I have asked on a few occasions here, “Do you believe that the early church apostasized towards this?” Usually it is in regards to going from a type of polytheism to monotheism, however it holds true for the Virgin Birth. Does anybody really believe that the primitive church held that the Heavenly Father had sex with Mary, then apostatized by claiming that Christ was born of a virgin?
The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are well known by most in the West and especially those who frequent this blog. Both testify that Jesus was born of a virgin – a virgin being a person who has never had sex with anyone – man, god, etc.
However, for Mormons there is a problem. Some GA’s of the 19th & 20th centuries have challenged the Virgin Birth. Aaron identified four – Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie. I would add Heber C. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown, and possibly Henry D. Taylor; there is a very good chance more could be added to the list. The idea that Mary was not a virgin, in the truest sense of the word, after she conceived was (and to some extant is) a widespread belief in Mormonism. The quotes from G.A.’s on the issue demonstrate that this belief was held at the highest echelons of Mormonism.
Noticeably absent from the list is Joseph Smith Jr. I have never heard or read anything about him assailing the Virgin Birth. Even the Joseph Smith translation renders the Hebrew word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin”. To be fair Mormons who do accept the Virgin Birth have some ammo on their side. They have the King James Bible, the aforementioned JST, and the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps you notice a trend here? The evidence for the Virgin Birth comes from an earlier time in Mormonism’s history – like before the Saints moved to Utah. The evidence against the Virgin Birth in Mormonism comes from quotes by apostles and prophets of the 19th & 20th centuries. It has been in the last 20 years or so that the Virgin Birth has gained more acceptance in Mormonism. I believe that as Mormonism’s materialistic worldview began to grow and take root (the classical definition of materialism not “greed”) that it necessitated the “fleshly” quotes by 19th century Mormons. They fit the paradigm of God the Father being a highly exalted man and Jesus being the literal and physical Son of God. A few 19th century Quorum of the Twelve members even believed that Jesus is not a virgin, but rather married.
I would contrast this dichotomy with the steadfast witness of the Church for the last 2,000 years. Christianity has taught that Jesus was born of a virgin. In Koine Greek, the idea is clear that the books of Matthew and Luke affirm the virgin birth. When Christians have rendered these scriptures in other languages they have chosen words that outright state or at least strongly imply that Mary was a virgin before and after conceiving the Messiah.
In addition, there are treatises beyond number – ranging from the 1st century until now – that attest to the Church’s belief in this doctrine. Justin Martyr, Aristides, and Ignatius all write very early on in Christian history that Jesus was born of a virgin. That abominable Apostle’s Creed says that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary”. Indeed, where is the early witness that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but rather by a physical union of God and Mary? There are early challenges to the virgin birth from outside Christianity, but in those challenges someone else other than God (usually Joseph) is put forward as the physical father of Jesus.
Honestly, the idea that Jesus was a product of a sexual union between God and Mary sounds a lot more like it came from the ancient pagan religions of the Mediterranean world. This is ironic as it often Mormons who accuse Christianity of being adulterated by Hellenistic influences. You mean adulterated to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?
In the words of that great coffee guru Linda Richman – talk amongst yourselves.
Excellent David!
Mormonism survives on certain myths, and the greatest of these is the faux apostasy. Without it, there is no need for a restoration. The Church is, and always has been, the mystical body of Christ. This is not an organization but the joining together in spirit and Spirit of those who recognize who God is and what He did for us through Christ Jesus. The Devil tries to destroy God’s Church, the Bride of Christ, but as Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against his “Church”.
False prophets like Joseph Smith, Bringham Young and all the other Mormon wolves have attacked God’s church, but they can’t prevail. False prophets, serving the devil’s purpose, always go after the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the nature of Jesus and the blood atonement. It’s a pattern that is repeated over and over again.
Those that give themselves over to the teachings and doctrines of the wolves will find themselves hardened in their consciousness to a degree that they can no longer see who God is. Their conscious has been seared. They have become blind to the light of the Spirit and deaf to the voice of God.
The wolves flip the basic doctrines of God’s Church. Way back in the first century, Paul warned Timothy about these folks and told him to instruct them not to teach strange doctrines. We rejoice in knowing that the wolves cannot consume God’s Church. However they can devour some of the sheep that they entice into their trap.
We are instructed to keep fighting the good fight knowing that we have the victory in Christ. This we will do!
This whole “apostasy” fairytale is much like the conspiracy theories that make the rounds. If a person accepts the conspiracy, then everything that is examined, supports the conspiracy. So it is with the Mormon premise of a great apostasy after the death of the apostles; when all the precious truths were lost and wouldn’t you know it, it sets-up the need for a restoration. Isn’t that convenient! And just to thicken the plot a bunch, there isn’t any Mormonism in the NT because the dastardly Catholic Church left it out.
Mormons eat this stuff right up. That’s why they’re so gullible and susceptible to any wild idea that comes down the pike. But if someone does the actual hard word of scholarship, they find out that things aren’t really the way they concluded.
There’s some guy on the radio late at night and every program is on UFOs and the paranormal. These programs are not for skeptics or for those who are interested in getting at the truth by asking tough questions. The deal with conspiracy buffs is that they are just about impossible to deal with. You can’t reason with them or get them to look rationally at any evidence. The only “evidence” that is acceptable to these folks is that which supports what they already believe in.
Mormonism, with its reliance on “revelation”, isn’t going to be bothered with the cold hard facts.
I’ve told the story of how I went to a presentation by the “Amazing Randy”. His real name is James Randy and he’s spent his life as a debunker of the paranormal. A questioner asked him, “Why do people believe this stuff?” His reply was, “Because they want to!” And that ladies and gentleman is why active Mormons will not accept any of the evidence that Joseph Smith was a total fraud. They like Mormonism! They like the story! They don’t care, in fact the more preposterous the claims the better. You’re proven to be a true believer and to have great faith if you’ll accept the most outlandish and off-the-wall tales.
A lot of fear is built into the system to keep people from wandering too far.
