modern day revelation has a different standard for sure.
On top of that, to be
> accepted as dectrine, this pronouncement not only needs to say "Thus
> saith the Lord,"
The only place I've ever heard of this standard is in this news group,
I don't think that this actually needs to be stated. It doesn't show
up in every modern day revelation in Doctrine and Covenants for
example.
but it has to be issued in a statement by the First
> Presidency, approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, and accepted by the
> Church as a whole in General Conference.
>
Yes, that is how we add to our current cannon of scripture, as was
done last in 1978 with OD2.
Regards,
Scott
E. Mark Ping
father of peace <Absal...@absalom.org> wrote:
>
>>BTW, Mary was a vigrin until after Christ was born if you beleive the
>>scriptures.
>
>You can't quote a scripture that says that Mary was a
>virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. The best you can do
>is that a 'young woman' conceived....
Every time I see this argument I wonder how one could interpret it
this way. I mean, "a young woman" conceiving isn't a sign.
Now a /virgin/ conceiving--now /that/'s a sign.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
>not a modern day revelation.
Catholics are not the only group who believe Mary was a virgin when
she conceived. Indeed, check out the bulk of Christianity.
It /has/ been confirmed by the Book of Mormon.
>Begotten tends to imply intercourse...
No it doesn't. Even today we have means by which children can be
begotten without intercourse.
>There are plenty of definitions for the
>word "virgin" which do not say "never had intercourse".
Then provide "plenty of" examples.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Scott
> >All of your suggestions make sense, so I suppose we need to turn to
> >modern day revelation to clearify the scriptures :)
>
> Then you had best do your research and include
> the quotes by Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young which
> say that God and Mary had intercourse.
The Ensign doesn't go back that far :)
> >It was he, then, who came to this earth in the meridian of time, born
> >of the virgin Mary?the literal Son of God the Father, "the Only
> >Begotten Son."
>
> "virgin Mary" is a title ripped off from the Catholics, it is
> not a modern day revelation.
It's just a title, does every word need to be modern day revelation?
> >> And note Nephi still had no way to know that she was "still" a virgin. And
> >> there was no record of his receiving a revelation to that effect.
> >
> >Revelation. Does one need a record to say "on this day I received the
> >revelation, and here it is"?
>
> I am very reluctant to attribute the status of revelation to
> opinions which do not even claim to be revelation, (for
> example the quotes which were provided at the top of the
> post)
This statement was reffering to the scriptures only, in response to
Gene's statement about Nephi.
> >> And note Nephi still had no way to know that she was "still" a virgin. And
> >> there was no record of his receiving a revelation to that effect.
Regards,
Scott
Scott
> >Saying that God would "have" to do it this way put a limit on God. But
> >you're right, no one really knows except for what's in the scriptures,
> >where it says that Christ was born to a virgin and concieved through
> >the power of the Holy Ghost, to me that means no, God did not have
> >"literal" sex with Mary.
>
> To me it is even more offensive to think that God would
> impregnate one of his creations by artificial insemination than
> to think that he might have sex with a mortal woman.
>
> Love,
> Absalom
All God would have to do is wish it and it can happen, he is God! By
saying God had sex with Mary would conflict with the scriptures that
say she is a virgin. I'm not going to repeat stuff in the other thread
about the Virgin Mary idea.
These ideas are NOT taught in the church, wether some leaders believed
them or taught them 150 years ago doesn't matter. Absalom, do you have
any idea what is current church teachings? You seem to hang your
testimony on the words of dead prophets that aren't in the scriptures.
You often say that you were X'd because you wouldn't wear a white
shirt and tie, but perhaps the real reason is becasue you taught and
beleived false doctrine.
I'm certain that most of the active LDS's in the group would recognize
that the ideas you teach are not current church teaching and probably
never was church teaching.
Regards,
Scott
father of peace
>Catholics are not the only group who believe Mary was a virgin when
>she conceived. Indeed, check out the bulk of Christianity.
>
>It /has/ been confirmed by the Book of Mormon.
I read those passages in the BoM in the same light
that I read those passages in the OT and NT, namely
as a "young woman".
>>Begotten tends to imply intercourse...
>
>No it doesn't. Even today we have means by which children can be
>begotten without intercourse.
It grosses me out to think that God would resort to some
crude mechanism such as artificial insemination when
creating his "only begotten" son.
>>There are plenty of definitions for the
>>word "virgin" which do not say "never had intercourse".
>
>Then provide "plenty of" examples.
Do your own research. I find CFRs to be tedious.
http://dictionary.com would be a good place to start.
father of peace
>It's just a title, does every word need to be modern day revelation?
If someone claims that we know something by modern day revelation,
and then they quote a general conference talk implying that every
word is revelation, then that is very suspect to me.... Just cause
an apostle says something in general conference doesn't mean
that it is revelation. It might be personal opinion.
>> I am very reluctant to attribute the status of revelation to
>> opinions which do not even claim to be revelation, (for
>> example the quotes which were provided at the top of the
>> post)
>
>This statement was reffering to the scriptures only, in response to
>Gene's statement about Nephi.
I guess you confused me. You stated in a previous post:
"All of your suggestions make sense, so I suppose
we need to turn to modern day revelation to
clearify the scriptures :)"
Then you proceeded to quote three general conference addresses,
I presume because you were claiming that they were modern day
revelations, when from the text of the talks we have no reason
to believe that they are anything other than personal speculation.
I am very reluctant to grant the status of revelations to the
opinions expressed in general conference.
Gene Fuller
Snip
> All God would have to do is wish it and it can happen, he is God! By
> saying God had sex with Mary would conflict with the scriptures that
> say she is a virgin. I'm not going to repeat stuff in the other thread
> about the Virgin Mary idea.
Most of the Scriptures say she was a virgin before she conceived Jesus. They
do not say that she remained a virgin for any given period of time. They do
not say in specific language that she was still a virgin, say, 5 minutes
before Jesus was born.
Now we just assume that the pregnancy lasted the approximate 9 months that
normal pregnancies last among humans, and that the birth was a "normal
vaginal birth", don't we? If Father could merely think "Mary, be pregnant"
and it would happen, could He not have "Merely thought" "Mary, be pregnant
full term" and she would have immediately had the child? No, I don't think
it happened that way. But I agree both the conception and the gestation
could have been totally miraculous, both could have been totally like others
and not at all miraculous (if one thinks that the miracle of birth is not a
miracle), or some other combination. And I think it does not matter one whit
to our receiving the benefits of the Atonement.
Snip
> You often say that you were X'd because you wouldn't wear a white
> shirt and tie, but perhaps the real reason is becasue you taught and
> beleived false doctrine.
I think Absalom also claims periodically that the authorities have not
excommunicated him because they are afraid to try, but I may have him mixed
up with some other confusing contributor to this News Group.
Gene
Gene Fuller
this newsgroup.]
"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:10gd00n...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> Every time I see this argument I wonder how one could interpret it
> this way. I mean, "a young woman" conceiving isn't a sign.
>
> Now a /virgin/ conceiving--now /that/'s a sign.
I do not wonder, since that is not the sign.
Here is a verse that we may not have looked at yet.
(Isaiah 7:16.)
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,
the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Now what is the setting? Well, read from the start of the chapter, and see
that
(Isaiah 7.)
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of
Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of
Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but
could not prevail against it.
Which in plain English is saying that Ahaz was being threatened by Rezin,
King of Syria and by Pekah, King of Israel. Reading further, he was
"scared". In verse 3-4, we are told that the Lord told Isaiah to go find
Ahaz and reassure him that Rezin and Pekah would not succeed against Judah.
Actually it is in verse 7 that God specifically says that the plan of Rezin
and Pekah will fail.
Verse 8 shows that God also said that in 65 years the nation of Israel would
not exist as a nation.
The Lord then told Ahaz to ask for a sign from God to "vouch for" this
promise, and Ahaz refused to ask for a sign. (verses 12-13) So God told him,
"All right, but I will send you a sign anyway" and told him that a Young
woman will conceive and bear a son. She will call his name Immanuel (not
Jesus, although Jesus in its Greek meaning may be close to the meaning of
the Hebrew that we have as Immanuel) But before that child will have reached
the "age of reason", that is before he knows good from evil, the kings of
both Israel and Syria will be no longer there. (Verse 17)
Now this was many years before Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem. It
is not surprising to me that the Jews do not seem to find this a reference
to show Jesus is the one promised.
Not so much that the young woman who becomes pregnant is or is not a virgin
as the timing promised by God.
Now that is my own human reasoning, no doubt. I do not demand that you agree
with it. But it certainly is a reason, in my judgment, for "how one could
interpret it this way"
Gene
Gene Fuller
Snip
> >Begotten tends to imply intercourse...
>
> No it doesn't. Even today we have means by which children can be
> begotten without intercourse.
I checked a few dictionaries and it seems that I must agree with Absalom, if
he is the one who denies that "begotten" necessarily implies intercourse.
> >There are plenty of definitions for the
> >word "virgin" which do not say "never had intercourse".
>
> Then provide "plenty of" examples.
Here is one to start with. I got it from a long entry on
arrl://www.dictionary.com where it appears to be thus used by Milton
3. Not yet pregnant; impregnant. --Milton.
There is also a meaning in zoology which applies to female insects which
produce fertile eggs with their being "involved" with a male insect. Now if
Mary had experienced sexual intercourse with an immortal and perfected man,
that may strictly mean that she was still a virgin, even though pregnant, if
she had not had carnal knowledge or a mortal man.
Is this argument important? If so, why? Only to confirm some previously held
beliefs?
Gene (Dictionary Man)
Bart Burk
> Are you implying that it would be a good thing for the church
> to teach multiple theologies? Perhaps one that we publish in
> the media, and another truer theology that we only talk
> about around the campfire, after we have assured ourselves
> that there are no weak members around?
