Where Do We Stand On Christ's Conception?

[emarkp]

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.

Yes, but most Christians are modalists, not realizing that their respective churches teach that it is a heresy.

And don't even get me started with the silly and manufactured "homousious" and all the damage that caused.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

 

You have articulated the "outsider's" view on LDS doctrine quite well, and you are an "insider"   What you express is what us non-LDS folk feel when we read what the early LDS church taught and then compare that to what LDS folk now say.  It does seem a backing away at best, and perhaps a not-wanting-to-talk-about-it-so-we-don't-come-off-as-weird (how's that for a run of hyphens) at worst.

 

From my point-of-view (I'm lovin' me those hyphens!), the conjecture offered here and by previous apostles/prophets/GAs seems to be logical conclusion of the theology that God has a body, all spirit is matter, all beings are procreated, etc.  It seems like Mormon belief logically leads right to the conclusion that God the Father procreated with Mary, but at the point where one would say "the conclusion is..." then Mormons stop and don't say it.

 

Why is that?

[MiserereNobis]

Yes, but most Christians are modalists, not realizing that their respective churches teach that it is a heresy.

 

Red herring.  What others believe has no bearing on the question at hand concerning LDS belief of God, Mary, and Jesus.

 

But to indulge... yes, there are MANY Christians/Catholics that believe in heresy... yet the official doctrines of the Church are easily and clearly found (catechism) so that it is quite simple to point out an individual's variance from dogma.

 

And don't even get me started with the silly and manufactured "homousious" and all the damage that caused.

 

This is an even bigger red herring.  We're not talking about the Trinity in traditional Christian belief.  We're talking about LDS belief.  Please don't distract/derail the conversation.

[emarkp]

Red herring.  What others believe has no bearing on the question at hand concerning LDS belief of God, Mary, and Jesus.

 

Baloney.  Some LDS wrongly believe bizarre things that the LDS church doesn't teach.  Many Christians believe bizarre things that the their respective churches don't teach.  Understand the comparison?

 

And on top of that, the official LDS doctrine is no weirder than traditional Christianity.  In fact, much official Christian doctrine is so weird many (possibly most) Christians don't believe it.  Do you get that comparison?

Edited February 23, 2014 by emarkp

[Coreyb]

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.

I object to your naive statement that Pratt was a bit of a twit. I am not sure how you can call him that "with all due respect," unless by "all due" you mean little to none.

[MiserereNobis]

Baloney. 

 

 

 

Um, no.  A red herring logical fallacy is when one tries to bring up an issue that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.  What Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, whatever, believe has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue we are discussing -- namely, the LDS view of Christ's conception.  So I will not retract my accusation of a red herring.  Don't discuss what others believe.  Discuss what Mormons believe.

 

Some LDS wrongly believe bizarre things that the LDS church doesn't teach.

 

Excellent, now we're back on the topic of this thread.  Now, please state what the LDS church teaches on the topic of Jesus' conception and please repudiate the "bizarre things" that others (including many on this board) have stated.

 

Many Christians believe bizarre things that the their respective churches don't teach.  Understand the comparison?

 

I admitted as such, but it still a red herring.  We're not discussing what Christians believe, but what Mormons believe.  So please state what the LDS church teaches and please repudiate the heresies that other Mormons believe.

 

And on top of that, the official LDS doctrine is no weirder than traditional Christianity.  In fact, much official Christian doctrine is so weird many (possibly most) Christians don't believe it.  Do you get that comparison?

 

Still a red herring.

[mormonnewb]

But to indulge... yes, there are MANY Christians/Catholics that believe in heresy... yet the official doctrines of the Church are easily and clearly found (catechism) so that it is quite simple to point out an individual's variance from dogma.

 

To test your assertion about the Catholic Church clearly laying out its doctrines, I decided to look up what the Catechism says about transubstantiation.  For many Christians, this is one of the "weirdest" Catholic doctrines.  I wanted to see how your church dealt with a doctrine that is a constant source of derision amongst Protestants.  Here is how Section 1376 reads:

 

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

That certainly seems pretty straightforward to me.  It certainly doesn't require someone to parse through 27 contradictory statements from various popes over the centuries to determine which ones were speaking as prophets and which were speaking as men.  Maybe we Mormons need a Mormechism.

 

That being said, there is one irony: According to one Gallup poll, only 30% of Catholics actually believe in transubstantiation.

