Where Do We Stand On Christ's Conception?

[mormonnewb]

In another thread, this question arose -- Does the Church believe that Christ was conceived by physical means? As a newb, I've never heard current Church teachings on this topic one way or another, but I did remember a few quotes from Young and McConkie claiming that Christ was conceived in the "normal way." However, it was correctly pointed out that those statements weren't ever doctrine and certainly don't represent the Church's current position. In fact, the Church made its official position clear when answering questions about Mormonism for Fox News in 2007.

"Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Is it just me or do we seem to be leaving the door open for a physical conception of Christ? Otherwise, why wouldn't the Church take the opportunity to put all of the speculation to rest and simply answer the question directly?

"No. We believe the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Why are we adding a level of ambiguity here? It seems to me that there are only two options: (1) Christ was conceived through physical means; or (2) Christ was conceived through supernatural means (I.e., by the power of the Holy Spirit). Is there a third option that I'm missing?

Edited February 23, 2014 by mormonnewb

[strappinglad]

The first 11 words of the ANSWER is about as clear as you are going to get. Christ was born of the virgin Mary just as any child is born. If saying "we don't know" about the mechanics of the conception is ambiguous , then so be it. The scripture talks of Mary and the Holy Ghost. Beyond that, speculate away !!

Edited February 23, 2014 by strappinglad

[JLHPROF]

In another thread, this question arose -- Does the Church believe that Christ was conceived by physical means? As a newb, I've never heard current Church teachings on this topic one way or another, but I did remember a few quotes from Young and McConkie claiming that Christ was conceived in the "normal way." However, it was correctly pointed out that those statements weren't ever doctrine and certainly don't represent the Church's current position. In fact, the Church made its official position clear when answering questions about Mormonism for Fox News in 2007.

"Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Is it just me or do we seem to be leaving the door open for a physical conception of Christ? Otherwise, why wouldn't the Church take the opportunity to put all of the speculation to rest and simply answer the question directly?

"No. We believe the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Why are we adding a level of ambiguity here? It seems to me that there are only two options: (1) Christ was conceived through physical means; or (2) Christ was conceived through supernatural means (I.e., by the power of the Holy Spirit). Is there a third option that I'm missing?

 

1. This is the only "official" answer you're going to get from the Church today.  The early church was willing to speculate a bit more, but never officially accepted.  So there is no other "Mormon Doctrine".  Unless you accept early leaders sermons.

 

2. There is a third option, well sort of - Christ was conceived through physical means by supernatural beings (a resurrected father and a translated/transfigured mother).

 

I don't know how we handle that in light of Matthew 1:18-20, but since we believe that a physical body is necessary to have increase, whether from the story of Adam and Eve and the fall or from the teachings on the resurrection (concerning who will have eternal increase), I don't see how a spirit could father a child.

Brigham Young said no child was ever conceived on any other principle.  God is a resurrected man and Mary was more likely "taken away in the spirit" instead of impregnated by the spirit, which would imply "translated/transfigured".

 

But this is all speculation.

 

EDIT: Actually, this is not the "official" answer from the Church.  A quick bit of research shows the Church has continued to teach that Christ was conceived in the natural way.  Not sure why the 2007 interview was so fuzzy about it.

Edited February 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mormonnewb]

2. There is a third option, well sort of - Christ was conceived through physical means by supernatural beings (a resurrected father and a translated/transfigured mother).

I don't know how we handle that in light of Matthew 1:18-20, but since we believe that a physical body is necessary to have increase, whether from the story of Adam and Eve and the fall or from the teachings on the resurrection (concerning who will have eternal increase), I don't see how a spirit could father a child.

Brigham Young said no child was ever conceived on any other principle. God is a resurrected man and Mary was more likely "taken away in the spirit" instead of impregnated by the spirit, which would imply "translated/transfigured".

But this is all speculation.

I know that you were just speculating but it does seem like a plausible explanation. There does seem to be some theological inconsistency if we claim that sex is necessary for procreation among two celestial beings but not between a celestial being and an earthly being.

What is strange is how we have such a clear understanding of procreation in the one case and not in the other, but hey, if we knew everything, then I guess we wouldn't need prophets, right?

[JLHPROF]

I know that you were just speculating but it does seem like a plausible explanation. There does seem to be some theological inconsistency if we claim that sex is necessary for procreation among two celestial beings but not between a celestial being and an earthly being.

What is strange is how we have such a clear understanding of procreation in the one case and not in the other, but hey, if we knew everything, then I guess we wouldn't need prophets, right?

 

 

I'd love to take credit for the theory, but it was taught pretty regularly by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, etc.