David,
Great article. I have a question.Since many
present day LDS in good standing believe that
Heavenly Father indeed did have sexual relations
with Mary, do those LDS who find this teaching
“ridiculous” ever wonder why their friends came
to that conclusion?
The great truth of the Scriptures can be summed
up in this: Mary became pregnant without any kind
of help from any kind of man or a man of any kind.
What a miracle!
Happy Christmas everyone!
(Its Christmas morning here)
In among the slush about Santa, reindeer, snow and some god or other knocking up Mary (rather like Zeus on one of his “vacations” to the daughters of men), I hope you’ve heard or even sung one of my favorite carols.
Its obviously a product of the Great Apostasy (LOL), in which case I trust that Mormons have done their best to avoid it.
Words by Charles Wesley, music by Mendelsohn.
I’ve been to my share of meetings and firesides, but I have yet to hear “Hark the Herald Angels Sing!”
Although, last Christmas we sang the…slowest…rendition… of…”O Little Town of Bethlehem”…ever. The piano player must have been tired that day. 🙂
Merry Christmas from a long time lurker. I appreciate MRM and the posters so much! Grace and Peace.
I’ve been quite busy lately; haven’t posted, but have been reading with interest. As we celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ I wish all a Happy Christmas and hope that all take into their hearts the Miracle of the True Virgin Birth.
That is what makes Jesus so special, and God’s ability to make this miracle happen was just the beginning of our Saviour’s life of miracles.
We have come a long way in over two thousand years, and some things have never changed. There will always be debate, and wolves waiting at the doors to take the faithful away from their Lord and Saviour.
My Christmas prayer is that all would come to Jesus, and he will return soon (come quickly Lord) to call us all to our reward.
Will you be left with the unbelievers, or those who teach and promulgate the false doctrines of polytheism, baptism for dead people, the mistaken identity of God as Adam, and continue to believe in false prophet after false prophet – or will you believe in the simple gospel of the Saving Grace of Jesus as taught in the Bible?
The choice is there for each of us, and I pray that all will heed the words of the Saviour and take up their cross and follow him, not a man or any men who take away from HIM.
Confess Jesus as Lord, admit that you are a sinner and accept HIM in your heart. His Grace and Love will do the rest as you find the freedom of putting your trust in HIM and HIM alone.
Thanks to all who bolster my faith with their comments here, I appreciate the opportunity to testify that there is a way out of falsehood, just look to Jesus and He will lead the Way.
Amen grindael, how are you doing? Hope you are all healed up this Christmas. Merry Christmas to everyone who posts and lurks here. I have learned so much since I began posting here several months ago. Like grindael, my faith has been strengthened by all of the Christians who share their views and speak the truth. It has also been strengthened by the LDS who post here as I have never heard a position or argument from them that made me say, “You know, they might be right!”, but they have often caused me to search the bible and their works to find the truth. Thank you for engaging me.
The incarnation has to be the greatest miracle.
Maranatha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUjfN7cpv3o
liv4jc,
Thanks for the kind words. I am healing nicely. Can bend my knee to a little over 90% now. But have a long way to go.
I have been re-united with a friend of mine who I was in a Rock Band with (in my badder days). He is a Christian, and I was instrumental in diverting him from that for many years. (Lots of guilt there) He wound up disappearing and I lost track of him for 16 years. Our band disintegrated (he was the singer) I don’t play (well) only write music and lyrics, but I found him through the internet… We got together with another old band member and are writing and producing music again.
My friend Mark, went back to his Christian ways, and I found the Lord a couple of years ago. He does Christian music also, and so I am writing for Him – we are called Sky Gaze.
I only bring this up to show the incredible power of God if we turn to Him and keep Him in our lives. I carried this guilt for years and the joy of knowing that Mark turned back to the Lord, and that God allowed me to know this and know I was forgiven for my past and saved is the greatest gift I could ever have.
I had in my possession five of Mark’s Christian songs that I played over and over again, which helped me in my conversion to Jesus. He lost those songs, and it was a great pleasure to be able to give them back to him. He redid one called “Shine”, and I have made a video of it, the link is here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/skygazeband#p/a/u/2/Ih5qU_RYJzQ
God is wonderful, and watches over us. I know this and am grateful for it. He took me out of darkness and brought me into His Light.
The reason for all this backround is that I have begun writing Christian Songs for Sky Gaze, and here is my try at a Christmas one:
Oh, Immanuel
On a starry night long ago
the world was covered in darkness,
while in Bethlehem a babe was born
and by Him the whole world was blest.
The heavens were opened in praises to him
the promised Saviour, God Himself;
Born to save us all from our sins
and break the bonds of death and hell.
Oh, Immanuel, Saviour and King
Jesus to all, salvation will bring.
Oh, Immanuel, God with us.
Jesus our Lord, gift from above.
On Christmas day we give our praise
for the miracle of His birth,
And so we cherish Him every day
Jesus, the Saviour of the whole earth.
Oh, Immanuel, Saviour and King
Jesus to all, salvation will bring.
Oh, Immanuel, God with us.
Jesus our Lord, gift from above.
Grindael wrote
Interesting, Grindael. I’ve been in a whole succession of rock bands (I think I must hold the record for greatest number of unsuccessful bands). I’m past it now. I gave it up as a serious proposition when I realised that teenagers were not going to pay money to see me, and I didn’t want a career in getting people to drink more beer at the local pub. LOL.
Anyhow, my musical output is directed toward the church now. I directed the music for our Carol Service last night, which was very well received. I especially enjoyed my daughter playing violin.
I’m really glad to hear you’re healing up good. Thanks for letting us know.
daisygirl28,
“Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” has a special place in my heart. As a child, I was brought up in a rather stuffy, formal Anglican Church and sang in its choir. As a teenager, I decided I was an atheist. My Jehovah’s Witness freind at school challenged me, but (thankfully) I was introduced to Jesus through an independant Baptist/Pentecostal Church.
Armed with a guitar, the youth group and I went carol singing. As I sang this song, which I had learned as a child, on a cold winter evening, I suddenly realised that I understood what the words meant. I can still recall that moment in my mind, as I said to myself “oh, so that’s what it’s about!”.
