Mary, the Mother of Christ

[clarkgoble]

On 12/5/2018 at 11:31 AM, MiserereNobis said:

The belief that God the Father had sex with Mary shows how far apart the LDS understanding of God and Jesus is from Christianity.

Technically Mormons believe God is Jesus' Father but don't have any formal theology on how it happened. A common view is that it was something like IVF (thus maintaining virginity) although a few in the 19th century thought it was sex. Nothing's been revealed on the subject. 

On 12/4/2018 at 12:58 PM, theplains said:

What does it mean 'not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof' mean?

More or less a materialist conception where the Father has DNA and Mary has DNA and the baby is made from that DNA. i.e. a physical process not violating natural law. Of course in the 19th century DNA hadn't been discovered yet let alone things like invitro fertilization and implantation. Which meant that they had few ideas when they speculated on how it could be natural, material and not sex.

On 11/19/2018 at 9:24 PM, The Mean Farmer said:

History compiled by people smarter than me.  

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2015/christs-emancipation-of-women-in-the-new-testament

It's a bit more complex than that and would be tied to what form of Judaism was practiced. Some were more hellenized. In the towns around there were women who worked with dyes and other such things. There were also ways to do that and maintain division of sexes that more orthodox Jews would push. (Orthodox in the loose sense not the sense of the movement in modern Judaism) It's also worth noting that we don't exactly have a lot of data to work off here. Going by what some Rabbis gave as the ideal isn't exactly an ethnographic study of the variety of behaviors. So it's almost certainly misleading. 

The main issue was that Palestinian Jews of the era were by and large all impoverished. You could go to the cities, particularly those farther north or in Egypt. But in Palestine proper Roman agricultural practices had tended to evict people from their traditional lands. Often they then had to scrape by, work as shepherds or more commonly as day laborers. (Which some scholars think Jesus and his father did) Since women had few rights that meant survival entailed being tied to males who could work. (Unless again they moved to where there were more industries) So what they say is quite possible. However we also know that by the time of diaspora after the failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, that women in practice were gaining privileges. So while it's quite plausible that women were like you suggest, it's also quite possible things were much more complex. There's just a strong argument from silence here. As I said the arguments are made on the basis of a few passages which almost certainly don't reflect the likely diversity of the area.

Edited December 7, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

It's not exactly that simple. When I say Jesus Christ, I mean the Eternal God; one that never became God.
When I ask Mormons who Jesus Christ is, the typical answer is that he is the first spirit child of heavenly
parents. When I read LDS Church material, I further discover that he was not always God but progressed
into become one when he reached a certain level of intelligence.

So I think its a better idea to get a Mormon's viewpoint instead of taking some heat (from some) and tell
you what I think it might mean 🙂

Thanks,
Jim

Except you already know what Mormonism teaches on this.

And you are right that there are differences.  I believe those differences are true, you don't.

So yes, when some Mormon leaders teach Christ was created by natural law and that means the old fashioned way by his father and mother I believe that.  Other members don't.  Sectarian Christianity doesn't. 

The lack of shared belief between two different religions is interesting but shouldn't matter to either.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

There are very few members of the church who believe this. Very few.  As such it really doesn't have much of an impact on our understanding of God and Jesus.

CFR.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

The only teaching that the church has is that Jesus is the biological son of both Mary and God the Father.  Everything beyond that (such as how that happened) is speculation.  Different leaders have taught different things at different times, based on their interpretation of certain verses of scripture.

True. But it seems to me that everyone picks and chooses a belief they prefer among those ideas.

And when both are equally likely I see no reason we should lean either way beyond personal belief. Yet on this topic those who believe Christ was sired in a traditional natural manner are portrayed as out of step, but those who favor the Celestial turkey baster theory are seen as somehow more respectful of deity.

[Storm Rider]

This is such a strange topic for LDS with such a broad range of beliefs or thoughts. For me, there are some fundamentals - Jesus is the Son of God; Jesus was born of a virgin as prophesied in Isiah 7:14; Jesus never stopped being the Son of God at any time. 