 

Orson Pratt taught that: "Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully"

 

Joseph F. Smith taught that: "Mary was married to Joseph for time. No man could take her for eternity because she belonged to the Father of her divine Son."

And actually, if I do a bit of research (which I just did) it was pretty much taught even down to our day.  Not sure why the Fox News interview was so ambiguous when the 2009 Gospel Principles manual states quite clearly:

 

"God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father." pg 53.

 

Seems pretty clear that Heavenly Father was Christ's actual father, and not some mystical supernatural birth.

[Avatar4321]

Mary = Virgin

Father = God the Father

Spirit involved somehow.

 

Other than that, no one knows.

[JAHS]

God, being all powerful, was certainly capable of placing His seed in Mary in ways other than that used by mere mortals (artificial insemination?). Mary was still considered a virgin afterwards, since virginity is a concept confined to earthly human beings and can only be violated by an earthly man.

Elder James E. Talmage said: 
"That Child … born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the Highest'".(Talmage, Jesus the Christ)

 

So whatever a "higher manifestation" is (not the same as mortals), is something only Mary and God know. 

[erdoch]

Mary was a virgin... thus no sex was involved. At least that's my understanding. If Jesus had been born because of sex - whether that be with a human, superhuman or nonhuman being - she wouldn't have been a virgin.

 

I also don't think we understand either spiritual creation or what it means for us to procreate in the eternities. Is it really going to involve eternal amounts of sex with a constantly pregnant wife - or wives? Nope, I think that basically anything people say on this subject is pure speculation - unless you've had specific personal revelation or visionary experience to tell you otherwise... 

[JLHPROF]

God, being all powerful, was certainly capable of placing His seed in Mary in ways other than that used by mere mortals (artificial insemination?). Mary was still considered a virgin afterwards, since virginity is a concept confined to earthly human beings and can only be violated by an earthly man.

Elder James E. Talmage said: 

"That Child … born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the Highest'".(Talmage, Jesus the Christ)

 

So whatever a "higher manifestation" is (not the same as mortals), is something only Mary and God know. 

 

I think you misinterpreted the Talmage quote a bit.  He said quite clearly that Christ was begotten "not in violation of natural law" which means that Christ was conceived according to natural law.  When he speaks of a "higher manifestation of the natural law"  I interpret that to refer to the nature of the participants, not the method of the conception.  Just my opinion.

 

Mary = Virgin

Father = God the Father

Spirit involved somehow.

 

Other than that, no one knows.

 

Well, the Church leaders from Brigham Young down to today's Gospel Principles manual all are pretty consistent in saying that Christ was conceived by God and Mary in the old fashioned way but (probably in more unique situation).

[Storm Rider]

The prophecy was that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; Mary was that virgin that brought forth the miraculous birth of the Savior.  To me I take the scripture in the Bible in Luke 1 to be literal:

 

 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The ^aHoly Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the ^bSon of God.

 

I don't know the value of speculating on how Mary was inseminated; it is prurient at its base to try an understand this great miracle; Jesus was born of the VIRGIN Mary. How did she become pregnant?  Answer - the Holy Ghost came upon her and the power of the Highest overshadowed her. What does that mean? I don't care; it does not matter.  What is of such great value is that it did happen and the Virgin brought forth our Lord and Savior, the Son of God. 

[mormonnewb]

God, being all powerful, was certainly capable of placing His seed in Mary in ways other than that used by mere mortals (artificial insemination?). Mary was still considered a virgin afterwards, since virginity is a concept confined to earthly human beings and can only be violated by an earthly man.Elder James E. Talmage said: "That Child … born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the Highest'".(Talmage, Jesus the Christ)

 

So whatever a "higher manifestation" is (not the same as mortals), is something only Mary and God know. 

This is what can be confusing about Mormon doctrine. We get all of these specific proclamations about the nature of the "celestial Sireship" and then conclude, in the end, "we don't know." If we don't know how it happened, then how do we know it was "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof"? It seems to me that for Talmage to make such a statement he had to have some idea of what he was describing. Young and McConkie also seemed to have specific ideas of how it happened.

So how is the picture becoming cloudier over time? With modern prophets (and science to help), shouldn't we be getting MORE revelation instead of losing the revelation that we thought we once had?

[erdoch]

So how is the picture becoming cloudier over time? With modern prophets (and science to help), shouldn't we be getting MORE revelation instead of losing the revelation that we thought we once had?

