LDS Theology for LDS

[Ceeboo]

I also believe that Jesus Christ was the first reproduced by Father in Heaven, not only spiritually in pre-mortal life but physically through copulation with Mary. Many think that is blasphemous but I see it as pragmatic and beautiful.

Hi epignosis,

Not only can you count me as one who would boldly consider that to be the pinnacle of blasphemy

But you can also credit me for suggesting that it is utterly absurd on every level.

(Someone PLEASE tell me this is not LDS teaching. PLEASE!)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[epignosis]

Hi epignosis,

Not only can you count me as one who would boldly consider that to be the pinnacle of blasphemy

But you can also credit me for suggesting that it is utterly absurd on every level.

Peace,

Ceeboo

LOL, I take no offense. I had a difficult time the first time I heard that as well. However, it makes sense on deep examination where other explanations seem to fall flat.

Isn't it wonderful that we each have individual minds that can conceive of the possibilities? You have the agency to believe/not believe anything you wish. To each their own beliefs.

Peace back to you

[Ceeboo]

LOL, I take no offense.

I most certainly do!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[David T]

(Someone PLEASE tell me this is not LDS teaching. PLEASE!)

It's not Some, like epi, have speculated as much. Most others, like myself, believe, with you, that it is absurd

The official LDS doctrine/teaching is the same as in NT and Book of Mormon: Christ was born of a virgin.

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

The LDS believe Jesus was born of a virgin.

[epignosis]

I most certainly do!

Sorry to hear that. I meant no offense. However, I believe that Father follows his own laws of reality. For example, He didn't just "magic" a sperm into Mary. I suppose some believe that He did just that, or that in some esoteric or ethereal (non-literal) way, Jesus is the Son of Elohim. I happen to believe that He (Jesus) is the literal son of Elohim, both spiritually and physically. To each their own.

Again, I am here to talk about meat more than milk but I meant no offense by expressing my own belief on this. Frankly, I am a bit shocked that it offends you.

My apologies for bringing it out.

[epignosis]

Ceeboo:

The LDS believe Jesus was born of a virgin.

I am indeed LDS and do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin in the sense that Mary did not have sexual relations with any human (non-God) man. Did the physician's check her out to prove it. Not that I'm aware of. Again, it is a belief that is not doctrine and unacceptable to some.

[Ahab]

Originally, the term "virgin" equated to "young woman". NOW, in today's language, the term "virgin" refers to anyone (whether male or female) who has never had sexual relations with anyone, but the term virgin, itself, originally meant simply "young woman".

The term "white" that many prophets of God have used and still use to refer to Mary is the term that correctly refers to the fact that she had never had sexual relations with anyone until she became pregnant with Jesus Christ. The term "white" doesn't refer to her skin color, but to her purity, while the term "fair" is the term that refers to the color of her skin, and not to say that she had white skin, but that she was fair skinned as opposed to being dark skinned.

[Hamba Tuhan]

(Someone PLEASE tell me this is not LDS teaching. PLEASE!)

This is not LDS teaching. We simply accept that the Saviour was literally the Son of God. Beyond this is only speculation. I find this particular piece of speculation 'unhelpful' at best.

[TAO]

Your enthusiasm (and your condescension) notwithstanding, none of your references actually mention "birth of spirits."

Condecension.... erm.... not rlly trying to be condescending.

In fact, there's no usage of birth/birthing (or any variant thereof) in anything you listed. So I'll ask again, what is meant by this, and where can it be found in the LDS canon?

SDG

In the long list (third link) there are these:

http://scriptures.ld...n/acts/17/29#29

http://scriptures.ld...g/en/heb/12/9#9

http://scriptures.ld.../en/rom/8/16#16

http://scriptures.ld.../eph/3/14-15#14

and those are from the Bible... there are many more from D&C as well as Book of Moses and Abraham.

Mmm... somewhat intersting too:

http://scriptures.ld.../en/dc/76/24#24

http://scriptures.ld.../en/dc/29/32#32

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77/2#2

http://scriptures.ld...g/en/dc/131/7#7

Curiously however, intellegence was not created... although spirts were.

To answer your question, birth is not specifically mentioned, but there is alot of things pointing to it. And it feels right inside.

[Nathair/|\]

I am indeed LDS and do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin in the sense that Mary did not have sexual relations with any human (non-God) man. Did the physician's check her out to prove it. Not that I'm aware of. Again, it is a belief that is not doctrine and unacceptable to some.

From the Protoevangelion of James:

And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things

[zerinus]

Condecension.... erm.... not rlly trying to be condescending.

In the long list (third link) there are these:

http://scriptures.ld...n/acts/17/29#29

http://scriptures.ld...g/en/heb/12/9#9

http://scriptures.ld.../en/rom/8/16#16

http://scriptures.ld.../eph/3/14-15#14

and those are from the Bible... there are many more from D&C as well as Book of Moses and Abraham.