>
> Love,
> Absalom
I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts. I believe the idea that the
Father had sexual intercourse with Mary is simply an incorrect
interpretation of something which Brigham Young said in connection
with Adam-God. Mary was a virgin. That means she didn't have
intercourse when she conceived -- her conception was truly a miracle.
Scriptures from the Book of Mormon have been given here which back up
that belief. When non-Mormons try to tag us with the belief that God
had sexual intercourse with Mary they simply do not have anything to
back them up. There is not even a direct quote from a leader of the
Church which can be used to back it up -- it is only their
interpretation of the quote. The signs God gave to us that Jesus is
His Son included the miraculous conception of Mary without sexual
intercourse and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
father of peace
>When non-Mormons try to tag us with the belief that God
>had sexual intercourse with Mary they simply do not have anything to
>back them up. There is not even a direct quote from a leader of the
>Church which can be used to back it up -- it is only their
>interpretation of the quote.
I was taught in LdS church services my entire life, and
as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
but I haven't been attending.)
The writings of early church leaders are very clear and
straight forward on this issue, in light of the oppressive
standards of decency which they had to work within.
As far as interpretation goes, the LdS are experts
at taking a quote or passage or scripture, and then believing
that is says just exactly the opposite of what the
actual words say.... For example, regarding the
word of wisdom, the LdS currently teachs that it
is a commandment... when Jesus own words
say "NOT BY WAY OF COMMANDMENT".
We are doing the same thing with the controversy
regarding God and Jesus. The Christians don't like
the idea of God having a physical body and using
it for it's intended purpose, so we placate the
Christians by lying about our theology, history,
and current teachings.
John S. Colton
[snip]
>I was taught in LdS church services my entire life, and
>as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
>intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
>but I haven't been attending.)
Gee, and I've *never* been taught that, despite having attended LDS
church services all my life. Seeing as how (to my knowledge) we've
never overlapped wards, I suppose both of us could be correct-- but it
seems more likely to me that at least one of us seriously
misunderstood what was being taught.
To clarify what is universally taught (in my experience), it is that
Jesus is the literal son of the Father, but that the conception
occurred through the power 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."
>The writings of early church leaders are very clear and
>straight forward on this issue, in light of the oppressive
>standards of decency which they had to work within.
[snip]
Hmm. The second phrase in that sentence seems to indicate that the
writings of early church leaders are *not* very clear and straight
forward on this issue.
I know your dislike of CFRs, but frankly I think you're going to have
a hard time getting people to take you seriously if you don't back up
your claims with references. (And yes, that's a CFR.)
John
*****
John's newsgroup motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Scott
> > shirt and tie, but perhaps the real reason is becasue you taught and
> > beleived false doctrine.
>
> I think Absalom also claims periodically that the authorities have not
> excommunicated him because they are afraid to try, but I may have him mixed
> up with some other confusing contributor to this News Group.
>
> Gene
Sorry, I meant to say that he was denied a Temple Reccomend, not X'd.
Regards,
Scott
Scott
> Father had sexual intercourse with Mary is simply an incorrect
> interpretation of something which Brigham Young said in connection
> with Adam-God. Mary was a virgin. That means she didn't have
> intercourse when she conceived -- her conception was truly a miracle.
> Scriptures from the Book of Mormon have been given here which back up
> that belief. When non-Mormons try to tag us with the belief that God
> had sexual intercourse with Mary they simply do not have anything to
> back them up. There is not even a direct quote from a leader of the
> Church which can be used to back it up -- it is only their
> interpretation of the quote. The signs God gave to us that Jesus is
> His Son included the miraculous conception of Mary without sexual
> intercourse and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Well put!
Regards,
Scott
E. Mark Ping
>as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
>intercourse with Mary.
To chime in with John, I've never been taught this.
>(I am certain it is still being taught but I haven't been attending.)
It's not being taught in our ward AFAIK. And I've been teaching the
Gospel Doctrine class for Old/New Testament and now BoM.
>As far as interpretation goes, the LdS are experts at taking a quote
>or passage or scripture, and then believing that is says just exactly
>the opposite of what the actual words say.... For example, regarding
>the word of wisdom, the LdS currently teachs that it is a
>commandment... when Jesus own words say "NOT BY WAY OF COMMANDMENT".
I don't know anyone who points to sec. 89 and provides an
interprtation as a basis of the current policy on the WoW.
Though I have pointed to D&C 89:4 to suggest /why/ we don't drink
wine even though Jesus did.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> father of peace <Absal...@absalom.org> wrote:
>> >Begotten tends to imply intercourse...
>>
>> No it doesn't. Even today we have means by which children can be
>> begotten without intercourse.
>
>I checked a few dictionaries and it seems that I must agree with
>Absalom, if he is the one who denies that "begotten" necessarily
>implies intercourse.
Absalom said "Begotten tends to imply intercourse" -- I responded that
it doesn't. It implies parenthood, in particular fatherhood.
>Here is one to start with. I got it from a long entry on
>arrl://www.dictionary.com where it appears to be thus used by Milton
>
>3. Not yet pregnant; impregnant. --Milton.
You found a single example. I'm waiting for "plenty". The list on
dictionary.com is overwhelmingly full of primary definitions for
virgin that mean "never had intercourse".
>Now if Mary had experienced sexual intercourse with an immortal and
>perfected man, that may strictly mean that she was still a virgin,
>even though pregnant, if she had not had carnal knowledge or a mortal
>man.
Which strikes me as lawyerly and deceptive.
>Is this argument important? If so, why? Only to confirm some
>previously held beliefs?
I think it's important because an incorrect belief can be a stumbling
block to the spreading of the Gospel. I think it's also important to
quote people correctly--many people cite Brigham Young to prove that
physical intercourse was how Mary conceived, but BY didn't teach that.
Finally, I find the idea repulsive, and generally against the spirit
of the rest of the revealed gospel. Accepting this as a principle
allows a rationalization of breaking clear commandments (e.g.
fundamentalist groups that practice polygamy today, etc.).
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Scott
> at taking a quote or passage or scripture, and then believing
> that is says just exactly the opposite of what the
> actual words say.... For example, regarding the
> word of wisdom, the LdS currently teachs that it
> is a commandment... when Jesus own words
> say "NOT BY WAY OF COMMANDMENT".
>
It was actually Joseph Smith who added the first 3 verses of the Word
of Wisdom AFTER the revelation had been received, so it wasn't Jesus'
own words.
Regards,
Scott
Scott
> as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
> intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
> but I haven't been attending.)
>
To be fair, I was taught that at least once, in an institute class
when I had been a member for about a year. If I heard that now I would
challange the teacher, but back then I didn't know enough to do that.
BTW, just 'cause someone said it, taught or believed it doesn't make
it church doctrine. Church doctrine comes from the scriptures and is
infalliable and absolute, church teachings are our application of
doctrine and comes from the GA's and will change according to our
needs, church culture are those beliefs or traditions that are passed
down.
AFAIC, since this idea is NOT in the scriptures (that God had litertal
sex with Mary), it is NOT church doctrine. It is NOT taught by the
GA's (including the Sunday School and RS leaders) and is therefor NOT
a church teaching. Some members may beleive it but if they teach it
they need to be corrected. Some people believe by way of traditon
(just as some people think that wearing a white shirt and tie is a
gospel princliple, I have at least 2 in my ward :) but it therfor
needs to be understood in that context.
This reasoning (I was taught this all my life) holds as much water as
saying "that's the way I was raised" when it comes to error in
behaviour. Just 'cause you grew up a certain way or was taught
something all your life doesn't mean it was correct.
I've also heard from the pulpit that it's evil for men to have long
hair (while I was sitting in the congregation with hair to my
shoulders) and that Heavy Metal is "the devils music".
Please, use some intelligence. This church could, if they want,
professionally train all of their speakers, Sunday School teachers,
etc. for 4 years in a Seminary so that they understand the doctrine
and never mis-speak but that is not the way we work. I have been flat
out taught false doctrine in church by lay speakers and also while I
was taking the missionary discussions. They weren't deceiving me
intentionally, it was a mistake.
We need to use our own intelligence and spirituality when it comes to
God and have faith in Christ with understanding that his church, while
divine, is staffed with and made up of falliable humans seeking truth
and seeking his divine nature.
Regards,
Scott
father of peace
>>I was taught in LdS church services my entire life, and
>>as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
>>intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
>>but I haven't been attending.)
>
>Gee, and I've *never* been taught that, despite having attended LDS
>church services all my life. Seeing as how (to my knowledge) we've
>never overlapped wards, I suppose both of us could be correct-- but it
>seems more likely to me that at least one of us seriously
>misunderstood what was being taught.
The ward where I heard this taught has been 99.9% mormon
since it was founded 140 years ago. Correlation never quite
made it to the ward when I was living there.
The seminary where I heard this taught is in an area with
perhaps 80% mormons.
The people in the ward didn't have any need to dissemble
for the non-members or for the weak members.
>To clarify what is universally taught (in my experience), it is that
>Jesus is the literal son of the Father, but that the conception
>occurred through the power of the Holy Ghost.
"Literal" is a euphanism of course for "by way of intercourse",
the Holy Ghost was only necessary so that Mary could endure
being in the presence of God.
>I know your dislike of CFRs, but frankly I think you're going to have
>a hard time getting people to take you seriously if you don't back up
>your claims with references. (And yes, that's a CFR.)
My reference is that I have been taught in LdS meetings in
Cache Valley, Utah, for as long as I can remember that God
and Mary had intercourse in order to beget Jesus. And yes
the teachers use the "Intercourse" word to describe it.
Bruce R. McKonkie got around the issue of a virgin birth
in a very interesting way.... Saying that Mary was still
a virgin, even after she had sex with God, because
she had never known "a man".
Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings are plenty clear
on the issue.
father of peace
>Finally, I find the idea repulsive,
Why?
>and generally against the spirit
>of the rest of the revealed gospel.