 

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1340

[MiserereNobis]

That certainly seems pretty straightforward to me.  It certainly doesn't require someone to parse through 27 contradictory statements from various popes over the centuries to determine which ones were speaking as prophets and which were speaking as men.  Maybe we Mormons need a Mormechism.

 

 

I would agree, but I've heard convincing arguments from many (including my dear philosophical friend mkbukowski) that the beauty and strength of Mormonism is its lack of a catechism or any formal doctrine.  I'm not sure how many Mormons share his view, though.

 

That being said, there is one irony: According to one Gallup poll, only 30% of Catholics actually believe in transubstantiation.

 

...which is a sad and terrible thing.  But, I would point out, at least when it comes to discussions about what the Catholic Church teaches and what Catholics believe, it is very easy to determine each.  In my experience with the LDS church, it is not so easy, since there is no equivalent to the Catechism.

 

 Now, whether or not that is a good thing is a point for another thread.  The point of this thread is what the LDS church believes concerning Christ's conception.  Since it appears that there is no official doctrine/dogma one way or another, we are left to discuss what individual Mormons believe.

 

Do you mind me asking what you personally believe on this topic?

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Nobis, members, even leaders, can believe a wide range of things, but all the Church teaches is that Jesus was the Son of God and born of the virgin Mary.  What individuals will say is irrelevant.

 

I am curious about your referral to DNA as being beyond the pale of traditional Christianity, even mind blowing. What does it mean when the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God?  Is it beyond contemplation or questioning of what that actually means?  

 

I recognize that some members of the LDS Church have contemplated this issue and have developed a wide range of propositions for explaining how Jesus is the Son of God. I take it on a prima facie basis; it is what it says it is; Jesus is the Son of God.  Now if someone wants to put it in terms of sharing the DNA of both the Father and Mary, I don't oppose it, but I also think it is irrelevant. It neither supports or denies the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. 

 

We are created in their image and likeness we are told. Does this mean that our bodies perform, in some degree, in like manner?  It is obvious where this logic leads and it seems disingenuous for anyone to say that is an impossible deduction. Does it really matter where this logic beings and ends?  I suspect we will all, LDS and Catholic alike, be surprised at what the real picture looks like.  

 

In closing, I don't contemplate Jesus sharing the Father's DNA; it is meaningless to me.  However, I can understand how some would conclude such a thing. It is perplexing that anyone that has studied the Bible would conclude that it is mind blowing for another Christian to contemplate such things or to come to such conclusions.  If you actually mean it is disrespectful, or it is and should remain a mystery, or even that the distinct persons of the Trinity are incomprehensible and cannot be reduced to an understanding of possessing DNA, then I understand your position.  But it is not mind blowing. 

[MiserereNobis]

I am curious about your referral to DNA as being beyond the pale of traditional Christianity, even mind blowing. What does it mean when the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God?  Is it beyond contemplation or questioning of what that actually means?  

 

 

It has always been understood as metaphor.  The relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity is mystery, meaning that ultimately we cannot understand it fully with our mortal minds (through a glass darkly...), but symbol and metaphor can help us approach it.  God, who obviously knows the relationship perfectly and perfectly knows our deficiency in understanding it, has decided that the father/son relationship is the best way to convey this mystery to us.

 

I know that C.S. Lewis is well loved among LDS (one Mormon friend told me that he is the most quoted non-Mormon in General Conference, but I haven't independently verified this).  He offers a traditional understanding of the Trinity, including the Father/Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity that might be worth reading:  Mere Christianity (chapters on the Trinity)

 

 

I recognize that some members of the LDS Church have contemplated this issue and have developed a wide range of propositions for explaining how Jesus is the Son of God. I take it on a prima facie basis; it is what it says it is; Jesus is the Son of God.  Now if someone wants to put it in terms of sharing the DNA of both the Father and Mary, I don't oppose it, but I also think it is irrelevant. It neither supports or denies the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. 

 

I see what you are saying, but that means that this entire thread is irrelevant.  Yet, many LDS (prophets, apostles) have thought long and hard about it and have given logical conjectures.

 

 

We are created in their image and likeness we are told. Does this mean that our bodies perform, in some degree, in like manner?  It is obvious where this logic leads and it seems disingenuous for anyone to say that is an impossible deduction. Does it really matter where this logic beings and ends?

 

I agree -- logically, LDS theology leads one inextricably to physical procreation of Jesus by God the Father and Mary.  But Catholic theology, as dogmatically taught by the Church, does not and could not lead one to such a conclusion, since the relationship is clearly stated as metaphor for that which we cannot fully understand.

