The Virginity of Mary

[David T]

However if one believes that only someone who has the power over death due to his inheritance from God the Father can fulfill the Atonement

A qualification and concept never set out anywhere in scripture, by the way.

[Calm]

A qualification and concept never set out anywhere in scripture, by the way.

Good point. I am trying to remember what it did say about how Christ was able to lay down his life and take it up again and am drawing a blank (my mind is preoccupied with something else tonight which is crowding out rational thought for the moment), any suggestions of which scriptures---if any---give us a clue?

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

No problem. I've already stated that it is LDS doctrine that Mary was a virgin. Where I disagree with the Catholics is her perpetual virginity.

[WalkerW]

This topic really got me wondering what Jesus's chromosomes looked like... Man I wish we had modern biology back then. We could settle this once and for all!

Ah, yes. The speculative Jesus Genome: a favorite in Gospel Doctrine class discussions.

[WalkerW]

Just for the record, I throw my support behind saemo in regards to Galileo and the Inquisition. Those interested should see the following:

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Harvard University Press, 2009).

Thomas F. Madden, "The Real Inquisition: Investigating the Popular Myth," National Review (June 18, 2004).

[3DOP]

Good point. I am trying to remember what it did say about how Christ was able to lay down his life and take it up again and am drawing a blank (my mind is preoccupied with something else tonight which is crowding out rational thought for the moment), any suggestions of which scriptures---if any---give us a clue?

Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

---Jn 10:17, 18

[3DOP]

Just for the record, I throw my support behind saemo in regards to Galileo and the Inquisition. Those interested should see the following:

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Harvard University Press, 2009).

Thomas F. Madden, "The Real Inquisition: Investigating the Popular Myth," National Review (June 18, 2004).

HI Walker W.

Thanks for your fair-mindedness.

I own and have read Henry Kamen's book. I have quoted from it here many many times. To the best my recollection no one here has ever disputed his research when I cite him. Nobody ever takes exception to his work. Nevertheless, the same subject arises periodically. It always comes up without anyone seeming to remember how Kamen refutes the myth, and we start all over again from scracth. It really gets old. The reason I say this is because somebody will bring it up, and then they don't even seem really interested at all in talking about their own opinions about Queen Isabella, or Philip II, other prominent characters, the political difficulties in Spain after the expulsion of the Moors, or my contention that only professing Catholics qualified to face the Inquisition. In fact, those who bring up the Spanish Inquisition seem so uninterested in everything connected with it that I have to doubt that they have ever read a book on the subject! So why does it keep coming up...this time in a thread on Mary's virginity?

3DOP

[volgadon]

Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

---Jn 10:17, 18

It could mean what we LDS usually take it to mean, or it could mean that God gave Jesus this power. Either way...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It's amazing that I've been able to last posting here for 6+ years without any content.... just vitriol. All that time with out being suspended, banned, or even warned. I suspect I'm slipping underneath the radar.

Back to my original question it wasn't meant to be vitriolic in the least. There are many leading Latter Day Saints, including many past prophets, who believed that the conception of Jesus was one of the flesh. In in fact that was the case should she be considered as a plural wive of God? If not is there a exception between carnal relations between Gods and mortals?

Phaedrus

// I don't think that those who believe that the conception was strictly of the spirit need to entertain such speculation.

Because in their day they knew of no other way.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While there may be some that do so, it is not the case with everyone who engages in apologetics. For an example, look at how FAIR treats the MMM here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Summary

But that was not an act by the church...but just some church members, who are paying the price even still. Had i been BY I would have put to death all who took part and not just John D Lee.

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

A gilded cage is still a cage.

[Calm]

But that was not an act by the church...but just some church members

There is no such thing as a monolithic being called the "Church" that acts, nor has there ever been a case where the Church members have all acted as if of one mind and heart....unfortunately we've not reached that level of community yet. So I don't see how you can accuse anyone of defending the acts of the "church" no matter what they may be when the "church" does not act.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There is no such thing as a monolithic being called the "Church" that acts, nor has there ever been a case where the Church members have all acted as if of one mind and heart....unfortunately we've not reached that level of community yet. So I don't see how you can accuse anyone of defending the acts of the "church" no matter what they may be when the "church" does not act.

This Church does act…in disasters, in policy, by sanction. MMM was not sanctioned by the church, just a bunch of members taking matters into their own hands (taking vengeance and murder into their own hands). They can never be forgiven for such a brutal act and it hurts church efforts in Missouri to this day. Who knows how many have rejected the gospel because of this insane act. It was bad enough to kill men, but women and children? Not to mention the issue has been used to tarnish the church for over 100 years. No Mormon should ever so much as give a minor excuse for this behavior. I have known some who have and as a result I think little of them for it.

[phaedrus ut]

This Church does act…in disasters, in policy, by sanction. MMM was not sanctioned by the church, just a bunch of members taking matters into their own hands (taking vengeance and murder into their own hands). They can never be forgiven for such a brutal act and it hurts church efforts in Missouri to this day.