At church, we had talked about being “born again”, and here was the carol telling us that Christ was born to give us second birth. There’s plenty more in Wesley’s carol from Luke and Malachi, and its worth a Bible-study of its own.
These days, I delight in Jesus, our Immanuel; God with us. “Risen with healing in His wings”, wow!
What a great, wonderful, powerful, loving, humble God we worship. My meagre superlatives fail to describe Him. If I did nothing else but sing His praise through all eternity, I’d be seriously, totally happy.
Happy Christmas to you all here!
Merry Christmas to all on the marvelous day that we celebrate the birth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In Luke 1:32-33 we have the angel Gabriel announcing to Mary the miracle which will take place that not only will she, a virgin, conceive a child in her womb but it will be done by the power of the Holy Spirit. This wouldn’t be just any child, however because He will have the “throne” of David, He will reign over the “House” of Jacob forever, and His “kingdom” would have no end. This is the fulfillment of the promise given long ago to Abraham. The “throne” is the seat of government, the “house” is the royal lineage, and the “kingdom” is the sphere of His rule.
Jesus was the physical manifestation of the invisible God. The conception of Jesus was indeed a miracle but we have proof that His sacrifice on the Cross was indeed effective to satisfy God’s requirement for sin, through His resurrection from the dead. Without the resurrection Jesus would have been just another man who was crucified on a cross by the Roman government.
As happy as I am today in the celebration of the birth of this miracle baby, I’m saddened realizing my part in the need for Christ’s death on the cross. As I struggle everyday with this body of sin I realize that if I walk in the Spirit God is faithful to cleanse me from all my unrighteousness by the blood of Jesus. I am definitely not ashamed of the Cross of Christ because it symbolizes the extent of God’s love, mercy and forgiveness. Today I celebrate the best Christmas present of all, new life in Christ through faith.
Merry Christmas, again, to all.
grindael and Martin,
It’s so cool to find out your musical interests. I took up the guitar three years ago after about a forty year hiatus. It was my wife’s suggestion as a retirement project for me. Well here I sit with five guitars and three amps and very little talent. The guitar wasn’t challenge enough so this past summer I bought an electric bass and an electric acoustic bass and am now struggling with that also. So anyway I’d like to suggest that we get together and play. I actually can sing and could play some musical part I’m sure.
I’m stuck on early rock and roll and all I really want to do is sound like Buddy Holly when I play Peggy Sue. How come that guy could make so much good music out of three chords? I live out on YouTube watching the likes of Eddie Cochran singing “Come On Everybody”. Very simple music but it stirs all kinds of memories of crusing the streets in my dad’s Pontiac Catalina. Martin, did they cruse in Australia? You definitely have the beaches for the surf music.
I think I’ll go practice now. It’s raining and snowing here and it feels like March. It’s really raising havoc with my snowshoeing. Down to the basement on the treadmill and exercise bike today. The dogs won’t be happy about that!
Merry Christmas to all from a most TBM and a believer in that Jesus is the Christ the literal son of God. I quiet understand how incensed Creedal Christian get when Mormons use the Bible to literally state what the Bible states, “Son of God.” While certain early Mormon leaders may occasionally have reinterpreted the concept of “virgin birth,” they never for a moment suggested that Jesus was begotten by a mortal man, nor that his father was any other personage than God.
Matt:
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Hmmm, “Son of God”, and “Son of the Highest”, ever wonder why Son was injected into both of those verses? Maybe Joseph Smith got it right and Son of God and Son of the Highest are describing the literal Son of God.
“Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
Colossians 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. So as Mormons believe, God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost all comprise the Godhead bodily.
The fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith explained in 1844 that he had always taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages speaks volumes for our understanding and doctrine that Jesus is the Son, and the Birth of Jesus Christ is a literal Birth of Gods Son into this world, as we find that in the beginning the Word was with God, and the word was God. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.
R.
Martin,
There is an interesting side-note to those Christian songs my friend Mark made & only I had the copies to. (He took off to Cali in the early nineties, with just a car & clothes & all his things were lost that he left)
Not only did those songs work on me in much the same way that Christmas Carol did on you… I listened to them, and like you, suddenly they made sense. Funny how God works, isn’t it?
Anyway, the other thing was that his sister Linda sang backups on those songs and she died of cancer a few years ago, and those were the only recordings with her voice on them….Mark was overwhelmed to hear her when I sent them to him…Funny how things turn out, isn’t it? I followed the ‘elect’ posts quite closely and it got me thinking…when God puts His hands on a person sometimes He won’t let go — He works in strange and wondrus ways…
falcon, keep up the playing…thanks for the invite, but I’m not much of a player, only plunk down melodies to write songs and leave the finished product and the live performances to the professionals… I am glad to be writing for the Lord tho…. (and I liked Dell Shannon… & Roy Orbison, what a voice they had)..
Hank,
So what you are telling us is that primitive Christians were actually proto-Mormons and that they would and did see a literal and physical sonship of Jesus in scripture, and thus no virgin birth?
Over the centuries there have been many heretical views of who Jesus is. The Ebionites denied the reality of Jesus’ divine nature. John dealt with this in John 1:1. The Gnostics denied the reality of Jesus’ human nature. This was dealt with by John also in 1 John 1:1. The Arians affirmed Jesus’ preexistence but denied His deity. The Nestorian believed two persons actually indwelt the body of Christ, the human person and the divine person. The Eutychians went to the opposite extreme and said both natures I the human and the divine) mingled to make up a third and totally different nature from the original two natures.
The true view of the Incarnation is that in the one person, Jesus Christ, there are two natures-a human nature and a divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and these two natures are organically and indissolubly united yet so that no third nature is formed thereby (A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 673)
He always says, I, me, mine. He is always addressed as thou, thee, thine. He is always spoken of as He, His, Him. It was the same person to whom it was said “Thou are not yet fifty years old,” and, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands” (Charles Hodge, as quoted by Charles Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p.300).