 

General Authorities aren't conveying revelation in every single word or idea they relate. I do not expect most church leaders to have extensive visionary experiences on par with those of Joseph Smith and I don't expect them to be infallible or inerrant in their conveyance of Gospel truths and scriptural stories either. But we have enough in the scriptures and in the Church to develop both faith and testimony.

[EllenMaksoud]

In another thread, this question arose -- Does the Church believe that Christ was conceived by physical means? As a newb, I've never heard current Church teachings on this topic one way or another, but I did remember a few quotes from Young and McConkie claiming that Christ was conceived in the "normal way." However, it was correctly pointed out that those statements weren't ever doctrine and certainly don't represent the Church's current position. In fact, the Church made its official position clear when answering questions about Mormonism for Fox News in 2007.

"Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Is it just me or do we seem to be leaving the door open for a physical conception of Christ? Otherwise, why wouldn't the Church take the opportunity to put all of the speculation to rest and simply answer the question directly?

"No. We believe the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Why are we adding a level of ambiguity here? It seems to me that there are only two options: (1) Christ was conceived through physical means; or (2) Christ was conceived through supernatural means (I.e., by the power of the Holy Spirit). Is there a third option that I'm missing?

It is really clear that Jesus Christ was normally born of Mary. Only the conception was supernatural.

[mfbukowski]

In another thread, this question arose -- Does the Church believe that Christ was conceived by physical means? As a newb, I've never heard current Church teachings on this topic one way or another, but I did remember a few quotes from Young and McConkie claiming that Christ was conceived in the "normal way." However, it was correctly pointed out that those statements weren't ever doctrine and certainly don't represent the Church's current position. In fact, the Church made its official position clear when answering questions about Mormonism for Fox News in 2007.

"Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Is it just me or do we seem to be leaving the door open for a physical conception of Christ? Otherwise, why wouldn't the Church take the opportunity to put all of the speculation to rest and simply answer the question directly?

"No. We believe the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."

Why are we adding a level of ambiguity here? It seems to me that there are only two options: (1) Christ was conceived through physical means; or (2) Christ was conceived through supernatural means (I.e., by the power of the Holy Spirit). Is there a third option that I'm missing?

In modern times the subject is pretty much avoided.

 

Obviously there are many possible ways to get a sperm and an egg together, and I think God might know a few we don't know.  I have kind of always felt it was none of our business. I know if I was God and knowing all the "yo momma" jokes, I would never want people talking about my wife that way.

 

I think most people have a natural "Eeeww" feeling talking about the details of their parents sex lives.   Too "sacred" and all that.    But I guess we two have been there and done that discussion a few times.

[Rivers]

I think God could have added His 23 chromosone's to Mary's without having physical sex.

[strappinglad]

And then we can add in the idea of the Immaculate Conception. Anyone willing to tackle that?

[Tacenda]

It is really clear that Jesus Christ was normally born of Mary. Only the conception was supernatural.

That's why it was the immaculate conception! Oops, looks like there are a couple of us that thought of the same thing. ETA: The thing that made me think of it, is remembering a song with those words, I was thinking it had to do with Jesus being born of a virgin mother. Edited February 23, 2014 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

And then we can add in the idea of the Immaculate Conception. Anyone willing to tackle that?

You know that is about Mary and not Jesus, right?  The concept is that Mary was conceived without original sin so that she could be pure enough to eventually carry Christ.

Edited February 23, 2014 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

yup. I thought maybe mormonweb might like to know how THAT happened also. In a way it moves the whole thing a generation back.

Edited February 23, 2014 by strappinglad

[Storm Rider]

That's why it was the immaculate conception! Oops, looks like there are a couple of us that thought of the same thing.

 

It seems confusing, the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus. It is a doctrine that states that Mary was born free of Original Sin i.e. Mary's mother's conception of her. 

 

The LDS Church has no concept of Original Sin so there is no ability to free of it. 

[Coreyb]

The essential doctrine of agency requires that a testimony of the restored gospel be based on faith rather than just external or scientific proof. Obsessive focus on things not yet fully revealed, such as how the virgin birth or the Resurrection of the Savior could have occurred or exactly howJoseph Smith translated our scriptures, will not be efficacious or yield spiritual progress. These are matters of faith.   Quentin L. Cook, Conference Report, April 2012

 

I think this is the latest "official" account we have on it, basically a "don't worry about it". But while we are speculating, maybe Mary was actually Gods wife.  After all, the Gospel of Mary claims her conception was also immaculate. It certainly would fit in with all this Ashera, tree of life, Mary business everyone loves to talk about. 

[MiserereNobis]

I'd like to point out that discussions like these are so far away from traditional Christianity that I hope you'd understand why some Christians of good will (meaning those that aren't anti-Mormon by default) have a hard time putting Mormons in the Christian camp.