King Follet theology is very much a part of the
revealed gospel. If God has a body, it would be
the most natural and normal thing for him to use
his body to create his "only begotten" son.
>Accepting this as a principle
>allows a rationalization of breaking clear commandments (e.g.
>fundamentalist groups that practice polygamy today, etc.).
Please explain how God using his anatamy to sire
his "only begotten" son, would justify the practice of
plural marriage. Does it imply that God is a polygamist,
because he had sex with Mary while he was married
to Heavenly Mother?
father of peace
>Absalom said "Begotten tends to imply intercourse" -- I responded that
>it doesn't. It implies parenthood, in particular fatherhood.
So I want to have a kid, and I go to a third party
(say the Holy Ghost) to provide the sperm, or I go
to a sperm bank, or I have a woman artificially
inseminated with my sperm, or I adopt a kid which
is totally unrelated to me.... I wouldn't say in any of
these cases that I had begotten a son.
Love,
Absalom
>>Now if Mary had experienced sexual intercourse with an immortal and
>>perfected man, that may strictly mean that she was still a virgin,
>>even though pregnant, if she had not had carnal knowledge or a mortal
>>man.
>
>Which strikes me as lawyerly and deceptive.
It was good enough for Bruce R. McKonkie.
father of peace
>> > You often say that you were X'd because you wouldn't wear a white
>> > shirt and tie,
I say that I was denied a temple recommend because I will not
wear a white shirt and tie to sacrament meeting.
>> >but perhaps the real reason is becasue you taught and
>> > beleived false doctrine.
I believe that church leaders are wrong to base temple
worthiness on the modest clothing that someone wears to
sacrament meeting..... So yes, the bishop claimed that
I was not sustaining church leaders....
Do you believe that someone should be X'd for believing
false doctrine, even if they are not teaching it?
>> I think Absalom also claims periodically that the authorities have not
>> excommunicated him because they are afraid to try,
One of my previous stake presidents tried on a weekly basis
to get me to send in a "name removal request". I told him that
he'd have to excommunicate me and that the only way he
could do so would be if he were to violate the standards
listed in the CHI, and that he would be excercizing unrighteous
dominion. I do not teach church doctrine. I teach my own
opinions. I can't be X'd for my beliefs, only for teaching as
church doctrine that which is not doctrine, after I have been
told by church leaders that it is not doctrine, and commanded
to shut up, and still continue to teach it as church doctrine.
Since I don't teach church doctrine I can't be X'd for
apostasy.
Gene Fuller
"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:10gghmt...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <10gf5a4...@news.supernews.com>,
> Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >> father of peace <Absal...@absalom.org> wrote:
> >> >Begotten tends to imply intercourse...
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. Even today we have means by which children can be
> >> begotten without intercourse.
> >
> >I checked a few dictionaries and it seems that I must agree with
> >Absalom, if he is the one who denies that "begotten" necessarily
> >implies intercourse.
>
> Absalom said "Begotten tends to imply intercourse" -- I responded that
> it doesn't. It implies parenthood, in particular fatherhood.
Ah! That eases my mind. I had feared that I had agreed with Absalom twice in
a couple of days! I was about ready to ask for an appoinment with my Bishop
to confess "supporting persons who teach counter to the Truth" or some such.
<G>
> >Here is one to start with. I got it from a long entry on
> >arrl://www.dictionary.com where it appears to be thus used by Milton
> >
> >3. Not yet pregnant; impregnant. --Milton.
>
> You found a single example. I'm waiting for "plenty". The list on
> dictionary.com is overwhelmingly full of primary definitions for
> virgin that mean "never had intercourse".
Actually. I think I gave you more than one, but I have no idea whether or ot
it was "plenty". I don't know how many it would take to constitute plenty
for you. I was aware that the list on dictinary.com contained a plurality of
definitions that indicated "never had intercourse", but it also contains
more than one definition (not necessarily primary, which had nothing to do
with sexual intercourse. I am sure you can accept that this is because words
have more than one meaning.
Now what we need to do is to find someone who is a native speaker of Hebrew,
and find out what all the word used in Isaiah might mean, and one who
understands both Hebrew and Greek at a very high level of competence and
find out if the word used in the New Testament (Greek) has overlapping
meanings with the Hebrew, and what the various meanings are that could
apply. Then when we have done our homework, approach God the Eternal Father
in the name of Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, and ask Him to tell us
through the witness of the Holy Spirit to our spirit what is the truth here.
This is, if we find this question of such importance that we really need to
understand it at this time.
> >Now if Mary had experienced sexual intercourse with an immortal and
> >perfected man, that may strictly mean that she was still a virgin,
> >even though pregnant, if she had not had carnal knowledge or a mortal
> >man.
>
> Which strikes me as lawyerly and deceptive.
Well, it may be. But on the other hand, is it not deceptive to simply teach
what we have always been taught, even though it may be wrong and deceptive?
> >Is this argument important? If so, why? Only to confirm some
> >previously held beliefs?
>
> I think it's important because an incorrect belief can be a stumbling
> block to the spreading of the Gospel. I think it's also important to
> quote people correctly--many people cite Brigham Young to prove that
> physical intercourse was how Mary conceived, but BY didn't teach that.
Indeed an incorrect belief can be a stumbling block to the spreading of the
Gospel. If you are sure which is correct and which is incorrect, fine. If
you truly believe that this question is of sufficient importance that it
must be cleared up in your own mind, then seek for the truth as I have
outlined or in some other effective manner. But unless there is something
inherently evil in the idea that God the Father had physical intercourse
with Mary, then only the dirty minded (or those who had believed incorrect
traditions about sexual expression) would be turned away by such an idea.
> Finally, I find the idea repulsive, and generally against the spirit
> of the rest of the revealed gospel. Accepting this as a principle
> allows a rationalization of breaking clear commandments (e.g.
> fundamentalist groups that practice polygamy today, etc.).
Well, do you also find the idea of plural marriage in the time of Brigham to
be repulsive and generally against the spirit of the rest of the revealed
Gospel? Maybe you do, if you interpret or understand Jacob 2:24-27 to be
complete and final as to what God requires of men and women. But if you say
that Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants clarifies or somehow changes
that, then anything that you (or I) may find repulsive may only reflect on
our willingness to obey God's commandments even if they appear to be
inconsistent from one day (or century) to the next.
Gene Fuller
Snip
> It was actually Joseph Smith who added the first 3 verses of the Word
> of Wisdom AFTER the revelation had been received, so it wasn't Jesus'
> own words.
You know this as a fact? How? Were you there at the time? Did Joseph tell
you that in person? Have you received this knowledge by personal revelation?
Or are you claiming that it must have been Joseph who (probably without
authority?) added those comments, justifying the later enforcement of the
Word as commandment?
If it was not Jesus own words, does that really matter if it was given by
Him through a prophet? Does the following apply?
(Doctrine and Covenants 1:38.)
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and
though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but
shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my
servants, it is the same.
Gene
father of peace
>Mat 1:23 Behold, a *VIRGIN* shall be with child,
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far
as it is translated correctly.... This is clearly a case
where it is translated incorrectly, and where we
have interpreted the incorrect translation even
more incorrectly.
Gene Fuller
Snip
> BTW, just 'cause someone said it, taught or believed it doesn't make
> it church doctrine. Church doctrine comes from the scriptures and is
> infalliable and absolute, church teachings are our application of
> doctrine and comes from the GA's and will change according to our
> needs, church culture are those beliefs or traditions that are passed
> down.
>From which Scripture do we get the doctrine that calls for a physical
process called the endowment Ceremony? From which Scriputer do we get the
doctrine that calls for a ceremony or ordinance to seal children (not born
in the Covenant) to their parents? There are many more.
> AFAIC, since this idea is NOT in the scriptures (that God had litertal
> sex with Mary), it is NOT church doctrine.
Of course we are taught that "many plain and precious truths" are not in the
Scriptures available before the Restoration of the Gospel, and our Articles
of Faith, which seem to have the authority of "Scriptuer" to at least many
people, declare that we believe God will yet reveal many plain and precious
truths. To do so would be pointless if they were not to be accepted as
doctrine, would it not? Here is exactly what we are told that "We believe".
I doubt that even the Prophet Joseph knew, or even received by revelation
exactly what each member of the Church believes, by the way.
(Articles of Faith:9.)
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we
believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining
to the Kingdom of God.
If I believe that, however, I cannot believe that nothing that is true can
yet be revealed unless it is already in canonized Scripture.
> It is NOT taught by the
> GA's (including the Sunday School and RS leaders) and is therefor NOT
> a church teaching. Some members may beleive it but if they teach it
> they need to be corrected. Some people believe by way of traditon
> (just as some people think that wearing a white shirt and tie is a
> gospel princliple, I have at least 2 in my ward :) but it therfor
> needs to be understood in that context.
I agree with you, but it is also possible that the reason that "it"
(regardless of what the pronoun "it" refers to -- in this case physcial
intercourse between God and Mary) is not taught is that the persons who
should be teaching "it" are slothful or fearful or simply do not believe
"it" to be worth making waves.
> This reasoning (I was taught this all my life) holds as much water as
> saying "that's the way I was raised" when it comes to error in
> behaviour. Just 'cause you grew up a certain way or was taught
> something all your life doesn't mean it was correct.
True. If all followed that, the world would either never have fallen into
error or once the error was corrected, would never again have fallen into
error. But if we look at 4th Nephi, we see that this did not happen. So it
appears to me that people do not generally continue to believe and practice
_all things_ that they were brought up to believe and to do, but only those
that seem comfortable to them.
> I've also heard from the pulpit that it's evil for men to have long
> hair (while I was sitting in the congregation with hair to my
> shoulders) and that Heavy Metal is "the devils music".
In some cases these are true. In some cases they are simply an outward sign
of an evil and rebellious nature, and in some cases they are neither, but
are simply custom and are amoral.