This effort to define how the virgin birth was accomplished has never been explained in scripture. There are ideas, but none of those ideas explain the virgin birth. I see no need to answer the question of how Mary was impregnated any more than I need to understand how is God ... God.  I remain convinced that any attempt to explain the virgin birth only creates problems for anyone that attempts to do so. I don't care about Brigham's musings and I disagree with his opinion as I do with anyone that attempts to explain it. When we have a prophet that states clearly, "Thus saith the Lord..." then the door is opened to understanding and the Spirit will speak.  Until then I stand on and accept divine mysteries. 

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When we have a prophet that states clearly, "Thus saith the Lord..." then the door is opened to understanding and the Spirit will speak.

😅😅 You get the contradictions related to your statement right?

The Church says a prophet doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to declare revelation.  Yet the Church says a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.  And by the mouth of my servants or myself it's the same.  And scriptures are our standards, but the living prophet is more important to follow than scripture. And the words of living prophet, but not every teaching by the prophet, and yet the 15 agreed, and still only one appointed to receive, and on, and on.

What a mass of confusion they have created.  

And Brigham was the living prophet, God's mouthpiece when he spoke.  No subsequent prophet has contradicted him.  In fact as Tacenda showed many have agreed.  How many prophets does it take to reveal a truth?

Edited December 8, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

😅😅 You get the contradictions related to your statement right?

The Church says a prophet doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to declare revelation.  Yet the Church says a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.  And by the mouth of my servants or myself it's the same.  And scriptures are our standards, but the living prophet is more important to follow than scripture. And the words of living prophet, but not every teaching by the prophet, and yet the 15 agreed, and still only one appointed to receive, and on, and on.

What a mass of confusion they have created.  

And Brigham was the living prophet, God's mouthpiece when he spoke.  No subsequent prophet has contradicted him.  In fact as Tacenda showed many have agreed.  How many prophets does it take to reveal a truth?

When I stated, "Thus saith the Lord...", my attempt was to define when a prophet speaks as a prophet and not as a man. Maybe you know something I don't - could you please tell me how you can identify when Brother Brigham was speaking as a prophet and when was he speaking as a man.

Also, I have never heard the church say that prophecies of prophets can be rewritten or negated by current prophets. I think that is a step further than the teaching of the value of current prophets includes. 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

CFR.

I can amend it to say that in my experience very very few members believe that Mary had physical sex with God the Father if that works better for you.

In the over 10 wards I've been a member of in 6 different states over more than 30 years I have never met anyone who actually believed that.  I know they are out there, but they are so few and far between that I've never actually heard it advocated as even a possibility in real life.  As far as I know, even online I've only met a handful of people who actually believe that.

The vast majority of church members believe that God the Father is Christ's biological son while also embracing the virgin birth, and they believe that because that's what the scriptures and the church teaches.  

As Pres. Benson taught "He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)."

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

True. But it seems to me that everyone picks and chooses a belief they prefer among those ideas.

And when both are equally likely I see no reason we should lean either way beyond personal belief. Yet on this topic those who believe Christ was sired in a traditional natural manner are portrayed as out of step, but those who favor the Celestial turkey baster theory are seen as somehow more respectful of deity.

The scriptures teach that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born, so I don't believe that both beliefs are equally valid.

[theplains]

On 12/7/2018 at 5:42 PM, teddyaware said:

What you apparently fail to realize is the Bible teaches us that God can remain God but still go through phases of existence where His godhood is hidden and not apparent. For example, how do you think the 2 year-old God, Jesus Christ, compares in spiritual wisdom, knowledge, power and capability to the now resurrected Christ who stands glorified in heaven at the right hand of God? The question you need to answer is how Jesus of Nazareth could fully be God on the day his second birthday when He had not yet grown sufficiently in wisdom knowledge and stature to be able to accomplish all the things he was expected to accomplish as God, including the infinite atoning sacrifice to atone for our sins?  How can the already perfect God be made perfect through experiencing suffering if He’s already perfect in every way?

The questions need to be considered in light of Jesus being both God and man. I don't believe in the LDS
teaching that Jesus became a God in the pre-mortal life when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence.

Jim