On April 20, 1961, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met jointly and, "it was the action of the council, after considering all the facts available that authorization be given for the reinstatement to membership and former blessings to John D. Lee." Word was sent out to members of the family and on May 8 and 9, the necessary ordinances were performed in the Salt Lake Temple. A complete record is in the files of the Latter-day Saints Genealogical Society. (Mountain Meadows Massacre, p.223)

“Temple worker Merrit L. Norton had presented the family’s request, and on April 20, 1961, The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve authorized the restoration of Lee’s Membership and Temple Blessings. Norton was baptized for his dead grandfather, and on May 9 Apostle Ezra Taft Benson officiated in the endowment and sealing ceremonies at the Salt Lake Temple.” (Blood of the Prophets, page 361)

Phaedrus

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On April 20, 1961, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met jointly and, "it was the action of the council, after considering all the facts available that authorization be given for the reinstatement to membership and former blessings to John D. Lee." Word was sent out to members of the family and on May 8 and 9, the necessary ordinances were performed in the Salt Lake Temple. A complete record is in the files of the Latter-day Saints Genealogical Society. (Mountain Meadows Massacre, p.223)

“Temple worker Merrit L. Norton had presented the family’s request, and on April 20, 1961, The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve authorized the restoration of Lee’s Membership and Temple Blessings. Norton was baptized for his dead grandfather, and on May 9 Apostle Ezra Taft Benson officiated in the endowment and sealing ceremonies at the Salt Lake Temple.” (Blood of the Prophets, page 361)

Phaedrus

Unless they have facts unknown to me, I would never have allowed such. If a member of his family I would not have made such a request. When I said no Mormon should ever defend MMM, I meant "no Mormon". have no idea of the event you are speaking of, nor do i care who did it. All of these men involved in MMM murders will never be in any CK taught by Mormon Doctrine. So if you sought shock value, or expected me to defend such actions...not going to happen. Wrong is wrong!

[LeSellers]

A qualification and concept never set out anywhere in scripture, by the way.

Which does not mean it is untrue. Many Apostles have discussed this exact idea.

Lehi

[phaedrus ut]

Unless they have facts unknown to me, I would never have allowed such. If a member of his family I would not have made such a request. When I said no Mormon should ever defend MMM, I meant "no Mormon". have no idea of the event you are speaking of, nor do i care who did it. All of these men involved in MMM murders will never be in any CK taught by Mormon Doctrine. So if you sought shock value, or expected me to defend such actions...not going to happen. Wrong is wrong!

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding MMM only the they "will never be forgiven" statement you made. The actions of the First Presidency and the 12 apostles to restore the baptism and temple blessings for John D. Lee seem to imply such forgiveness. The direct involvement of Ezra Taft Benson to officiate in the temple work is a interesting, albeit surprising, endorsement.

Records show that Lee received his second anointing in the temple on January 17,1846. I wonder if the reason why they had President Benson officiate during the temple work was because they were doing a second anointing/endowment for the dead.

Phaedrus

[thesometimesaint]

phaedrus ut:

I view as being compassionate to the descendents of the perpetrators of MMM. God will judge the perpetrators, and probably not too kindly. But it is REALLY up to him.

[phaedrus ut]

phaedrus ut:

I view as being compassionate to the descendents of the perpetrators of MMM. God will judge the perpetrators, and probably not too kindly. But it is REALLY up to him.

Don't you think it's possible that his baptism and the restoration of having his calling and election made sure assures him of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom? The second anointing is not a conditional ordinance.

Phaedrus

[thesometimesaint]

phaedrus ut:

No, not really. As ALL will be judged for their actions. I think it is a stretch, to say that some how that exaltation is automatic for those that commit serious sin. The shedding of innocent blood is a very serious sin in the eyes of the Church. Again I see it as a compassionate act for the descendents, not the perps.

[phaedrus ut]

phaedrus ut:

No, not really. As ALL will be judged for their actions. I think it is a stretch, to say that some how that exaltation is automatic for those that commit serious sin. The shedding of innocent blood is a very serious sin in the eyes of the Church. Again I see it as a compassionate act for the descendents, not the perps.

It's interesting you say so and from what I've read that's what protected the children younger than 8 years old during the MMM was specifically because they were considered innocent blood. IIRC, the shedding of innocent blood and denying the holy ghost are the only two actions to invalidate someone's second annointing. The question now is because that sin, murder, happened prior to the baptism and restoration of temple blessings for Lee is the sin accounted for by the ceremony or not?

It seems to be quite a generous offering from the church to have a joint council of the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles regarding John D. Lee and the subsequent restoration of temple ordinances by President Benson just to have a compassionate act for his descendants.

Phaedrus

//I assumed your reference to descendants are Lee's descendants. If I'm wrong let me know.

[Calm]

Don't you think it's possible that his baptism and the restoration of having his calling and election made sure assures him of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom? The second anointing is not a conditional ordinance.

Phaedrus

The second anointing has to be confirmed by the Lord. Man cannot force the Lord to accept or reject anyone, the ordinances are only valid through the Priesthood because it is God's power and thus are completely dependent on his Judgment.

[Calm]

It's interesting you say so and from what I've read that's what protected the children younger than 8 years old during the MMM was specifically because they were considered innocent blood.

More likely because they weren't considered as dangerous witnesses, in my opinion.

This is a very strange sidetrack to the topic of this thread, though. Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread if you are interested in exploring this further.

[Calm]

It seems to be quite a generous offering from the church to have a joint council of the First Presidency and the 12 Apostles regarding John D. Lee and the subsequent restoration of temple ordinances by President Benson just to have a compassionate act for his descendants.

Restoration of temple blessings require the approval of the First Presidency and since this was an extraordinary case, it is hardly surprising that the 12 were included as well.

IIRC (and I've looked for the reference but can't find it so I apologize but this is going off of my memory), the family of JD Lee had been pleading for the restoration of his blessings for some time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding MMM only the they "will never be forgiven" statement you made. The actions of the First Presidency and the 12 apostles to restore the baptism and temple blessings for John D. Lee seem to imply such forgiveness. The direct involvement of Ezra Taft Benson to officiate in the temple work is a interesting, albeit surprising, endorsement.

Records show that Lee received his second anointing in the temple on January 17,1846. I wonder if the reason why they had President Benson officiate during the temple work was because they were doing a second anointing/endowment for the dead.

Phaedrus

But according yp MD hey can never enter the CK...ever. Had i been alive at that time, I would )if given the opp) carried out the execution.