> Please, use some intelligence. This church could, if they want,
> professionally train all of their speakers, Sunday School teachers,
> etc. for 4 years in a Seminary so that they understand the doctrine
> and never mis-speak but that is not the way we work. I have been flat
> out taught false doctrine in church by lay speakers and also while I
> was taking the missionary discussions. They weren't deceiving me
> intentionally, it was a mistake.
I hear what I consider to be false doctrine in our Gospel Doctrine class
nearly every Sunday, unless there is not real doctrine at all taught. So
what? That is not where I should be getting my doctrine anyway.
> We need to use our own intelligence and spirituality when it comes to
> God and have faith in Christ with understanding that his church, while
> divine, is staffed with and made up of falliable humans seeking truth
> and seeking his divine nature.
I pretty fully agree with that last sentence. We need to cut each other a
great deal of slack, we need to love one another and pray always for one
another. All more easily said than done. Probably each of us (mainly me,
perhaps) need to be very careful about what we claim to be dogmatically
true.
father of peace
This phase from LdS.org implies that God and Mary had sexual
relation(s).
"his Only Begotten Son in the flesh"
I wonder how God begets in the flesh. Sure sounds
to me like he was using his physical body.
E. Mark Ping
Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Now we just assume that the pregnancy lasted the approximate 9 months
>that normal pregnancies last among humans, and that the birth was a
>"normal vaginal birth", don't we?
The scriptures seem to indicate that. Do you have anything to
contradict what they say?
>If Father could merely think "Mary, be pregnant"
>and it would happen, could He not have "Merely thought" "Mary, be pregnant
>full term" and she would have immediately had the child?
Yes, he has the power to do that. That's a far cry from saying that
he /did/ do that however.
>No, I don't think it happened that way.
Nor do I. How is this relevant?
>But I agree both the conception and the gestation could have been
>totally miraculous, both could have been totally like others and not
>at all miraculous (if one thinks that the miracle of birth is not a
>miracle), or some other combination.
No, birth is not a miracle. As the father of two beautiful girls I
can say it's amazing, wonderful, etc. However it is the natural
process that God has ordained for children to come into the world. It
is not a miracle.
However, when considering what to believe, I strongly suggest looking
at the scriptures first and foremost. /All/ of the scriptural
accounts describe Mary as a virgin, and her childbirth as ordinary.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Every time I see this argument I wonder how one could interpret it
>> this way. I mean, "a young woman" conceiving isn't a sign.
>>
>> Now a /virgin/ conceiving--now /that/'s a sign.
>
>I do not wonder, since that is not the sign.
Um, false. Maybe that's not the /complete/ sign, but you can't
discard it as part of the sign unless you throw out v.14:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
>Here is a verse that we may not have looked at yet.
I can't speak for *we* but I can speak for me. The virgin conceiving
is part of the sign. It is corroborated by the Book of Mormon.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Joseph Daniel Zukiger
> ... Mary was a virgin.
You know, from the time I was old enough that the word "virgin"
registered, until sometime in junior high school, I had the idea that
"virgin" meant "pregnant".
(I don't think I'm the only person who has ever been confused. I mean,
second grade, there was that picture of Mary, obviously pregnant, with
a halo over her head, riding the donkey. And the teacher talking about
the Virgin Mary. What was I supposed to think? Maybe there are some
good reasons we can't talk much about religion in school any more.)
There were only four or so members of the church in my jhs, and one of
them asked me one day if I were virgin. I said, of course not. Several
days later, a non-member friend encouraged me to look the word up.
Asked me who I'd done it with to check, then told me I might be
confused.
Some of the members I grew up with may have been discouraged by my
unintentional poor example. I don't remember if I ever had the courage
to own up to the misunderstanding. If I didn't, I expect I shall have
to account for it at the judgement day.
For a good part of my growing up years, virgin and nubile were
near-synonyms in my mind, and I was really confused about what "holy"
meant, as well. (Come to think of it, the confusion about "holy" is
probably rather widespread.)
> That means she didn't have
> intercourse when she conceived -- her conception was truly a miracle.
I've read some biologists (para-biologists?) who hypothesize that
spontaneous auto-fertilization can occur in nature. Supposedly, it
happens sometimes with chicken eggs or something.
While it would be as appalling to imagine God using the artificial
insemination techniques we use on cows as to imagine God doing s&m, I
think neither extreme is required, whichever way you might want to
lean in your opinions.
If it were something similar to artificial insemination, we can be
sure it was done with insruments much more refined than any we have.
If it were by the "natural" means, we can be sure it there was no
abuse or anything unclean involved, for all that the thought raises
red flags with "incest!" emblazoned on them.
Either way, if a man had done it, it would be dangerous or unclean.
but God, being kind, just, clean, etc., would not be under the
condemnation a man would be.
I don't think it could have been spontaneous self-fertilization. That
would seem to leave the child Jesus with literally no father at all,
no way to inherit the attributes of Godliness direct from God.
(Admittedly, some people equate random operations with acts of God,
but that is only correct as a limited metaphor.) In specific, we would
have no reason to believe in Jesus' power over physical and spiritual
death.
> Scriptures from the Book of Mormon have been given here which back up
> that belief. When non-Mormons try to tag us with the belief that God
> had sexual intercourse with Mary they simply do not have anything to
> back them up. There is not even a direct quote from a leader of the
> Church which can be used to back it up -- it is only their
> interpretation of the quote.
Well, when we go back to Joseph Smith, I think we find that he is
recorded as having said things that might be difficult for some to
read any other way than as literal sexual intercourse. This is all
tangled up in the stuff that forms the basis of what we now call the
Adam-God stuff.
At one time, I was convinced that Joseph Smith had taught it, but I'm
now convinced that what was taught was definitely not what it looks
like to your average twentieth century person reading records in
nineteenth century English. And it possibly was misunderstood by the
people writing it down. I mean, these concepts are pretty abstract,
and implicitly exceed the context of ordinary conversation.
I mean, look at how we talk about computer operations -- "I picked up
a file and dropped it in the trash." I did, quite literally, but there
was no paper involved, and the trash can doesn't break even if I stuff
tens of thousands of files in it.
> The signs God gave to us that Jesus is
> His Son included the miraculous conception of Mary without sexual
> intercourse and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The conception was miraculous, and was definitely not incestuous. But
I don't think it does much good trying to decide here how much the
word "sexual intercourse" has to do with it.
JouDanZuki
Andrew R
"father of peace" <abs...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:10gfnhh...@news.supernews.com...
: I was taught in LdS church services my entire life, and
: as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
: intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
: but I haven't been attending.)
I also have never been taught this. It may be so, it may not. I actually do
not care. I doubt it. And have always believed that it was by some devine
way that the Sperm of HF got into a position to fertilise Marys egg.
But it doesn't really matter. How it happened is in now way as important as
that it did. That Jesus Christ is the literal Son of the Father.
Andrew R.
Andrew R
"father of peace" <abs...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:10ghpvn...@news.supernews.com...
: "Literal" is a euphanism of course for "by way of intercourse",
: the Holy Ghost was only necessary so that Mary could endure
: being in the presence of God.
:
Would you say then that the child of parents who conceived by IVF is not the
"literal" son of its parents?
Andrew R.
Andrew R
:
: So I want to have a kid, and I go to a third party
: (say the Holy Ghost) to provide the sperm, or I go
: to a sperm bank, or I have a woman artificially
: inseminated with my sperm, or I adopt a kid which
: is totally unrelated to me.... I wouldn't say in any of
: these cases that I had begotten a son.
Whilst most of the above I agree with, I must point out that there are many
children born into this world by the processes of IVF and AI. And each of
then is considered the begotten children of both their parents.
There is nothing magical about sexual intercourse as a means of conceiving.
It doesn't make the child any better.
Andrew R.
Zippy
Could someone of belief please explain these comments:
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)
Bruce R. McConkie: "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)
"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)
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)
All the best,
Zippy
John S. Colton
[snip]
>>To clarify what is universally taught (in my experience), it is that
>>Jesus is the literal son of the Father, but that the conception
>>occurred through the power of the Holy Ghost.
>
>"Literal" is a euphanism of course for "by way of intercourse"...
[snip]
If I take your words at their "literal" meaning, we're going to run
into problems real fast!
;-)
David Bowie
: On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:05:11 -0000, father of peace wrote:
:: "Literal" is a euphanism of course for "by way of intercourse"...
: If I take your words at their "literal" meaning, we're going to run
: into problems real fast!
I literally have no idea what you meant by that.
David, blinking in wide-eyed innocence
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
David Bowie
: "father of peace" <abs...@pipeline.com> wrote...
:: I was taught in LdS church services my entire life, and
:: as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
:: intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
:: but I haven't been attending.)
: I also have never been taught this. It may be so, it may not. I
: actually do not care. I doubt it. And have always believed that it
: was by some devine way that the Sperm of HF got into a position to
: fertilise Marys egg.
Why is there this--the only word i can come up with is *weird*--idea that,
if there was physical intercourse going on in the process, there must have
been sperm and DNA involved?
Sometimes i think we Mormons take our vaunted anthropomorphism way too
seriously.
<snip>
David, who just thought of three--no, four--other possibilities
David Bowie
: somebody else wrote:
:: fop wrote:
::: I was taught in LdS church services my entire life, and
::: as recently as about 5 years ago, that God had sexual
::: intercourse with Mary. (I am certain it is still being taught
::: but I haven't been attending.)
:: Gee, and I've *never* been taught that, despite having attended LDS
:: church services all my life...
<snip>
: The ward where I heard this taught has been 99.9% mormon
: since it was founded 140 years ago. Correlation never quite
: made it to the ward when I was living there.
: The seminary where I heard this taught is in an area with
: perhaps 80% mormons.
: The people in the ward didn't have any need to dissemble
: for the non-members or for the weak members.
You say "dissemble", i say "learn correct doctrine".
Just 'cause there's lots of Mormons in a particular location doesn't mean
they're correct about their doctrinal claims.