 

 

I suspect we will all, LDS and Catholic alike, be surprised at what the real picture looks like.  

 

I suspect the same

Edited February 23, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mormonnewb]

Do you mind me asking what you personally believe on this topic?

 

From my reading of the text, I see no reason to believe that HF and Mary had any physical contact whatsoever.  In fact, the description from Matthew 1:18 reads as follows:

 

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

 

As the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body (even in our view), how could there have been a physical conception?

 

That being said, I could live with being wrong on this issue.  If my church changed its official stance, then I would shrug my shoulders and say, "Who knew?" and keep serving in the Church.  I felt the same way about the Holy Trinity.  I could see the merit in our argument for three separate personages and given that this separateness has no practical effect on our devotion to living Christ-centered lives, I shrugged and moved on.

[Rivers]

 

I know that C.S. Lewis is well loved among LDS (one Mormon friend told me that he is the most quoted non-Mormon in General Conference, but I haven't independently verified this). 

 I heard on certain mormon podcast that Abraham Lincoln is the most quoted in conference. 

Edited February 23, 2014 by Rivers

[Storm Rider]

I think the point, which is valid, that the LDS people place a great deal of respect and appreciation for C. S. Lewis' writings. He often is found to reflect so many of our own thoughts and positions.  Granted, we admire truth wherever it is found and regardless of who says it - Abraham Lincoln, King, Gandhi, Buddha, etc. The list is unending.  I think the same thing could be said of all people who love truth.

 

Nobis, I don't think that LDS make any kind of absolute assumption that it is metaphor. I would agree that many of us, with recognition of the Church, feel that the actual means of conception for Jesus is mystery and remains so. I think that some of our leaders and some members like to have answers to questions and in their pursuit of answers have developed simple answers.  They are free to do so; we do not attempt to proscribe how one must think about certain things.  I think their answers may be short-sided simply because they miss out on the mystery of his birth and may lead to re-enforce logical deductions that we may not pursue.  For example, I don't believe that the Father is a resurrected man; he is God and always has been God.  I recognize that some members think differently and they are just as entitled to their opinions as I am.

 

My position that it is irrelevant is based upon my own concept or perspective of what is important.  I think there is nothing more important than the reality of Jesus Christ as Savior, Master, and Lord.  Nothing transcends this single proclamation; He lives.  The doctrine of the Trinity or even the topic of this thread should never become so significant as to divide those who follow after the Holy One of Israel.  

 

My objective is not to denigrate the importance of truth, but to recognize that some truths outweigh all others and allow for true fellowship among the saints (all saints) to prosper and grow.  

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that this has been taught all down through Church history.  Just because I chose to put in a Pratt quote didn't make it his teaching.  SO many others taught he same that to say it's not part of Mormonism is foolish.

 

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost" - Ezra Taft Benson

 

"Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost... Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" - Joseph Fielding Smith

 

"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." Bruce R. McConkie

 

"The official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is the literal offspring of God. He’s got 46 chromosomes; 23 came from Mary, 23 came from God the eternal Father" - Stephen Robinson (BYU Professor)

 

"I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the only-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person." - Brigham Young

 

"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." - Heber C. Kimball

 

"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title 'Son of God' as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary." FIrst Presidency 1916

 

"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." Gospel Principles 2009

 

Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. This is nonsense. Why will not the world receive the truth? Why will they not believe the Father when he says that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son? Why will they try to explain this truth away and make mystery of it? - Joseph F. Smith

 

So leave poor Orson alone, but don't tell me there has been no Church teaching on the subject.  The church from Brigham Young down through 2009's Gospel Principles manual has consistently taught that God the Father is literally the father of Christ in the flesh and Mary is literally the Mother of Christ in the flesh, and we are taught that there is only one way this is ever achieved in nature.  Speculating about supernatural artificial insemination is the true speculation.  Christ was conceived as any other man.

[Storm Rider]

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that this has been taught all down through Church history.  Just because I chose to put in a Pratt quote didn't make it his teaching.  SO many others taught he same that to say it's not part of Mormonism is foolish.

 

So leave poor Orson alone, but don't tell me there has been no Church teaching on the subject.  The church from Brigham Young down through 2009's Gospel Principles manual has consistently taught that God the Father is literally the father of Christ in the flesh and Mary is literally the Mother of Christ in the flesh, and we are taught that there is only one way this is ever achieved in nature.  Speculating about supernatural artificial insemination is the true speculation.  Christ was conceived as any other man.