The truth of the matter is that Jesus took upon Himself the full nature of man and yet retained the full nature of God. The Bible tells us that Jesus was as much God as if He had never been man, and as much man as if He had never been God. The technical term for this is the hypostatic union. We have no analogy that we can use to even remotely illustrate this.
The miracle of the virgin birth was not the actual birth, but rather the conception of Christ’s earthly body. So why the virgin birth incarnation? (1) to reveal the invisible God (John 1:18; 14:9). (2) to fulfill prophecy (Genesis 3:15). (To Be Continued)
(cont.)
3. Through the Incarnation the Davidic Covenant was guaranteed. It assured David that someday an heir from his own seed would rule over Israel on his throne forever. (II Samuel 7:8-17); (Luke 1:31-33)
4. To make sacrifice for sins. (Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 10:4-5; Hebrews 10: 10-12; I John 3:5; Mark 10:4-5)
5. To provide the believer with a High Priest. It was necessary that Christ should be made like unto His brethren. He passed sinlessly through all human experiences, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for our sins. He was obliged to become completely like His brethren-apart from sin. (Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 4:15)
Finally through the Incarnation there was an escape of the historical curse. First of all the historical curse upon Adam’s seed, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12) The curse upon King Jehoiakim and his son, Jehoiachin. Both of these men were seen as wicked rulers. They were both judged by God and warned that their physical seed would never prosper upon the throne of David. Jesus escaped that judgement by being born of a virgin.
Through the Incarnation Jesus heals the broken hearted, He sets at liberty the bruised, He proclaims the acceptable year of the Lord, He gives believers life and an abundant life and of course to glorify the Father (John 13:31; John 14:13; John 17:4).
To have a proper doctrine it is necessary to properly understand who Jesus is. Heretical views of Jesus have always sought to make Him less than He really is. The Mormon blasphemy concerning the Incarnation seeks to reinforce the entire Mormon concept of a lesser god and to debase the Holy name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These clever wolves of Mormonism are not all that clever as their scheme is readily apparent to all who are willing to come to God with a humble and sincere heart.
Hank:
“The fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith explained in 1844 that he had ALWAYS taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages…” (Emphasis mine)
Either you are naive, or you don’t know or understand your own church history. smith is lying, and you are mistaken.
I happen to have a copy of the 1835 D&C and it says something interesting. The title tells it all, Doctrine (Lectures on Faith) and Covenants (smith’s revelations). Let’s look at the Doctrine, shall we?
First though, the preface:
“The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work.
The church viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we only add a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places–its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments civil and political.
We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, OUR belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.” (emphasis smith’s)
“We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced…”
Lecture 5:
2 There are TWO personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power overall things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, AND IS CALLED THE SON BECAUSE OF THE FLESH…”
Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do. John 5: 30. I (Christ) can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. John 6:38. For I (Christ) came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 10: 30. I (Christ) and my Father are one.
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit.
smith EVOLVED his teachings on who and what God is, and the Holy Spirit. He taught that God was a Spirit, Jesus was God in the Flesh, and the Holy Spirit the MIND of the two. It proves the first vision a hoax, (as this was published in 1835) and that smith evolved his Godhead Doctrine.
smith takes full responsibility for the teachings bound in this version of the D&C right in the preface. Say what you will, but smith is a liar, a false prophet. Let’s get our facts straight before making statements that are blatantly false, shall we?
Shortly after the turn of the second century, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, consulted Emperor Trajan about the rapidly spreading Christian superstition in his district, asking him what he should do about it. By interrogating a few people, Pliny learned that “on an appointed day,” Christians habitually met before daybreak and recited “a hymn to Christ, as to a god.”
These hymns, which go back to the earliest days of Christianity, sharply contradict the popular notion that the doctrine of the Incarnation is only a brain child of fourth-century theologians playing irrelevant word-games. Long before Christian emperors convened their solemn assemblies, thousands of Christian worship services sang the praised of the Holy Child of Bethlehem.
This one factor why the orthodox party eventually triumphed in the Arian controversy: Athanasius simply argued theologically what the church had been singing for two centuries.
In 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, a town not far from Constantinople, the classical orthodoxy of the Church was defined and the heretics dealt with. Against Arius the assembly affirmed that Jesus was truly God, against Apollinarius that He was truly man, against Eutyches it confessed that Jesus’ deity and humanity were not changed into something else, and against the Nestorians that Jesus was not divided but was one person.
The bottom line: Since Jesus was a normal human being, he could fulfill every demand of God’s righteous law, and He could suffer and die a real death. Since He was truly God, His death was capable of satisfying divine justice. God Himself had, by His grace, provided the sacrifice. (attribution: Christian History Issue 51; “Heresy in the Early Church”)
While Mormons decry the councils, it was at these councils that the heretics were confronted and the doctrine that was established by the apostles and taught by the early Church Fathers upheld. Mormonisn is so bizarre it isn’t even good heresy!
David stated, “So what you are telling us is that primitive Christians were actually proto-Mormons and that they would and did see a literal and physical sonship of Jesus in scripture, and thus no virgin birth?”
Hmmm, I don’t remember ever stating, “thus no virgin birth. I’m wondering where you would find that in our doctrine, if so please produce that snippet.
R.
Hank,
When you say “literal” son of God, are you then
saying that Heavenly Father did have sexual
relations with Mary?
grindael, Bringing up old arguments again are we? then if you are into facts and evidences lets honestly look at them.
Lectures on Faith?
1). Authorship?
2). Those who disliked the lectures attributed them to Sidney Rigdon
3). Promoters, many like you, assume Joseph Smith to be the Author
4). Fact, no one yet has any historical evidence to establish or refute either.
To me and many others you are just bringing up useless accusation that neither you or I can solve.
If this is your argument then it is also you conviction that Mormonism is a lie, and if others like me have different conviction, then Mormonism is the Restored Gospel, and Jesus is the Christ, the Literal Son of God the Father.
Nice try. But your accusations are based on nothing more then what you would like to believe so as to continue an agenda of deception and false misrepresentation.
Mike R. states, “When you say “literal” son of God, are you then
saying that Heavenly Father did have sexual
relations with Mary?