<snip>
David, who offers BYU married student wards as Exhibit A
Scott
> they're correct about their doctrinal claims.
>
> <snip>
>
> David, who offers BYU married student wards as Exhibit A
LOL, so true! In my wifes home ward in southern Alberta (the Utah of
Canada as we call it) was where I experienced some false traditions
first hand, and many of these people are 5th and 6th generation
Mormons.
2 things in particular that bothered me;
1. At the beginning of Preisthood they would recant some Aaronic
presithood code thaty I had never heard of. Being a convert at 22
means I never was in the church during my teens, but recanting it
during church (all 3 times I've visited) sure felt like "vain
repitions" to me. I had NEVER expericned this in any other LDS ward
I've been to, of course there's only been about 6 others I've been to.
2. During a Sunday School class something was said to the effect of
"we need to make sure that converts don't come in here and spread
false doctrine". The way it was said was so de-meaning, so prideful,
like converts were the enemy.
Interesting thing is that if you ask people in my ward to raise their
hand if they are a convert about 75% do, in my wifes ward it would be
about 5%.
I observe that people who come from areas with allot of LDS (Utah,
southern Alberta) with many generations of them, tend to believe that
church traditions and culture are the gospel, or that EVERY word that
comes out of GBH's mouth is scripture. I've had someone from this area
flat out tell me that wearing a white shirt and tie was a gospel
principle, I corrected her :)
Later,
Scott
Scott
> "Scott" <scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10gghrq...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> Snip
>
> > It was actually Joseph Smith who added the first 3 verses of the Word
> > of Wisdom AFTER the revelation had been received, so it wasn't Jesus'
> > own words.
>
> You know this as a fact? How? Were you there at the time? Did Joseph tell
> you that in person? Have you received this knowledge by personal revelation?
It's been documented, I will try to find the source.
> If it was not Jesus own words, does that really matter if it was given by
> Him through a prophet?
It does for Absolom, who I was directing the comments to.
Does the following apply?
> (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38.)
>
>
> 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and
> though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but
> shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my
> servants, it is the same.
But we know that this isn't an absolute, I am a servant of Chirst and
my voice isn't his. This scripture doesn't say "everything my
servants say is as if I am saying it", it's saying that his words
(propheies, promises, convenants) will be fullfilled wether he says
them or his servants say them (propheies, promises, convenants). There
is a subtle difference.
I used to think that the Prophet spoke for the Lord all of the time,
then I understood it to mean that only when he was acting as a
prophet, now I have to be more pessimistic about it because some of
our church leaders have said some crazy things.
Regards,
Scott
Scott
> process called the endowment Ceremony? From which Scriputer do we get the
> doctrine that calls for a ceremony or ordinance to seal children (not born
> in the Covenant) to their parents? There are many more.
We don't get these things from the scriptures. We know that the
endowmwent ceremony has changed, so it is therefor an application of
doctrine, not doctrine itself.
In the Book "Are Mormons Christian" Stephen E. Robinson has a great
chapter about esoteric teaching of Christ, including oral teaching
that weren't included in the scriptures becasue the general public
weren't ready for them.
> > AFAIC, since this idea is NOT in the scriptures (that God had litertal
> > sex with Mary), it is NOT church doctrine.
>
> Of course we are taught that "many plain and precious truths" are not in the
> Scriptures available before the Restoration of the Gospel, and our Articles
> of Faith, which seem to have the authority of "Scriptuer" to at least many
> people, declare that we believe God will yet reveal many plain and precious
> truths.
Absolutely correct. But he won't reveal things that contradict his
already revelaed word, Abraham and Nephi aside.
> 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we
> believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining
> to the Kingdom of God.
> If I believe that, however, I cannot believe that nothing that is true can
> yet be revealed unless it is already in canonized Scripture.
But that's the very thing, the church has already laid out the method
and standard. If new doctrine comes forth by way of revelation,
revelation for the whole church, then it is presented as such and
added to the cannon.
We have also been told that revelation will be harmony with already
revealed doctrine. For example, if we are told that we should worship
golden calfs, this goes against already reveled doctine, the person
who is claiming that is false.
There are many truths that will yet be revealed, both individually and
as a church, and when the time is right it will be announced as such,
presented to the church for a sustaining vote and added to the cannon.
Let me add though that I absolutely beleive that God has things he
wants us to know now for our time, things that aren't changes of
doctrine, but teaching and guides for us. Such as when GBH said men
shouldn't wear earrings. Doctrine? No. Teaching? Yes. Revelation from
God? Maybe.
> > It is NOT taught by the
> > GA's (including the Sunday School and RS leaders) and is therefor NOT
> > a church teaching. Some members may beleive it but if they teach it
> > they need to be corrected. Some people believe by way of traditon
> > (just as some people think that wearing a white shirt and tie is a
> > gospel princliple, I have at least 2 in my ward :) but it therfor
> > needs to be understood in that context.
>
> I agree with you, but it is also possible that the reason that "it"
> (regardless of what the pronoun "it" refers to -- in this case physcial
> intercourse between God and Mary) is not taught is that the persons who
> should be teaching "it" are slothful or fearful or simply do not believe
> "it" to be worth making waves.
True.
> > This reasoning (I was taught this all my life) holds as much water as
> > saying "that's the way I was raised" when it comes to error in
> > behaviour. Just 'cause you grew up a certain way or was taught
> > something all your life doesn't mean it was correct.
>
> True. If all followed that, the world would either never have fallen into
> error or once the error was corrected, would never again have fallen into
> error. But if we look at 4th Nephi, we see that this did not happen. So it
> appears to me that people do not generally continue to believe and practice
> _all things_ that they were brought up to believe and to do, but only those
> that seem comfortable to them.
Yes. That is why "vain traditions of their fathers" is spoken of in a
negative manner. There are some good and some not so good traditions,
in and out of the church. If a tradition you hold on to is againsts
Gods will then you should let go of it, wether or not you had been
taught that way all of your life.
>
> > I've also heard from the pulpit that it's evil for men to have long
> > hair (while I was sitting in the congregation with hair to my
> > shoulders) and that Heavy Metal is "the devils music".
>
> In some cases these are true. In some cases they are simply an outward sign
> of an evil and rebellious nature, and in some cases they are neither, but
> are simply custom and are amoral.
Sure, but the point is that lay people will preach things from the
pulpit that may or may not be correct doctrine or teaching wise. BTW,
there is nothing sinful in having long hair, and saying that Heavy
Metal is "the devils music" makes as much sense as saying Jazz is "the
devils music".
>
> > Please, use some intelligence. This church could, if they want,
> > professionally train all of their speakers, Sunday School teachers,
> > etc. for 4 years in a Seminary so that they understand the doctrine
> > and never mis-speak but that is not the way we work. I have been flat
> > out taught false doctrine in church by lay speakers and also while I
> > was taking the missionary discussions. They weren't deceiving me
> > intentionally, it was a mistake.
>
> I hear what I consider to be false doctrine in our Gospel Doctrine class
> nearly every Sunday, unless there is not real doctrine at all taught. So
> what? That is not where I should be getting my doctrine anyway.
>
Correct. But Absoloms justification of his belief (I was taught it)
prompts the need to make that statement; we are not professional
clergy. Ideally, we should be able to depend on the church in the way
of talks and teachers to be 100% correct when it comes to teaching and
doctrine, in my stake I would estimate it to be %95.5 correct,
according to my understanding of current teachings and doctrine.
> > We need to use our own intelligence and spirituality when it comes to
> > God and have faith in Christ with understanding that his church, while
> > divine, is staffed with and made up of falliable humans seeking truth
> > and seeking his divine nature.
>
> I pretty fully agree with that last sentence. We need to cut each other a
> great deal of slack, we need to love one another and pray always for one
> another. All more easily said than done. Probably each of us (mainly me,
> perhaps) need to be very careful about what we claim to be dogmatically
> true.
I totally agree. Sometimes it's easy to see a false teaching, other
times we need to be humble, I know I do, sometimes I get prideful when
I think I understand the gospel better than someone else.
Regards,
Scott
father of peace
>Would you say then that the child of parents who conceived by IVF is not the
>"literal" son of its parents?
If I believed in a God, the God I believed in would not resort to
in-vitro fertilization to create His only begotten son, He would
have sex with the mother of His children.
father of peace
>Just 'cause there's lots of Mormons in a particular location doesn't mean
>they're correct about their doctrinal claims.
I don't ever claim that it is correct doctrine that God and Mary
had sexual intercourse. My claim is that it was commonly taught
in the ward I grew up in, and that it was taught as recently as
5 years ago when I attended services there with my family.
So when someone says that the church never taught that
doctrine, or that it was mis-quoted, or mis-understood, then
my sense of truth requires me to speak up and say that
at least in one ward it is/was a commonly held belief.
father of peace
>However, when considering what to believe, I strongly suggest looking
>at the scriptures first and foremost. /All/ of the scriptural
>accounts describe Mary as a virgin, and her childbirth as ordinary.
The problem for me with looking at the scriptures is that the
scriptures have been corrupted and perverted.... If we look
to the Old Testament, the word that was translated into
the King James English as "virgin" meant "young woman"
it did not mean someone who has never had sexual
intercourse.... So by the time we get around to translating
the New testament, we see a quote from the old testament,
so our minds substitute in the word "virgin" in place of
whatever should have been the correct term, and then
even later on, when we finally get around to translating
the Book of Mormon, and quote the Old testament, we
again substitute in the familiar word "virgin" rather than
the actual intent of the original "young woman", so we
just carry forward a perverse doctrine that it is somehow
important that Jesus be born to a woman who has
never had sex.
As mormons who do not believe in the doctrine of
"original sin" there is no need for Jesus or Mary to
have been conceived without intercourse. According
to Mormon theology children are born sinless, so an
immaculate conception is not required. It may be
important in some world views, but it is totally meaningless
in the Mormon world view since every baby is born
sinless.