Mmm... somewhat intersting too:

http://scriptures.ld.../en/dc/76/24#24

http://scriptures.ld.../en/dc/29/32#32

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77/2#2

http://scriptures.ld...g/en/dc/131/7#7

Curiously however, intellegence was not created... although spirts were.

To answer your question, birth is not specifically mentioned, but there is alot of things pointing to it. And it feels right inside.

When people talk about "birth" and "birthing," they have something specific in mind. They think of someone (or something, of the female sex,) getting pregnant, going though a full term of gestation (which for us humans is around 9 months), then when delivery time comes she goes through what is called "labor," and if she has a hard time of it there is a doctor at hand to provide a cesarean section operation, and if all goes well someone (or something) is "born". Now if that is what you have in mind by spirits being "born," you need to make that clear and provide scriptural evidence to support it. If that is not what you have in mind, you need to make clear what you do have in mind, and provide scriptural evidence to support it. And if you don't know what you have in mind, then make that clear too so that you don't leave people guessing about what you do have in mind.

[epignosis]

My belief is unchanged but, given the offense it brings to some, it is just not worth discussing it anymore. The fact is that it is not important to one's salvation and I truly regret bringing it out into the forum due to the harm it has done to others.

[Ceeboo]

My belief is unchanged but, given the offense it brings to some, it is just not worth discussing it anymore. The fact is that it is not important to one's salvation and I truly regret bringing it out into the forum due to the harm it has done to others.

Hey again epignosis,

For several reasons, I wasn't going to post any more on this but your above post has caused me to offer one more reply.

First, to be clear, it did not "do harm to others", as you suggest.

It did, however, display an enormous lack of reverence to the Lord and as a follwer of Christ, I certainly took offence to the clear blasphemy displayed towards the Savior as well as his Holy and Sacred Birth.

As far as it (blasphemous statements/beliefs/techings regarding the Savior) not being "important to one's salvation", I have no comment.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

Just to reiterate LDS believe Jesus was born of a virgin. That Mary "knew" no man before the birth of her son Jesus.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=533d1f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[epignosis]

Hey again epignosis,

For several reasons, I wasn't going to post any more on this but your above post has caused me to offer one more reply.

First, to be clear, it did not "do harm to others", as you suggest.

It did, however, display an enormous lack of reverence to the Lord and as a follwer of Christ, I certainly took offence to the clear blasphemy displayed towards the Savior as well as his Holy and Sacred Birth.

As far as it (blasphemous statements/beliefs/techings regarding the Savior) not being "important to one's salvation", I have no comment.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Again, I apologize for bringing it up. The harm I was referring to is the "offense" you clearly took to my statement/belief. If that is not harm then what is? If you are now saying that you were not offended then I will say the following:

Lack of reverence, blasphemous are both subjective. If we suppose that I am correct, in my belief, I am neither showing a lack of reverence nor blasphemy. After all, I may very well be correct, along with countless others of my faith. Not that quantity of believers matter. It is understandable that you have this reaction. You are not the first to have it and will most certainly not be the last. People once thought the world was flat and a suggestion otherwise was as equally unfathomable and blasphemous as you claim of my literal birth theory.

I have not joined MADB to offend anyone, to proselytize, or to necessarily talk about the universally understood, basic tenets and doctrines of my religion. For the final time, I apologize for offending you, but your remarks that my view is blasphemous or absurd simply shows your lack of understanding or willingness to consider other possibility. Again, I contend that my viewpoint is neither blasphemous or absurd, but quite true, and does not make my Savior's birth or conception any less wonderful or necessary. I may be wrong, and I admit that possibility. It is unfortunate you cannot do as much.

Frankly, it is ridiculous, prideful and naive to think your own viewpoint or understanding is complete. I have stopped watching the thread because I have no desire to argue about the blasphemy of my beliefs. Best to you.

[JDave]

Lack of reverence, blasphemous are both subjective. If we suppose that I am correct, in my belief, I am neither showing a lack of reverence nor blasphemy. After all, I may very well be correct, along with countless others of my faith.

I agree that blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder and can be a hurtful term when used to describe someone's personal beliefs.

I don't think that this particular belief can be construed as anything other than a personal belief and speculation, however. Much effort is spent to defend how some church leaders' statements do NOT imply such a belief, since they never state it.

If there is some push towards such an understanding within the LDS church, I have never seen it. Indeed if there is an implication in your post that 'countless others' of the LDS faith have the same belief, I would strongly object to such a characterization. Just create a poll on this forum to see what people's beliefs are. Ask some people in your ward. You will find that most vehemently deny it is even a possibility. It may not be blasphemous or heretical, but it certainly is not a view held by many.

[Ceeboo]

but your remarks that my view is blasphemous or absurd simply shows your lack of understanding or willingness to consider other possibility. Again, I contend that my viewpoint is neither blasphemous or absurd, but quite true

Hey again epignosis

This will indeed be my last response to you in this thread (Perhaps we can give it a fresh go on another topic)

Although not needed, I accept your apology and I offer mine to you as well.