 

and yet today there is no single method of insemination.  It foolish to think that there is only a single method for anything; it denies the reality of miracles and/or mystery. And, no, it is not Church doctrine regardless of how much you would like for it to be.  What we know is that Mary was a virgin at his birth; you, Brigham, Pratt, and anyone cannot get around that simple fact. 

[CV75]

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?

Of course we are leaving the door open—Jesus is a physical Human Being and must have been physically conceived somehow.

 

As with the rest of humanity, God doesn’t hold how we were conceived against us, but welcomes us into mortality where His Son’s Redemption applies to all without exception, whether we are conceived in vitro, in surrogate mothers, with familial or anonymous egg/sperm doors, as bastards through rape or incest; you name it… and whether we are conceived physically or supernaturally as well (whatever those terms mean!).

 

It really doesn’t matter how we (or Jesus) got here; we do know that we are physical and spiritual beings (souls) in a mortal probation, and that the purpose of the Church is to be Jesus’ instrument in organizing our return to His presence.

 

I'm not so sure a simple yes/no answer to the question would be fair or truthful to anyone as far as leading them to Christ's message, or even relevant to the message of Christ ("have faith a repent, be baptized in water and fire because Jesus' parents had physical sex (or did not)"...Really?!?!). This is why I think the emphasis that He is the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary points to the miraculous basis and nature of the entire plan from start to finish, which plan includes His Church.

 

The Church does offer the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which helps us as individuals (where the interest and speculation starts) deal best with ambiguity (whether self-imposed and otherwise) and discerning what we need to know and do to follow our Savior.

[halconero]

It has always been understood as metaphor. The relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity is mystery, meaning that ultimately we cannot understand it fully with our mortal minds (through a glass darkly...), but symbol and metaphor can help us approach it. God, who obviously knows the relationship perfectly and perfectly knows our deficiency in understanding it, has decided that the father/son relationship is the best way to convey this mystery to us.

I know that C.S. Lewis is well loved among LDS (one Mormon friend told me that he is the most quoted non-Mormon in General Conference, but I haven't independently verified this). He offers a traditional understanding of the Trinity, including the Father/Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity that might be worth reading: Mere Christianity (chapters on the Trinity)

I see what you are saying, but that means that this entire thread is irrelevant. Yet, many LDS (prophets, apostles) have thought long and hard about it and have given logical conjectures.

I agree -- logically, LDS theology leads one inextricably to physical procreation of Jesus by God the Father and Mary. But Catholic theology, as dogmatically taught by the Church, does not and could not lead one to such a conclusion, since the relationship is clearly stated as metaphor for that which we cannot fully understand.

I suspect the same

I'm not sure you can say that people ALWAYS understood it as a metaphor. It's likely that the earliest Christians didn't, given their social context. Christ wasn't the only son of divine parentage coming out of the stories of the Greco-Roman world, and in many cases the relationship between child and deity was anything but metaphorical. There was a sense that the divine nature, powers and actions of the the child were a direct result of their divine progenitors.

There is no reason to assume that the earliest Christians thought any differently about Jesus.

Edited February 23, 2014 by halconero

[emarkp]

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that this has been taught all down through Church history. Just because I chose to put in a Pratt quote didn't make it his teaching.

And apparently you missed the part where I said "Early saints made the mistake..." (note the plural). Also note that I have no objection to many of the quotes you list, I'm quite familiar with them. (Bruce R. McConkie was also prone to declare speculation as fact, for instance, as was Brigham Young.)

 

So leave poor Orson alone, but don't tell me there has been no Church teaching on the subject. The church from Brigham Young down through 2009's Gospel Principles manual has consistently taught that God the Father is literally the father of Christ in the flesh and Mary is literally the Mother of Christ in the flesh

And I assert that Christ indeed had no mortal father, that half of his DNA didn't come from any mortal. That is church teaching and I don't back away from it. However:

 

and we are taught that there is only one way this is ever achieved in nature. Speculating about supernatural artificial insemination is the true speculation. Christ was conceived as any other man.

No, he wasn't. No other man was conceived by an immortal and glorified father. You can believe this nonsense if you like, but you are not free to bind all LDS to it.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

Did God know about in vitro fertilization? I'm not saying that IS how he did it. I don't know how he did it. But we've had it for a while now, and the results are perfectly natural.

[JLHPROF]

And apparently you missed the part where I said "Early saints made the mistake..." (note the plural). Also note that I have no objection to many of the quotes you list, I'm quite familiar with them. (Bruce R. McConkie was also prone to declare speculation as fact, for instance, as was Brigham Young.)