Gene Fuller
"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:10ghqc4...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <10gf576...@news.supernews.com>,
> Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Now we just assume that the pregnancy lasted the approximate 9 months
> >that normal pregnancies last among humans, and that the birth was a
> >"normal vaginal birth", don't we?
>
> The scriptures seem to indicate that. Do you have anything to
> contradict what they say?
No, that is why I said we simply seem to assume that. But the Scriptures
really don't address that either way, as far as I know, so it is at this
point only an assumtion because we have no experience any other way.
> >If Father could merely think "Mary, be pregnant"
> >and it would happen, could He not have "Merely thought" "Mary, be
pregnant
> >full term" and she would have immediately had the child?
>
> Yes, he has the power to do that. That's a far cry from saying that
> he /did/ do that however.
Of course. I was responding to the idea that it was entirely inane to insist
that the way women get pregnant is by sexual intercourse. It seems that
there are those in this thread who insist that was not the way Mary was
impregnated, so I merely suggested that it is indeed possible that Father
used a different method, and if so, why do we necessarily have to assume
that the gestation and delivery were according to the old familiar way? I am
merely trying to show that thinking is sometimes not wrong, when the
alternative is to contine with what some committee, council or synod has
determined by human logic and tradition. I think I have not given any
private position on the subject.
> >No, I don't think it happened that way.
>
> Nor do I. How is this relevant?
Well, how is the entire thread relevant to our conversion to the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. How is this thread helpful in learning to become more
Chrsitlike?
> >But I agree both the conception and the gestation could have been
> >totally miraculous, both could have been totally like others and not
> >at all miraculous (if one thinks that the miracle of birth is not a
> >miracle), or some other combination.
>
> No, birth is not a miracle. As the father of two beautiful girls I
> can say it's amazing, wonderful, etc. However it is the natural
> process that God has ordained for children to come into the world. It
> is not a miracle.
OK. I suspect we are using the term "miracle" in two different ways.
> However, when considering what to believe, I strongly suggest looking
> at the scriptures first and foremost. /All/ of the scriptural
> accounts describe Mary as a virgin, and her childbirth as ordinary.
None of the Scriptural accounts that I can read use the original language.
If _all_ that I do is rely on the English translations, I am reduced to
taking the word of someone who very possibly is working without inspiration.
Since Jesus Christ is heading His Church through a living Prophet I suggest
that we listen first to him, and emphasize what he is teaching, and don't
spend too much speculating about things that Jesus Christ seems not to
consider too important for us at this time, as indicated that He is not
having His Prophet to tell us about it.
I hope I have sufficient wisdom to discontinue replies to this thread
hereafter.
Gene Fuller
"Zippy" <dogma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10gijki...@news.supernews.com...
> Hello All,
>
> Could someone of belief please explain these comments:
I think the only one who could explain with any authority what Joseph
Fielding Smith, Jr. meant died seveal years ago, and we will not be able to
ask him (and receive an answer) in mortality. I had intended not to comment
any more in this thread, but my intentions do not always come to completion
in one attempt! <G> I will make a few comments. I am not giving any kind of
answer on what President (to be? I do not know when he wrote what you quote)
Smith meant, but I will speak to the question from my own concepts.
> 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)
I think to try to say he meant more than he literally said is dangerous. All
he literally said is that the birth was natural. We need to consider the
following as well
(Luke 1:35.)
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.
"The Highest" would indicate God, and so far as I know it could be any
member of the Godhead, but God the Father is the one who is Father, usually,
so all it means to me is that He was conceived by the Power of God, with no
explanation. President (to be?) Smith simply said His birth was natural, and
brought about by the Father.
> Bruce R. McConkie: "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)
I think the only "difficult" part is in the sentence that says, "Christ was
begotten by an Immortal Father in the same
way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." It has been pointed out
that in this generation and one or two earlier, mortal men have begotten
children without sexual intercourse with the mother. So again, we should not
try to take his literal words and make the fit preconceived notions.
> "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)
In vitro fertilization may not have been known even in the day that Elder
McConkie wrote this. But it is still nothing figuratinve that even in the
case of in vitro, the father is known, or can be.
I would point out that if this is to be what I prefer to call "dogma"
meaning "Doctrine which must be accepted and believed" that Elder McConkie
was not at any time in his mortal life in a position to proclaim dogma.
> "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)
I have no idea who wrote that, and it is not canon simply for being in
Dialogue. It strikes me as true and correct, however, because clearly (to
me) God the Father and not God the Holy Ghost, is the Father.
The doctrine of the Trinity or even of the Godhead of three personages was
not fully developed in either the time of the writing of the New Testament
Gospels, or of the Book of Mormon. So perhaps the writers were thinking in
terms of "Is God that Great Spirit"--
(Alma 22:9-11.)
9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out
of the land of Jerusalem?
10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all
things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this?
11 And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and
I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will
believe thy words.
Now LDS seem in the past few generations to consider that it was Jehovah, as
we call the pre-mortal Jesus, who created all things, so maybe it was Jesus,
Himself, or maybe the term can apply to any member of the Godhead as we now
consider them.
> 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:
They may have been right. If God is to decree that sex is the means for
reproduction, and that both sex and reproduction should not be indulged in
except by those how are legally and lawfully married, which He has, then
would He not most likely live accoding to His own rule?
> "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)
Orson Pratt, or whoever it is, apparently is using his logic, not
revelation. I think Brother Pratt was well known for applying his reason to
religion. This reasoning is similar to what I wrote just previous to it. For
all I know, it may be right or wrong.
> 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)
I have remarked about this already. It really only reiterates that Jesus was
the son of God, not of Joseph.
I have not made a careful word or line count, and there may be too much
quoted material, and not enough new. If so, it will bounce and it is not
worth my time to work on it again. So if it comes through, good, and it it
does not, good, since I want to be finished with this thread.
Gene Fuller
Snip
> 2. During a Sunday School class something was said to the effect of
> "we need to make sure that converts don't come in here and spread
> false doctrine". The way it was said was so de-meaning, so prideful,
> like converts were the enemy.
>
> Interesting thing is that if you ask people in my ward to raise their
> hand if they are a convert about 75% do, in my wifes ward it would be
> about 5%.
Then 95% of that ward needs to repent and seek conversion. See Matt 18: 1-3.
The fact that the Church is the only true and living church upon the face of
the earth does not mean that everyone in it is true and living according to
the commandments.
(Doctrine and Covenants 1:30.)
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to
lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity
and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the
whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the
church collectively and not individually-
E. Mark Ping
>(say the Holy Ghost) to provide the sperm
Wouldn't work, since he doesn't have a physical body.
>or I go
>to a sperm bank, or I have a woman artificially
>inseminated with my sperm, or I adopt a kid which
>is totally unrelated to me.... I wouldn't say in any of
>these cases that I had begotten a son.
Your argument is circular, or you're just reasserting the same thing.
>It was good enough for Bruce R. McKonkie.
You have yet to provide unambiguous quotes on the topic.
Also, as much as I respect the late Elder M., he and I differ on
several opinions (e.g. face cards and dragons in Mormon Doctrine).
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
>in a very interesting way.... Saying that Mary was still
>a virgin, even after she had sex with God, because
>she had never known "a man".
I'm sure you'll be happy to produce this quote, right?
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
David Bowie <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
>Why is there this--the only word i can come up with is *weird*--idea
>that, if there was physical intercourse going on in the process,
>there must have been sperm and DNA involved?
Indeed, this has spawned (pun intended) some interesting ideas for me.
While Jesus as a mortal had DNA, we have no idea whether a glorified
being has DNA. Facts we know about a glorified body are: (1) it has
"flesh" and "bone" but no blood, (2) it has the same outward
appearance as our mortal body, and (3) it cannot die.
I put flesh and bone in quotes because they're apparently different
than what we have, even though they have the same names.
Which raises a number of interesting questions. For instance, if
evolution was used to create our physical tabernacles (as I
increasingly believe), are there artifacts of evolution in our current
form that won't exist in our glorified bodies?
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well, do you also find the idea of plural marriage in the time of Brigham to
>be repulsive and generally against the spirit of the rest of the revealed
>Gospel?
No.
However, I /do/ find the idea of a sexual relationship between a
father and child repulsive.
The whole idea smacks of the same origins as the racist "blacks as
fence-sitters" folk doctrine. Prophets taught that Jesus was
literally the son of the Father. Logic then kicked in and people
postulated how that could be (just as people theorized why blacks
didn't hold the priesthood, and many simply ignored John 9:3). At the
time, one conclusion was a physical union, and then people theorized
how that could be squared with moral laws. I see no reason or need to
accept this folk doctrine.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Gene Fuller
"Joseph Daniel Zukiger" <joseph_dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Snip
> I've read some biologists (para-biologists?) who hypothesize that
> spontaneous auto-fertilization can occur in nature. Supposedly, it
> happens sometimes with chicken eggs or something.
It happens with many species. I think that the result is always female,
since there is in the female, only the genetic material to produce female.
> While it would be as appalling to imagine God using the artificial
> insemination techniques we use on cows as to imagine God doing s&m, I
> think neither extreme is required, whichever way you might want to
> lean in your opinions.
Yes, I think good old fashined sexual activity would be more chaste than the
artificial inseminatin technique used on cows. I have never even seen that
done, but I have a cousin who about 50 years ago worked as an artificial
insemination "technician" to earn money to go to school to evenually become
a "Conservative Baptist" preacher. <G>
> If it were something similar to artificial insemination, we can be
> sure it was done with insruments much more refined than any we have.
Of course! Made with Spirit Matter" which probably justifies the statement
that the child was "of" the Holy Ghost/Spirit.
> If it were by the "natural" means, we can be sure it there was no
> abuse or anything unclean involved, for all that the thought raises
> red flags with "incest!" emblazoned on them.