To continue to suggest that God literally had physical sexual intercourse with Mary (I am sorry to tell you again but I must) is not only one of the most absurd things I have ever read here, but it is, on all accounts, 100% blasphemous. Period.

As far as me "showing my lack of understanding", may I suggest that it might be a mere possibility that it is you that "lacks understanding" on the most basic level

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Soli Deo Gloria]

Actually it's more fundamental than that. We have never embraced systematic theology as an academic discpline relating to our faith. Thus, a lot of the categories that other (educated) Christians think in simply aren't meaningful to Latter-day Saints; and to those who do understand them, they are not really relevant to any of our doctrines.

Out of curiosity, why do you think there's no serious effort at establishing a systematic theology in the LDS tradition? No LDS equivalents of John Calvin, Wayne Grudem, et al. (For those not in the know--systematic theology is simply the discipline in Christian theology that works to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.) If I were to venture a guess, the lack of interest on the part of LDS is due to the incoherence found in their canon. It simply isn't possible to reconcile passages like 2 Nephi 31:21 (most recently leveraged by Dr. Peterson to argue Mormons are Trinitarians too) and the later works of Joseph Smith such as the Book of Abraham and the King Follett Discourse--which are unabashedly polythestic. Any attempt to create a systematic theology from such diverse concepts of God would be a poor use of time. Much easier to simply point at the current prophet and assert that his teachings take priority over anything and everything that came before.

That's my perception--but let me hear yours, Pahoran.

So the radical "creator/creature" dichotomy that undergirds a lot of normative Christian theology doesn't apply to us. It's not so much that we dispute the assertion as that it's talking about something else.

I'm a little confused by the second sentence. Since you don't agree that God is the Creator (you say He's merely an organizer) and you don't agree all that else is his creation, or creatures (since you believe intelligences have always existed independent of God)--how can you suggest you don't dispute assertions to the contrary? It seems abundantly obvious that you do dispute God as Creator (the way Christians understand Him). And you dispute it vigorously.

Kindly explain yourself.

I recently had a little foray onto the Catholic Answers Forum. While I was there, one of the regulars ripped into Elder Boyd K. Packer, saying that he just didn't know what he was talking about, because "natural law" has nothing to do with gravity. "Natural law" being a technical term in Catholic theology. Well, I've heard Elder Packer's talk, and while he uses words like law, laws, nature and natural, he never uses the phrase "natural law." Yet that Catholic listener somehow assumed that that phrase was present, probably because that's what she expected, given her own theological views, and having perceived it where it was not, proceeded to draw conclusions that were not true.

The moral of the story being: it is not possible to understand someone else's theology in terms of your own.

Are you suggesting LDS have their own language and non-LDS can't possibly hope to understand them? If you really believe that, what are you doing on this board? Isn't the real moral here that readers (be they Catholic or otherwise) should read carefully and ask clarifying questions rather than leap to conclusions? That's how it seems to me from your story. But that's not the moral as you would teach it...

Satan's lie was not that Adam and Eve could become like God; that was the truthful portion of the half truth, and thus made the hook upon which the success of the deception depended. His lie was that they could become like God in any way other than God's way.

And, as Dan said, your "innocent" attribution of an LDS doctrine to Satan is a little bit "cute." But the cuteness wears off after a while.

Regards,

Pahoran

It obviously bothers you and "Dan" quite a bit that the appearance of the teaching, "You will be like God," first appears from the mouth of Satan. Good! It bodes well that you're troubled. Any sane person should be given pause by this fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums it up nicely (see post #23)--and you don't have to be Catholic to appreciate what it says (I'm not). So rather than dismiss the point as "cute"--might I suggest you reconsider whether the doctrine is as "wonderful" as Dan says it is.

Just a thought.

SDG

[Soli Deo Gloria]

My Mother-In-Law

[zerinus]

Out of curiosity, why do you think there's no serious effort at establishing a systematic theology in the LDS tradition? No LDS equivalents of John Calvin, Wayne Grudem, et al. (For those not in the know--systematic theology is simply the discipline in Christian theology that works to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.)

Actually, it is not strictly true that Mormonism does not have a systematic theology. Theology, as a separate discipline by itself, is necessarily going to be systematic; and whenever Mormons have made a serious attempt to define the theology of their religion, their attempts have produced something that is inherently systematic

[David T]

Out of curiosity, why do you think there's no serious effort at establishing a systematic theology in the LDS tradition? No LDS equivalents of John Calvin, Wayne Grudem, et al. (For those not in the know--systematic theology is simply the discipline in Christian theology that works to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.)

I'd suggest checking out this series by Blake Ostler. It's pretty much the closest thing we have, and it's actually quite remarkable, and very intellectually stimulating, and addresses the philosophical questions of Mormonism head-on, taking into account the leading theologian/philosophers of past and present. Seriously - I think you'd find it fascinating.