 

And I assert that Christ indeed had no mortal father, that half of his DNA didn't come from any mortal. That is church teaching and I don't back away from it. However:

 

No, he wasn't. No other man was conceived by an immortal and glorified father. You can believe this nonsense if you like, but you are not free to bind all LDS to it.

 

I prefer to keep my beliefs in line with most of the prophets and apostles.  If you want to call that nonsense and state a belief with NO doctrinal backing then go right ahead.  Christ had the DNA of his Heavenly Father.  That has been asserted (in one form or another) by prophets and apostles in every generation of the Church which I have already shown, not just in the early church.  Whereas any idea about alternate methods of insemination have absolutely no references behind them.

 

I believe that Christ was conceived by Heavenly Father, a resurrected being, who was married to Mary as an eternal wife.  She was taken away in the spirit, (probably transfigured) and they conceived Christ the old fashioned way.  This belief has basis in the doctrinal teachings of the prophets and apostles.  This is not speculation as far as doctrine taught goes.

 

For those who disagree with this I would CFR any explicit teaching to the contrary (other than the "we don't really know" tap dance).

Edited February 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

I prefer to keep my beliefs in line with most of the prophets and apostles.  If you want to call that nonsense and state a belief with NO doctrinal backing then go right ahead.  Christ had the DNA of his Heavenly Father.  That has been asserted (in one form or another) by prophets and apostles in every generation of the Church which I have already shown, not just in the early church.  Whereas any idea about alternate methods of insemination have absolutely no references behind them.

 

I believe that Christ was conceived by Heavenly Father, a resurrected being, who was married to Mary as an eternal wife.  She was taken away in the spirit, (probably transfigured) and they conceived Christ the old fashioned way.  This belief has basis in the doctrinal teachings of the prophets and apostles.  This is not speculation as far as doctrine taught goes.

 

For those who disagree with this I would CFR any explicit teaching to the contrary (other than the "we don't really know" tap dance).

 

Mary herself said she "knew" not any man. To be born of a virgin is to not have "known" any man.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

The reason we do not discuss if Jesus was sired by sex, is because we do not believe it. The scriptures are, our doctrine, and we are not adding a "level of ambiguity" to the topic, just not allowing the topic to be discussed, just as we would not give any attention to topics outside the realm of other observe doctrine. There are reasons that the KFD, and Adam God theory's have not, nor ever will be canonized. Sadly we cannot stop wild speculation on the Internet, or even when it is a GA going off the rails in print. What is in our scriptures and manuals taught on Sunday, is our belief and doctrine...nothing more!

[emarkp]

I prefer to keep my beliefs in line with most of the prophets and apostles.

So do I. But when they go beyond what's found in and is consistent with scripture, I'm comfortable with classifying it as opinion until there's further light revealed. Considering that both Pratt and McConkie publicly retracted published works aftr being reprimanded by the brethren, I'm hardly out of step for pointing out the same thing.

Christ had the DNA of his Heavenly Father.  That has been asserted (in one form or another) by prophets and apostles in every generation of the Church which I have already shown, not just in the early church.

You do know you're agreeing with what I said above, right? (With one caveat, that while Christ had to get his Y chromosome from his father, it doesn't necessarily follow that mortal DNA works the same with glorified beings.)

Whereas any idea about alternate methods of insemination have absolutely no references behind them.

I don't know the nitty-gritty about the conception, only that it's not necessary that any physical contact happened.

 

I believe that Christ was conceived by Heavenly Father, a resurrected being, who was married to Mary as an eternal wife.  She was taken away in the spirit, (probably transfigured) and they conceived Christ the old fashioned way. ... This is not speculation as far as doctrine taught goes.

Yes it is speculation. In fact Orson Pratt said it in The Seer which he explicitly repudiated under direction from the First Presidency.

Furthermore, while official church publications have not backed away from Jesus' divine paternity, I've never seen any official publication in my lifetime supporting polyandry of "temporary marriage" of Mary (a bizarre concept in my mind) I'll stick to the First Presidency, thanks much.

[strappinglad]

From my limited understanding, to say something is a metaphor indicates 2 things:

1. That the account does not mean what it says.

2. That we really don't have a clue what it means and hence we are allowed to opinionate and even

pontificate at will remembering that no matter what , the account does NOT mean what it says.

It seems to be along the lines of poetry interpretation, it all depends on the view of the professor.

[Palerider]

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. 

 

 

 

 Couldn't have put this better myself.  No need for some goofy speculation with which to try and impress us or bogle our minds.