Yes, but Mary was not the daughter of God "in the flesh" where the human
definition of incest must originate. How many times do we ever consider that
most of our definitions, and understandings are based on our human
experience?
(Isaiah 55:6-9.)
6 ś Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is
near:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and
let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our
God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 ś For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
I think we are in no position to pass judment, moral or otherwise, on God.
<G>
> Either way, if a man had done it, it would be dangerous or unclean.
> but God, being kind, just, clean, etc., would not be under the
> condemnation a man would be.
Who, other than unjust man, would there be to condemn HIm anyway, for doing
what He in His infinite and Eternal Wisdom knew to be right and just? Good
and perfect?
> I don't think it could have been spontaneous self-fertilization. That
> would seem to leave the child Jesus with literally no father at all,
> no way to inherit the attributes of Godliness direct from God.
> (Admittedly, some people equate random operations with acts of God,
> but that is only correct as a limited metaphor.) In specific, we would
> have no reason to believe in Jesus' power over physical and spiritual
> death.
Is your brain aching yet? <G>
> > The signs God gave to us that Jesus is
> > His Son included the miraculous conception of Mary without sexual
> > intercourse and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Is this one trying to talk about the Catholic concept of the "Immaculate
Conception" which applies, as I understand it, to the concept that Mary was
conceived in such a manner as not to take on the stain of "Original Sin" in
order that she could bear the sinless Son of God?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immaculate%20conception
> The conception was miraculous, and was definitely not incestuous. But
> I don't think it does much good trying to decide here how much the
> word "sexual intercourse" has to do with it.
One more comment. What does "intercourse" mean other than interaction? Using
the first meaning found at
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intercourse, I have no shame or
reluctance stating that in the past 74 years I have had intercourse with
hundreds if not thousands of people of all ages and sexes. This includes
hundreds of Latter-day Saints. <BG>
Dictionary Man
David Bowie
<snip>
: While Jesus as a mortal had DNA, we have no idea whether a glorified
: being has DNA. Facts we know about a glorified body are: (1) it has
: "flesh" and "bone" but no blood, (2) it has the same outward
: appearance as our mortal body, and (3) it cannot die.
: I put flesh and bone in quotes because they're apparently different
: than what we have, even though they have the same names.
Not to mention that "blood", when used in this way, may mean something
different than what we usually mean (Russell M. Nelson notwithstanding).
: Which raises a number of interesting questions. For instance, if
: evolution was used to create our physical tabernacles (as I
: increasingly believe), are there artifacts of evolution in our current
: form that won't exist in our glorified bodies?
Wow--this has me going on and thinking about what a glorified appendix
would be like. :-)
David "A clear fluid" Bowie
David Bowie
:: Just 'cause there's lots of Mormons in a particular location doesn't
:: mean they're correct about their doctrinal claims.
: I don't ever claim that it is correct doctrine that God and Mary
: had sexual intercourse. My claim is that it was commonly taught
: in the ward I grew up in, and that it was taught as recently as
: 5 years ago when I attended services there with my family.
Fair enough. But...
: So when someone says that the church never taught that
: doctrine, or that it was mis-quoted, or mis-understood, then
: my sense of truth requires me to speak up and say that
: at least in one ward it is/was a commonly held belief.
...i would argue--fervently and strongly--that extrapolating from "some
members of the church taught/teach X" to "the church taught/teaches X" is
unwarranted.
David, who knows all the words to the song "Hair"
David Bowie
: This phase from LdS.org implies that God and Mary had sexual
: relation(s).
: "his Only Begotten Son in the flesh"
: I wonder how God begets in the flesh. Sure sounds
: to me like he was using his physical body.
<BEGIN Linguist Fantastic mode>
Interesting--i'd never noticed the ambiguity.
Basically, you're parsing it such that "in the flesh" modifies "begotten".
I think that's a questionable reading, though certainly a possible one, if
only because there's an intervening noun.
My reading--and the more natural one, IMO--is that "begotten son in the
flesh" functions as a single N', "in the flesh" being, effectively, a
reduced relative clause, which makes it a shortened form of something more
like "begotten son, who is/was in the flesh". (The bonus of a reduced
relative clause is that you don't have to worry about the tense of stative
verbs.) That is, this is referring to the set of all sons begotten by the
Father, who ended up appearing in the flesh. (The "only" then serves as a
specifier, showing that the set has only 1 member.)
FWIW, though, your reading is *particularly* unlikely, given that
begetting doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being the
biological father of anybody, as a quick glance through Biblical
genealogical lists can confirm.
<END Linguist Fantastic mode>
David, who thinks "Linguistic Fantastic" would be more euphonious
Andrew R
:
: If I believed in a God, the God I believed in would not resort to
: in-vitro fertilization to create His only begotten son, He would
: have sex with the mother of His children.
Not if his wife had anything to do with it he wouldn't!
Andrew R.
father of peace
>But Absoloms justification of his belief (I was taught it)
I have no belief one way or the other on the subject. I am
just reporting what I was taught for 35 years in the LdS
church. And of course as usual being an iconoclast and
enjoying the conversation.
Scott
> > hand if they are a convert about 75% do, in my wifes ward it would be
> > about 5%.
>
>
> Then 95% of that ward needs to repent and seek conversion.
Gene, you know full well what is meant when a LDS says he is a
convert; meaning someone who's parents aren't members of ther church
and joined later in life.
Regards,
Scott
John Lemings
> I think to try to say he meant more than he literally said is dangerous. All
> he literally said is that the birth was natural. We need to consider the
> following as well
> (Luke 1:35.)
>
>
> 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.
>
> "The Highest" would indicate God, and so far as I know it could be any
> member of the Godhead, but God the Father is the one who is Father,
The parallel acount of Jesus' birth in Matthew teaches us that it was
the Holy Spirit, not the Father who miraculously conceived Jesus in
Mary's womb:
But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord
appeared to 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.
(Matthew 1:20 KJV)
For the Orthodox Christian, the "Highest" of Luke 1:35 certainly
encompasses all of the Trinity. However, the text of both Luke 1:35
*and* Matthew 1:20 indicate that while the birth is from the power of
God, it was the Holy Spirit (who is God) who conceived the earthly body
for God the Son.
There certainly was no need for a sexual union to take place in order
for an earthly body to be prepared for the Son. If God can literally
speak creation into existence by the power of his voice, can he also not
miraculously cause a young virgin woman to be pregnant by his power?
Let us not limit God's power.
Scott
> Hello All,
>
> Could someone of belief please explain these comments:
snip comments
Why explain any of them? They don't need explanation, they seem quite clear to me.
Regards,
Scott
gary0
>
> Joseph Daniel Zukiger ...
> >
> > ... spontaneous auto-fertilization ... Supposedly ...
>
> It happens with many species. I think that the result
> is always female, since there is in the female, only
> the genetic material to produce female.
Rather than "always female," it's "always the gender with two
same-type sex chromosomes." For mammals, that would, indeed, be
female; but, IIRC, for birds it's backwards -- XX produces male, XY
female.
I recall a _Scientific_American_ article many years ago about turkey
chicks from unfertilized eggs always being males. IIRC when a bird egg
"takes off" without fertilization, you always get XX -- a male. A
Y-gamete that spontaneously doubled its chromosomes would get a
non-viable YY.
If a human (type of mammal) egg "kick-started" itself, you should
always get a "she" (like "the last scion" in the movie _Dogma_). This
process is of no use in explaining (male) Joshua ben Joseph. Whatever
the Father did, it doesn't follow "spontaneous generation" theory as
we currently understand it.
gary0
Gene Fuller
> "Gene Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<10ghq68...@news.supernews.com>...
> > "Scott" <scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:10gghrq...@news.supernews.com...
Snip
> > If it was not Jesus own words, does that really matter if it was given
by
> > Him through a prophet?
>
> It does for Absolom, who I was directing the comments to.
But does it to you, or are you willing to use arguments to Absalom that you
would not yourself accept?
> Does the following apply?
> > (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38.)
Qotation snipped for band width conservation. If you don't remember it, look
it up! <G>
> But we know that this isn't an absolute, I am a servant of Chirst and
> my voice isn't his. This scripture doesn't say "everything my
> servants say is as if I am saying it", it's saying that his words
> (propheies, promises, convenants) will be fullfilled wether he says
> them or his servants say them (propheies, promises, convenants). There
> is a subtle difference.
I know that. I agree. But simply for the prophet or anyone else to _SAY_
that the Lord said something does not prove that He did, does it?
> I used to think that the Prophet spoke for the Lord all of the time,
> then I understood it to mean that only when he was acting as a
> prophet, now I have to be more pessimistic about it because some of
> our church leaders have said some crazy things.
And many of the "rank and file members" have said and continue to say crazy
and unfortunate things. If you disagree with me, then all you have to do for
support for my statement is to read what I say sometimes. <G>
Gene Fuller
"John Lemings" <lm...@cableaz.com> wrote in message
news:10glah3...@news.supernews.com...
> Gene Fuller wrote:
Snip
I did not have the intelligence or the will to refrain from further replies,
but I will at least change the subject in the heading.
> The parallel acount of Jesus' birth in Matthew teaches us that it was
> the Holy Spirit, not the Father who miraculously conceived Jesus in
> Mary's womb:
If the Holy Ghost is the "person" who caused the child to be conceived in
Mary's womb, then we should refer to Him as "God teh Father of the Son of
Mary" Now that is possible, no doubt since the Holy Ghost as a personage in
the God Head is as much God as is the one we commonly call God the Father.
So I am willing to go along with the idea that there is no real distinction
among the persons of the God Head. All are God. But I have no real reason to
accept that without a better reason than merely that we might heretofore be
wrong about things.
But at this point, I really reject the thought that the Holy Ghost is the
Father of Jesus Christ to the exclusion of the truth, as I see it, that God
the Father is the father of Jesus Christ.