No, and there is nothing in our DOCTRINE that states the how, what or why of the Virgin Birth. If you have other sources that can quote from our DOCTRINE that would shed light on this please feel free to share it with all our visitors and guest, otherwise you are assuming something never stated as doctrine.
I will leave it up to the Bible as a plain and accurate translation of the Birth of Christ and feel that anything other is pure speculation or personal opinions.
R.
Hank,
I am bringing up the quotes of 19th & 20th century GA’s. If they are doctrine, or not, I will let you decide but they are statements of belief. If your church has an official position on the virgin birth then let me know. How would you respond to this one from B. Young,
“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.”
Or this one from Heber C. Kimball
“In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it”
Both quotations are from the Journal of Discourses.
Hank,
The OLD arguments are the best because they PROVE the lies of smith. Perhaps you have never looked at the title page of the 1835 D&C, but it says this:
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF
THE CHURCH OF THE
LATTER DAY SAINTS:
CAREFULLY SELECTED
FROM THE REVELATIONS OF GOD.
AND COMPILED BY
JOSEPH SMITH Junior,
OLIVER COWDERY,
SIDNEY RIGDON,
FREDERICK G. WILLIAMS,
(Presiding Elders of said Church)
PROPRIETORS.
It is on the frontspiece, there for all to see. Your tactics of claiming Rigdon wrote it are as phony as smith was. smith put his name on the book. He was (supposedly) in charge. Are you telling me that smith never proofed the book? Never read it? Never Ok’d it for publication? How come it was kept in the church for many many years WITHOUT CHANGE? Are you telling me that God’s spokesman, smith, would not stand by these words in the preface :
“We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that WE ARE TO BE CALLED TO ANSWER EVERY PRINCIPLE ADVANCED…”
Your argument flies in the face of common sense of which (obviously) you and other ‘apologists’ have none. If smith saw God in 1820, why was this allowed to be published in smith’s church? Are you telling me Rigdon was in charge? Maybe he did not know about smith’s first vision? Now that would be an interesting revelation. Nice try. You get a zero for church history, but 100% for turning a blind eye to the truth.
Hank,
Thanks for your reply. If by “our doctrine”, you
mean today’s LDS doctrine, you may be correct.
But as your leaders’ role is to interpret the
written Word for LDS it is evident, when all the
teaching material is evaluated, that this was
the doctrine for Brigham Young, James Talmage,
Bruce McConkie, and other Mormon authorities.
As you know every leader, every teacher, will
be judged as individuals for what they teach
[2Tim.2:17-18; Acts 20:30].
Your very same leaders have made it plain that
to believe a falsehood about God/Jesus will
bring damnation.
As there are LDS today who believe what is being
said on this thread is indeed true doctrine,it
might well be asked,where did they get it from?
Perhaps they took seriously their leaders council
that they will never lead LDS astray.
You said, ” I will leave it up to the Bible as a
plain and accurate translation of the birth of
Christ.”
I’m sure Brigham Young and other LDS leaders felt
the same way when they publically taught their
people! Furthermore you need to realize that these
high Priesthood leaders also interpreted Bible
verses to teach that God and Jesus were both
polygamists.This served well as a reason for
sincere LDS to accept and enter into the practice
of polygamy themselves, after all it was said to
be ” the pattern of Heaven “.
Lastly, in the “offical Declaration”, in the D&C
Pres.Woodruff, in defending his position that LDS
had given up polygamy, assured the public that no LDS
authority was teaching contrary to this. He said,
” When any Elder of the Church HAS USED LANGUAGE
WHICH APPEARED TO CONVEY ANY SUCH TEACHING, he
has been promptly reproved.”
Hank, leaders in your spiritual heritage as a
Mormon, have used language that did convey the
thought that God did indeed have sexual relations
with Mary, and as a result sincere LDS, even today, believe this.
May sincere LDS acknowlege this as rank heresey
and move on.
David Whitsell, if you can show us from our standard works it would be appreciated otherwise we have nothing more then speculation and personal opinions, further more you need to provide the source of the GA’s quote so we can look at the full context of their writing or talks. You state the Journal of Discourses period.
R.
Mike R. nice try, but not one used the words sexual relations, try again. Please provide the source or quote that would translate into sexual relations. We know that God the Father is Christ literal Father, put beyond that the method is pure speculation.
R.
Well Mike,
Here’s the deal. As we have all learned, it’s pretty tough to nail Mormons down on what counts and doesn’t count regarding the teachings, doctrines and history of the Mormon church. That’s why Dr. Walter Martin coined the phrase “maze of Mormonism”. Because it is in deed a maze of entangled ramblings. The joke is the motto, “If you want to know about Mormonism, ask a Mormon.”
Take the Incarnation. If we turned Aaron loose on Temple Square with a video cam to ask the average Mormon about the means by which Jesus was conceived, my guess we’d get some very interesting answers. Mormons simply fill everything up with their own meaning. The fall back position on all these wacky statements by the Mormon founders is to say that it was all along time ago and besides they have “new” revelation. What a cop-out!
Everyday is a new day in the world of Mormonism anything and everything could be changed in twenty-four hours and switched back two weeks later and the Mormons would just yell “weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee” wasn’t that fun?
To all my Creedal evangelical friends and the unseemly topic of the mechanics of the Virgin Birth is my own following opinion and is not based on Mormon doctrine at all.
First of all this seems a pretty unimportant topic in the scope of what the Restored Gospel does state and what the Creedal Christian have lost in translation over time for lack of any original transcripts of the Bible. I see no reason why Jesus’ conception could not have left Mary truly still a “virgin.” But then, if a resurrected, exalted man can transport himself through solid walls and leave them intact ( Luke 24:36—40), I see no reason why Jesus’ conception could not have left Mary truly still a “virgin.” Hmmm, silly isn’t it? you ask for us to explain the how of the Virgin Birth and the mechanics, and yet you would most likely fail at explaining how Jesus transported himself through a solid wall without specific revelation on the subject as silly. So silly as your questions and quotes are, you are now asking for us to explain what was never stated in any of our Standard works. What our GA’s do provide is a long series of statements to the effect that Jesus is the literal, biological Son of the Father in the flesh. But this is simply a by-product of our understanding of God the Father as an anthropomorphic being with a flesh-and-bone body (the Father was the source of Jesus’ Y chromosome) and says nothing about the mechanics of conception.