 

The idea that Jesus somehow shares DNA with the First Person of the Holy Trinity is mind blowing for a traditional Christian.  It is SO far away from our understanding of God the Father, God the Son, Jesus Christ, and their relationship.

 

What is perhaps more perplexing is when people bring up these concerns (the ideas being espoused on this thread), often we are told that that is not what Mormons believe, but just conjecture.  Yet here it is... faithful Mormons discussing how God the Father's DNA ended up in Mary.

 

Please, please... acknowledge that you think and believe this stuff, and that it's not just some anti-Mormon's dishonest diatribe against the LDS church.

[Coreyb]

I'd like to point out that discussions like these are so far away from traditional Christianity that I hope you'd understand why some Christians of good will (meaning those that aren't anti-Mormon by default) have a hard time putting Mormons in the Christian camp.

 

The idea that Jesus somehow shares DNA with the First Person of the Holy Trinity is mind blowing for a traditional Christian.  It is SO far away from our understanding of God the Father, God the Son, Jesus Christ, and their relationship.

 

What is perhaps more perplexing is when people bring up these concerns (the ideas being espoused on this thread), often we are told that that is not what Mormons believe, but just conjecture.  Yet here it is... faithful Mormons discussing how God the Father's DNA ended up in Mary.

 

Please, please... acknowledge that you think and believe this stuff, and that it's not just some anti-Mormon's dishonest diatribe against the LDS church.

Oh we will speculate, but you wont catch many of us pin down anything like this as "doctrine".   Thank you for your patience 

[mormonnewb]

yup. I thought maybe mormonweb might like to know how THAT happened also. In a way it moves the whole thing a generation back.

Let's be clear on one thing: I didn't start the speculation about this topic. In fact, as far as I know, not a single Christian even considered the idea until Brigham Young and the early saints began trying to figure out how Christ's birth fit into their new paradigm of celestial "physicality." For the rest of Christianity, this isn't even a question because celestial beings don't have bodies and therefore, would not engage in corporeal procreation. However, since in our conception of eternity, sexual procreation is one of the unique "benefits" of reaching the Celestial Kingdom, I can imagine that early saints were trying to figure out how that applied to the Savior.

I assure you that my interest here isn't prurient. Being raised in the Protestant tradition, I find the whole concept "creepy." Yet, being born in that tradition, I'm also not able to just walk away from uncomfortable things, which is what we seem to be doing in this case. We seem to not want to own up to the fact that we believe that celestial beings create offspring in the same way that earthly beings do. So instead we play dumb. "We don't know how that works (but we're not going to rule it out either)."

And we do that in other areas where we have beliefs that would be uncomfortable to the other Christians. "Exaltation? I'm not sure that we emphasize that." "Heavenly Mother? Who's she?"

And I'm familiar with the argument that we don't want to cast pearls before swine, but we're not even casting pearls before newbs. In three YEARS, I've never once heard any of these topics addressed in HUNDREDS of hours of missionary discussions, gospel doctrine classes, Sunday School, etc. And then when I do hear about them (usually from non-Mormons), I find some news release from the Church backing away from its prior positions.

And then I'm left to wonder if the Church is trying to move away from this or that doctrine. Maybe that's why they never told me about it. If they stop teaching it, then it will eventually fade away. Now, if that is the case, then fine. There are a handful of Protestant beliefs that I will gladly hang onto. On the other hand, if we are simply trying to save face with the other Christians by muddying the doctrinal waters, then I have to question the validity of our beliefs, because if they can't stand up to the scrutiny of mere men, they are not God's truth.

So, you see this is way more than idle curiosity about "where the noses go," I'm trying determine how far to go with our doctrine.

[emarkp]

I'd love to take credit for the theory, but it was taught pretty regularly by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, etc.

Orson Pratt taught that: "Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully"

Joseph F. Smith taught that: "Mary was married to Joseph for time. No man could take her for eternity because she belonged to the Father of her divine Son."

With all due respect, Pratt was a bit of a twit, and was quite willing to spout off speculation at any turn.

On the one hand, we do know that The Father was Jesus' actual father. He had no mortal father. Early saints made the mistake of trying to explain that via some sort of loophole in 'virgin', 'marriage' etc. Now we live in an age where even we mortals are capable of technology by which a woman can be impregnated and yet still be a virgin. It should be trivial for the maker of the universe. By speculating beyond revelation, the early saints caught themselves in a bind that was never necessary, not unlike Dyer's wrongheaded teaching of why blacks couldn't receive the priesthood.