Now a minor nit. I hear people all the time, using an expression such as "My
husband and I have conceived.". If we are discussion an idea, that would be
perfectly correct I think, but if we are discussing a child, it is the woman
who conceives. Teh husband contributes, perhaps, by engendering the process.
But again, look at the definition of "conceive" in www.dictionary.com for my
basis for this distinction.
> But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord
> appeared to 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.
> (Matthew 1:20 KJV)
Now we have the problem of agreeing on what, just exactly, Matthew (or the
angel) meant, in whatever language angels speak, by the term Holy Ghost, and
also of the simple word "of".
> For the Orthodox Christian, the "Highest" of Luke 1:35 certainly
> encompasses all of the Trinity. However, the text of both Luke 1:35
> *and* Matthew 1:20 indicate that while the birth is from the power of
> God, it was the Holy Spirit (who is God) who conceived the earthly body
> for God the Son.
If you mean that it was the Holy Spirit who "had the idea for" the body ..."
there is no reason for me not to accept that. Again, however, I repeat that
in the common language until recently it is the mother who conceives. The
father does not conceive a body for the child, although he may conceive the
idea that he would like to have a child. He may thereupon beget the child
which the mother conceives
If I thought it was important that I understand the mechanics of how Jesus
was placed in the womb of a mortal mother, I suppose I would have to go
along with what someone else aready said, the the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit
(which in this case could be the special influence of God's Love)
overshadowed Mary. Then there are any number of altenatives.
If you want it to be the Holy Ghost as a personage of the Godhead (or of the
Trinity, if that is your perferred terminology) do you want to postulate a
mehodology for that to have happened?
> There certainly was no need for a sexual union to take place in order
> for an earthly body to be prepared for the Son. If God can literally
> speak creation into existence by the power of his voice, can he also not
> miraculously cause a young virgin woman to be pregnant by his power?
I already said that, or agreed to it when someone else did. But you also
start with an "If God can ..." which I am not sure LDS in general is
something that has been demonstrated.
Gene
father of peace
>: If I believed in a God, the God I believed in would not resort to
>: in-vitro fertilization to create His only begotten son, He would
>: have sex with the mother of His children.
>:
>
>Not if his wife had anything to do with it he wouldn't!
I presume that you are making the claim that God is
a monogamist.... I wonder why one would believe
that?
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph Daniel Zukiger
Well, Scott, in the wards I (and, likely, Gene) attend, teachers often
have to phrase that sort of question carefully. If they just ask how
many are converts, I and several others who were born in the church
but remember various stages of our conversion often raise our hands to
remind us all that we all need to be converted.
JDZ, thinking of the verses around Alma 5: 14
Joseph Daniel Zukiger
> The doctrine of the Trinity or even of the Godhead of three personages was
> not fully developed in either the time of the writing of the New Testament
> Gospels, or of the Book of Mormon. So perhaps the writers were thinking in
> terms of "Is God that Great Spirit"--
> (Alma 22:9-11.)
I don't know, Gene. I find the discussions in the Book of Mormon to be
completely compatible with the discussions in the D&C.
Of course, I am not convinced that, just because I know there is the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I can tell simply from what is
in the scriptures who is doing the work of God at any particular
point.
JDZ
Gene Fuller
> In article <10gioqi...@news.supernews.com>,
> David Bowie <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> >Why is there this--the only word i can come up with is *weird*--idea
> >that, if there was physical intercourse going on in the process,
> >there must have been sperm and DNA involved?
This question really sounds backward. The wierd idea as I see it, is why we
assume that if DNA was involved, it must have involved sperm. If sperm was
thus inolved, then physical sexual intercourse must have been involved.
All DNA is, is information coded into a certain fashion. Certainly God
"holds" alll of the information in/of/for the Universe, and perhaps
infinitely many more universes. Shall we restrict the way in which He
transmits or transfers that information?
> Indeed, this has spawned (pun intended) some interesting ideas for me.
>
> While Jesus as a mortal had DNA, we have no idea whether a glorified
> being has DNA. Facts we know about a glorified body are: (1) it has
> "flesh" and "bone" but no blood, (2) it has the same outward
> appearance as our mortal body, and (3) it cannot die.
Well, with my speculation motor running, I will speculate that Jesus as
mortah had DNA as we know it, most likely, although in the meridian of time,
no one living on earth had ever even imagined it. I will speculate that
resurrected beings have or will have information somewhere in their
glorified body which performs the same functions for their body as DNA does
for our physical body. In fact, I will speculate that even now, our spirit
has something corresponding to the DNA of our physical body.
> I put flesh and bone in quotes because they're apparently different
> than what we have, even though they have the same names.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
> Which raises a number of interesting questions. For instance, if
> evolution was used to create our physical tabernacles (as I
> increasingly believe), are there artifacts of evolution in our current
> form that won't exist in our glorified bodies?
Well, since we will not be living by breathing air, it seems that our lungs
would be vestigial organs. But what would we speculate the chest cavity to
contain if not useless lungs? Or will they still be there and serving some
other purpose? I assume that we will not need our vestigial caudal vertebra
(tails) and men (don't know about women) will no longer need nipples. We
could really go off on this speculation jaunt. I don't know why we would
even need brains, for that matter, or hearts to function as a pump. Or eyes,
since they should not be needed to see when we can merely have the vision
impressed directly into our intelligence. Etc, etc, etc. as the King of Siam
is reported to have said to Anna. <G>
Gene Fuller
> In article <10ghq5l...@news.supernews.com>,
> Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Well, do you also find the idea of plural marriage in the time of Brigham
to
> >be repulsive and generally against the spirit of the rest of the revealed
> >Gospel?
>
> No.
>
> However, I /do/ find the idea of a sexual relationship between a
> father and child repulsive.
But that is totally unrelated (in my own judgement) to anything that has
been said heretore in my comments.
Snip
< ... Prophets taught that Jesus was
> literally the son of the Father. Logic then kicked in and people
> postulated how that could be ... At the
> time, one conclusion was a physical union, and then people theorized
> how that could be squared with moral laws. I see no reason or need to
> accept this folk doctrine.
I have no reason to quarrel with that position (the one you take) Indeed I
like the idea that where God speaks, I wish to heed what He says, but where
He does not speak, especially if He has been petitioned for an answer, I
take no strong position in favor or in opposition of the ideas of others.
Gene Fuller
Yes, maybe "Out West where the Church is true". But for the current Stake
President of the Champaign Illinois Stake and at least one previous one, we
have been taught that no one, BIC or not, can be on the way to Eternal Life
who has not been Born Again, who has not been converted, and turned in the
right path.
So I am merely saying that these folks need at the very least to lose the
narrow understanding that they have of what a convert is.
Remember that Peter had followed Jesus for three years and was even, as the
Church teaches, an Apostle, or a Special Witness of Jesus Christ, when Jesus
told Him, recorded in Luke 22:32, "when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren". Matthew 18:1-4 applies to conversion. No one seems to be born
converted.
Gene Fuller
Well, they did not seem so to someone, it seems. Maybe they did and seemed
clearly to conflict with something he currently believes or with something
that we teach. Can you explain What Joseph Fielding Smith meant? I don't
believe anyone but he can do so, unless by direct revelation by way of the
Holy Ghost. All we can explain is how what he said bears on what we believe.
E. Mark Ping
Gene Fuller <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I was responding to the idea that it was entirely inane to insist
>that the way women get pregnant is by sexual intercourse. It seems that
>there are those in this thread who insist that was not the way Mary was
>impregnated, so I merely suggested that it is indeed possible that Father
>used a different method, and if so, why do we necessarily have to assume
>that the gestation and delivery were according to the old familiar way?
I'm a bit confused, but I'll try to respond. The scriptures go out of
their way to point out that Mary was a virgin when she conceived (and
indeed Matt 1:25 states that Joseph and Mary didn't consummate their
marriage until after Jesus' birth). Early LDS leaders made it clear
that Jesus had no mortal father-- that Jesus is God's son not merely
metaphor.
Yet there is no indication in scripture that the gestation or birth of
Jesus was not ordinary.
>None of the Scriptural accounts that I can read use the original
>language. If _all_ that I do is rely on the English translations, I
>am reduced to taking the word of someone who very possibly is working
>without inspiration.
What about the Book of Mormon account? Yes, it's a translation, but
performed by someone most definitely working with inspiration.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Paula
wrote:
>
> Could someone of belief please explain these comments:
>
>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."
(and so forth)
I remember this debate coming up when I was very young and thinking
that if God was everything those same church members believed him to
be, what made them think that the only way he could have fathered
Jesus by Mary would be the one way they could do it. It was much
later that the first so-called test tube baby was born and I thought
of that subject again. Who knows how many ways it would be possible
for these statements to be true while Mary remained a virgin? If you
believe in an omnipotent God, it is difficult to believe that his
actions must be tied down to what a human mind at a certain point in
human history can conceive of or describe. I'm not sure if there was
an exchange of physical fluids or DNA or anything else, but I am sure
that since humans can do such an exchange without sexual intercourse,
God certainly could have in at least as many ways, if not more.
--
Paula
"I'm not hurling furniture, I'm just vigourously redecorating."
---Ja-and-I-want-this-couch-where-your-head-is-mes
Andrew R
:
: >: If I believed in a God, the God I believed in would not resort to
: >: in-vitro fertilization to create His only begotten son, He would
: >: have sex with the mother of His children.
: >:
: >
: >Not if his wife had anything to do with it he wouldn't!
:
: I presume that you are making the claim that God is
: a monogamist.... I wonder why one would believe
: that?
I was not making that claim - indeed I think that He almost certainly has
more than one - I was just being funny.
Andrew R.
father of peace
>>Bruce R. McKonkie got around the issue of a virgin birth
>>in a very interesting way.... Saying that Mary was still
>>a virgin, even after she had sex with God, because
>>she had never known "a man".
>
>I'm sure you'll be happy to produce this quote, right?
Of course I will not site references. Those who are
sincere will do their own research.
Love,
Absalom