A willingness to twist the words of our LDS GA’s to make them sound offensive to evangelical ears is plain silly, and in order to justify this assertion that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus “was begotten through sexual relations between a flesh-and-bone Heavenly Father and Mary”
you quote several unofficial statements of LDS leaders, justifying yourself by showing that Latter-day Saints consider the words of the living prophets as scripture. You fail on all grounds when not providing any source or quote in our Standard Works.
Hank wrote
On another thread Mike R said he was going to “take care” of the turkeys on Christmas Eve.
My parents are getting old. Sooner or later, my two brothers and I will have to make some difficult choices about how to “take care” of them. What should be obvious is that when we discuss how to “take care” of our parents, we mean something completely different than Mike’s “taking care” of his turkeys.
Its a trivial example, but it demonstrates how idiomatic language can be; and the importance of context.
When Mormons read “Son of God” as meaning “the biological product of a sexual union between the Father’s physical body and Mary’s”, they read something completely different from what the Gospels and first Christians meant.
Falcon laid out some of the reasons why “Son” was injected into those verses. I’ll add that to humanity he was heaven’s emmissary, representative, advocate, consul, heir, ambassador. When you note that Jesus referred to Himself as “Son of Man” more often than “Son of God” (his opponents used this latter phrase more often), these ideas also hold true of humanity to heaven. Hey, we’re back to the “image of God” thing in Gen 1:26.
Have you noticed that Ezekiel refers to himself as “Son of Man” (Ezekiel 2:1, 2:3, 2:6, 2:8, 3:1 etc etc etc)? What do you think he is saying? Do you think he had a literal mother? Maybe he was born of homosexual (male) parents? Or, more plausibly, he is saying that he is humanity’s heir and representative.
Jesus accuses the Pharisees of being the sons of Satan (John 8:44). Do you think he was implying that they were “the biological product of a sexual union between Beelzebub’s physical body and their mothers'”.
Give it up, Hank. You cannot force your agenda on scripture.
Hank also wrote
NOT according to the explicit, detailed assertions of your prophets.
How dare you denigrate their “revelations” as mere “speculation”!
Are you telling us that we should NOT believe your prophets? If you are, I gladly accept your directions on the matter.
Hank,
Your defensiveness is showing. I nowhere stated what was or was not “official” doctrine. I freely admitted that some Mormons believe in the Virgin birth and they have the KJV,BoM, and JST on their side.
Just because something is not in the Standard Works does not mean that it is a prophet’s mere opinion. If a Mormon GA has apostolic authority, then if said GA teaches something about religion as true/doctrinal then it is more than his mere opinion. Honestly, who are you to determine what sources do and do not constitute doctrine verses opinion? If it came down to an apostle’s mere opinion on Mormonism and yours, who’s “opinion” do you think I am going with? Somewhere along the line if you are going to call a GA’s words mere opinion then you need to state they are a wrong opinion. Do you care to interact with the quote below (especially the words “same way”):
“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)
Hank,
Golly, I expected more from you than that.
You said, “but not one used the words, sexual
relations…” Hank, they really did’nt need
to be that explict and use those EXACT words
to CONVEY their intent with this teaching now
do they?
You can read the material under the topic,”Virgin
Birth” from this ministry to see what was taught.
You also might want to share your alibi with those
faithful LDS who do believe that Heavenly Father
is the “literal” parent of Jesus by sex with Mary.
Your use of the word, “opinion” to excuse the
teaching of your General Authorities is not
valid at all. In 2Tim.2:17-18 it mentions two
false teachers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, their
personal opinion, their personal belief, was
being taught to others, and Paul issued a
warning to all.
All teachers will be judged by what they pass on
to those they teach.Brigham Young will be so
judged, as an individual,whether the whole church
follows his teachings or not. It was offical to
Brigham personally .It was his interpretation of
the written Word, and others accepted it because
of that.
,
By the way, I have had Jehovah’s witnesses tell
me that since Jesus never said the exact words
“I am God”, that therefore they reject His
Deity. But we both know that He was worshipped,
He forgave sins etc. these only God can do.
Your reasoning, above, reminded me of them!
The NT perspective of the “son” being an emissary or representative is amply demonstrated in Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard in Luke 20:9-19.
Consider the scenario that Jesus draws. “A man” (God) entrusts the care of his vineyard to some “farmers” (Israel’s religious leaders). These “farmers” treat the “man’s” “servants” (prophets) badly, so the man finally sends his “son” (Luke 20:13). I won’t spoil the plot from here by repeating what happens next.
So, from this we can see that it was accepted practice in the ancient middle east, that when a King wanted to convey a really important message or negotiate terms, he’d send his son as his representative.
In fact, when the son turns up, you know you’ve got to the critical point. It all rests on your interaction with the son; its make or break; the final all or nothing powerplay (which is the thrust of what Jesus says in Luke 20:17-18).
There are a couple of other features of this scenario worth noting;
* Jesus considers himself to be a continuation of the “servants” or prophets, but he also considers himself to be elevated above them (note that Jesus is the one who sends the prophets Matt 23:34)
* Jesus condemns the religious leaders for refusing to treat (negotiate) with him (Luke 20:19). Their condemnation comes about because there is no other diplomatic option available. Note that they cannot appeal to the Father to over-ride the Son’s position. It is quite reasonable to infer, then, that the Father and Son are one.
The Biblical idiom of “Son” has so much more to offer than the speculative ramblings of Mormonism’s mechanical and limiting view.
Must have touched a nerve, so many posts that try to convict me as someone who teaches a different Christ, when even scripturally they prove a Christ that has many labels, the most important being the Son of God. Trying to manipulate the scriptures to mean anything other then literal, well that is plain silly, so again we see that the Creeds of yesterday, mandate the doctrine of today. Do you believe in God or do you follow man? Personally, following God is a much smarter move.
The Father and the Son, the Spirit and the flesh, the God and the man—these titles, roles, and attributes are blended wondrously in one being, Jesus Christ, in whom “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).
So you quote also Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, who I might add said, that the Father must have been married to Mary at the time of Jesus’ conception. Certainly these are more suggestive (and speculative) than any of the other quotations provided, but they still do not necessarily enlighten us about how Pratt and Young thought the conception of Jesus physically occurred. Furthermore, Creedal Christians cite Brigham Young’s statement from an 1866 edition of the Deseret News and Pratt’s from The Seer. By what stretch of the imagination do they, Creedal Christians, characterize these as “official” teachings?
The problem again, is that Evangelicals have to twist and bend statements made by our GA’s, yet when trying to fix a term with a method they come up short every time. Please do show all of us how you translate any of the statements with a sexual means of conception, You can’t, so the point is mute.
R.
Hank,
Where did I ever state that the non-virgin birth is an “official” teaching? Honestly, can you tell us where creedal christians are saying this is an official teaching?
There is no mistaking Pratt’s, Young’s and McConkie’s view on the issue. It is not speculation; they believed Jesus was conceived in the same way you and I were conceived. That means sexually. We do know how some GA’s viewed the “mechanics” of the conception of “the Son”; it is the same way you and I were conceived – sexually. Do you have the fortitude to call them wrong? Do tell how a true prophet/apostle of God can have a heretical view of God (even if it is only a personal opinion)?
Here is the problem that informed Christians have with your church on this issue: your church tolerates blasphemous and heretical “speculation” from its leaders.
Yep, you have proved what? the mechanics of it, no? Are you acting like a Creedal Christian, absolutely.
Would love for you to provide any evidence you have that the GA’s talked or spoke of the how of it all. Point made, point not yet proven by you.
Hank,
Your responces are thin.There are points raised
by others here that you choose not to address.
Rather than have you mad at me and the others
I think perhaps I should curtail my dialog on
this topic,I would rather not have any anger
come between us.I am sorry if you feel this
topic offends you,it’s just that the stakes are
high, very high.Truth matters. I’m going to offer
just two more points for you to consider.
1.Concerning the public teachings by Brigham Young
and Orson Pratt you mentioned above,these are only
“suggestive” rather than “offical”.
There is a very basic LDS doctrine that is found-
ational to the beliefs of probably 99% of all LDS.
One Apostle said that it is not taught in the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the D&C. It is
the doctrine of your Heavenly Mother.That Apostle
was Joseph Fielding Smith. Another LDS Apostle
preached in Conference that:
“Logic and reason would certainly SUGGEST that if
we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in
Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me.”
You see Hank, a doctrine can be “suggested” and
still be a true teaching, according to your leaders.
2. You said that these teachings by Young and
other LDS leaders are being characterized as
being ” offical “, when they really are’nt etc
I agree with you that these teachings are not
being proclaimed by your Church as ” Offical”.
Yet, does that mean Brigham Young and others
did’nt consider them as true? They were true to
them back then and they are considered true by
some sincere Temple recommend holding LDS today.
Pres.Wilford Woodruff issued an “OFFICAL
DECLARATION” [in the D&C]. He said, ” I publicly
declare that MY ADVICE to Latter-Day Saints is
to refraim from contracting any marriage forbidden
by the law of the land.”
His “advice”. In my dictionary under the word,
“advice” it says: n. “opinion offered as to what
one should do;counsel;information.”
Notice the word,”opinion”.
Cont.
Pres.Woodruff’s “advise”, his “opinion” was the
OFFICAL position.
Hank, an opinion does’nt necessarily mean its
not a truth. Mormon leaders taught their
opinion to their people, over the pulpit, it
was their truth.But was it God’s truth?
Hank,
I will let the unbiased reader decide what the words “same way” mean. Do you care to interact with what anyone here has written? Answering questions posed by myself and others would be a start.
There is no Biblical bearing on Salvation by the virginity or non-virgintiy of Mary.
In other words, Mary’s virginity is irrelevant to what Christ did on the cross.
Furthermore any Ev insistance that Her virginty has meaning to what Christ did on the cross is surely heretical by their own definition – nothing is to be added or subtracted from what Christ did on the cross –
now contrast with the above mentioned ideas of
“To have a proper doctrine it is necessary to properly understand who Jesus is.”
“The incarnation has to be the greatest miracle.”
The Ev mantra is, trust in Jesus, and trust only in Jesus for salvation, for salvation has no footnote about Mary’s virginity. The false doctrine is easliy detected, it is often clouded behind volumes of academic, systematic, or dispensational texts.
so, the virgin Mary being a product of a great apostasy is seemingly arguable but her being revered for this “virginity” is not.
Now, the LDS church recognizes that speculation exists about the true meaning of the virginity of Mary, but has no official doctrinal position outside of canonized scriptures.
grindael
aside from your schizophrenic depiction of God, can you provide me with a scriptural reference for your claim that the “one mind” of Jesus and God being the Holy Spirit?
Jude 1:19
Sub,
“the virgin Mary being a product of a great apostasy”
How did you come to this conclusion?
Hi. My name is Joe Smith. I met God and Jesus when I was a lad of 14. Really! They looked just like me, only better. (I just never wrote down this story until 15 years later). I did tell the local clergy about it and they got very angry with me. Maybe it was because I told them they were all an abomination to God and corrupt. (Yes, I meant every last one of them). Oh yeah, I also told a lot of others in MY church but they got all the details wrong. Even I did! Imagine that!
I met another angel when I was 17 who told me about some gold plates buried in a hill near where I lived. His name was Nephi, or was it Moroni? (I get so confused) who said that I, the great Joe Smith (greater than Jesus even) was chosen to do a marvelous work for God.
After that I met Jesus (again) and John the Baptist, and Peter, James & John, & Elijah and a host of others who gave me all kinds of authority and told me the Bible had left out all the good parts of God’s Church. Imagine that!
Well, the revelations started coming fast and furious (I DID talk to Jesus all the time ya know) so I had to put them in a book. We called it the Book of Commandments, but after a while some of it did not seem right, so we re-published it as the Doctrine and Covenants of MY (I mean God’s) church. We did change a bunch of the earlier revelations, (just to make them clearer, I swear) and published a series of Lectures on Faith, that described EXACTLY what OUR Church believed.
In those Lectures, we said that God was a Spirit, (did not have a body) Jesus was God incarnate (had a body) and the Holy Ghost was the MIND of God and Jesus. I must have approved all this because I was the head of the church ya know, but I really can’t remember. Really!
Then God revealed polygamy to me. (He had to FORCE me into it. Really!)God then told me he was a man just like me, only a little farther along, and I could be just like Him.
But I KNEW this, I did have that first vision ya know, and those Lectures were just NOT working anymore. How could God have many wives if He was a Spirit? Did I tell you he had to force me to practice polygamy? Really! With a drawn sword. Really!
Well, I don’t know how those Lectures on Faith got published in the first place, maybe my right hand man, Sidney stuck them in there when I wasn’t looking. (Like Cowdery stuck that stuff about God being a Spirit in the Book Of Mormon. Really!) I was so busy talking to Jesus and Paul and all those others that I let that book go out with the wrong information on God in it. There was also that Fanny, she took up a LOT of my time, (if ya know what I mean.)
Boy when I found out ya know what I did? I left them in there. Just pretended they never mattered and that I never taught that. Wouldn’t you do the same? So all you followers of ME, you know the story and you know what to do. This will convince anyone of the truth, that I, Joe Smith am a true prophet of God. Believe me, I do talk to Jesus ya know. So what if I let false info ON GOD get published in our D&C. Big deal. I’m still a prophet. Really!
genius – what exactly do you mean by schizophrenic?
Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how far away from rational thought some Smithians will go to deny the clear words spoken by their “prophets” and “apostles”. On the one hand Hanksaint half admits that what we allege BY and others meant by “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” is correct by making statements like, “that’s not official doctrine from a Standard Work”, but on the other hand he attempts to make us look ignorant by saying, “you can’t prove that’s what he meant”, and infering, “Maybe Heavenly Father’s, eh’hem, “body”, passed through Mary’s as His y chromosome was “deposited in the natural manner” in much the same way Jesus passed through a solid wall, leaving her technically a virgin.”
I guarantee Brigham Young would’t like you saying that his words aren’t to be taken as truth because they’re not in the BoM, D&C, or PoGP. BY was teaching doctrine, and that’s why McKonkie and Joseph F. Smith also taught that Jesus was conceived in the natural manner, just as you and I were by our fathers, by Heavenly Father. They believed what BY said. Man, I wish smithians had the guts to speak out like the old guys did. It would make this so much more productive.
I’m getting that Ouji board feeling again. The strength of the deceiver’s position is that he has no position. He has no Spiritual authority in his life to warn his conscience of the deception he is under and promoting. He has no conviction to speak the truth. Any outside person reading Hanksaint’s responses to BY’s and Orson Pratt’s quotes would immediately cry foul and say, “You know exactly what Brigham Young meant. Brigham Young didn’t have to spell out ‘Heavenly Father had sex with Jesus’ mother Mary, just like Moses didn’t have to spell out ‘Adam had sex with Eve’ in Genesis 4:1 when he wrote ‘Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain..’, everybody knows what that means.”
sub wrote
Sub,
Are you playing hide-and-seek with your salvation again?
As I understand the Mormonism of the Prophets (I need to qualify it because there are several different Mormonisms expressed here), your salvation rests upon the veracity of the prophets. I reason this because, unless they were God’s chosen prophets, there would be no True (restored) Church, and there is no salvation outside the True Church.
I seem to remember your insistence about authority; that only the LDS Church has God’s authority on earth and nobody else has. It has this authority because of its God-appointed prophets.
Sorry to labor the point, but the “chain of custody” from God to your salvation runs right through the Mormon hierarchy. Without the hierarchy you could not possibly be connected to God, which means that you could not possibly have your “salvation”.
Please correct me if I am wrong so far.
This means that you MUST listen to what your prophets say. So, if they proclaim something about the conception of Jesus, it is YOUR prerogative to listen to it.
When you say that the prophets’ pronunciations on the conception of Jesus have no bearing on your salvation, you are really saying that you have the right of veto on their revelations. Who gave you this right? At this point you break the “chain of custody”, and your (alleged) connection to God.
According to the LDS message, you ignore the LDS prophets at your peril.
However, you have already started to ignore them by ignoring their teaching on the conception of Jesus.
I wish you would finish what you started and ignore EVERYTHING about them. They cannot lead you to Jesus because they know nothing about Him despite their assertions to the contrary. They would behave differently if they did.
You’ll lose your LDS membership, but you might find what you’re looking for; the Salvation that Christ brings.
Well for me the interesting aspect of these discussions is what is going on as a backdrop to the actual give-and-take. What we have on full parade here is a wonderful example of the “cognitive dissonance” often spoken of by exmembers of the Mormon cult. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become “open” to them.
Here’s some common sense: If someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know-particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge-they are likely to resist the new learning.
Now here’s something that is counter intuitive: if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are LESS likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. to do so would be to admit that one has been “had”, or “conned”.
A guy by the name of Leon Festinger was the first to investigate cognitive dissonance. He studied a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. The really committed members had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult. Now the fringe members of the cult were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to “put it down to experience”.
The committed members, however, were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (i.e. the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
Finally, the more obscure and convoluted the subject, the more profound it must be.
I don’t mean to discourage any of the Christian posters here, but remember, we’re writing for those Mormons who have entered the contemplative stage of inquiry. The rest of these birds are truly cuckoo.
Thank you Mike R. but nothing you addressed revealed anything that was stated of the mechanics in play when Mary was impregnated. Thanks for your time and effort but as usual most those trying to prove a false accusation come up short.
Is Christ the Literal Son of God, yes, de we know the details no. Did the Holy Ghost overshadow her, yes.
R.