Accepting Explanations Of Mysteries

[thesometimesaint]

All the more reason to search in the light of the Christ. We must learn to discern truth from error. If we cannot we will find ourselves following a man or a group of men and not God.

 

I have the light of Christ, at least as it is given to all men(women). Does that make everything I say truth? Inerrancy can such a drag.

[cinepro]

 

Actually, that is not his exact words. Many have claimed it, no one has ever proven it. Please be the first to show me the statement from B.Y. that that specifically states God had sex with Mary 

 

I'm not sure what you looking for.  Brigham Young seems to be as clear as he could possibly be without including visual aids:

 

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses 8:115)

[JLHPROF]

 

Actually, that is not his exact words. Many have claimed it, no one has ever proven it. Please be the first to show me the statement from B.Y. that that specifically states God had sex with Mary 

 

Again, twisting words: "exactly" was not part of the King Follett discourse

 

Again, conjecture, I personally believe he was married, just not while he was on this Earth in the meridian of time.

 

 

•  

 

 

Thank you for proving my point.  In the absence of revealed absolute knowledge, all we have is conjecture.

And thanks to Cinepro for providing my CFR for me.

 

My question remains, is there any reason not to believe the conjecture until a better choice comes along?

Edited December 29, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JAHS]

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses 8:115)

 

The birth was natural - no problem there

 

Result of natural action - Is he referring to sex or to conception as being the natural action?

 

He partook of flesh and blood - If "He" is referring to Jesus I don't know what this means. Perhaps that Jesus partook of Mary's flesh and blood as He grew inside her.

 

Was begotten of His Father, as we are of our fathers - Conception occurred when the seed of the Father combined with the seed of Mary.

 

Elder James E. Talmage, a past authority of the LDS Church, wrote: "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'" .

 

The phrase "not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof", suggests that it was not done in the traditional way as mortals would, but by some other means we can not now understand.

 

Brigham Young may have been referring to sexual intercourse, but I doubt this idea was revealed to him by God.

[JLHPROF]

 

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses 8:115)

 

Brigham Young may have been referring to sexual intercourse, but I doubt this idea was revealed to him by God.

 

 

Correct.  But since the absolute truth, the heavenly revelation, has yet to be received, then isn't Brigham's the only prophetic teaching to choose from?

 

So am I wrong to place my faith and belief in Brigham's statement until further light is revealed?  Isn't that better than saying we don't know, it's a mystery?

[Tacenda]

This is going against all of Christianity but have often wondered if Mary needed to lie about how she got pregnant becauae back then maybe she'd have been in big trouble for having sex out of wedlock.

[ERayR]

This is going against all of Christianity but have often wondered if Mary needed to lie about how she got pregnant becauae back then maybe she'd have been in big trouble for having sex out of wedlock.

 

We are not "all of Christianity".  We are revealed Christianity led by prophets.  The trouble is too many try to be like "all of Christianity".

[JAHS]

Correct.  But since the absolute truth, the heavenly revelation, has yet to be received, then isn't Brigham's the only prophetic teaching to choose from?

 

So am I wrong to place my faith and belief in Brigham's statement until further light is revealed?  Isn't that better than saying we don't know, it's a mystery?

 

I wouldn't place faith or belief in anything that is not "official" church doctrine. This type of information has no bearing on my salvation.

[ERayR]

I wouldn't place faith or belief in anything that is not "official" church doctrine. This type of information has no bearing on my salvation.

 

If you really want it you can have personal confirmation or rejection but you have to work for it. 

[Tacenda]

We are not "all of Christianity". We are revealed Christianity led by prophets. The trouble is too many try to be like "all of Christianity".

Not what I meant. I don't mean with God, I mean with a mortal and not Joseph. I vaguely remember hearing/reading that in those days you would be punished, maybe even by death for having sex out of wedlock.

[JAHS]

If you really want it you can have personal confirmation or rejection but you have to work for it. 

 

OK then, it has been personally confirmed to me that God did not have sexual intercourse with Mary.

[ERayR]

OK then, it has been personally confirmed to me that God did not have sexual intercourse with Mary.

 

I have no problem either way.

[JAHS]

I have no problem either way.

 

 

An interesting thing a more recent prophet, Harold B. Lee said:

"Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

 

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 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 Son of God."

 

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (1/2/69)" (Teaching of Harold B. Lee)

[ERayR]

 

 

 

An interesting thing a more recent prophet, Harold B. Lee said:

"Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

 

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 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 Son of God."

 

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (1/2/69)" (Teaching of Harold B. Lee)

 

 

Go back and check, it wasn't me who asked.  I settled it in my mind decades ago that it just did not matter to me.

[JAHS]

Go back and check, it wasn't me who asked.  I settled it in my mind decades ago that it just did not matter to me.

Harold B. Lee said that not me. I am just providing info for whoever wants to read it.

[ERayR]

Harold B. Lee said that not me. I am just providing info for whoever wants to read it.

 

Again you said I asked.  I didn't.  I have no quarrel with Harold B. Lee. 

[JAHS]

Again you said I asked.  I didn't.  I have no quarrel with Harold B. Lee. 

My entire #38 post is Harold B Lee's response to someone else who asked him about this subject. I never said you asked for anything. 

[ERayR]

My entire #38 post is Harold B Lee's response to someone else who asked him about this subject. I never said you asked for anything. 

Okay it is just that you had my post in the quote box.  I am a bit sensitive about having something imputed to me that I don't believe or did not say.  No harm now.

[Thinking]

So to conclude, yes we don't have all the answers revealed with 100% clarity.  But in the absence of a better, more reliable revelation, does it really hurt anything to believe the only available explanations from prophets?  It makes us look weird and different to the outsiders, but for the faithful, where's the harm?

 

Ah yes, the sort it out in the next life disclaimer.

 

Today it is seen more as a "we'll sort it out in the next life" kind of deal.

 

It has always been a sort it out in the next life allowance.

[Coreyb]

I wouldn't place faith or belief in anything that is not "official" church doctrine. This type of information has no bearing on my salvation.

Don't you find that method of belief rather dull?

[janderich]

I have the light of Christ, at least as it is given to all men(women). Does that make everything I say truth? Inerrancy can such a drag.

Of course not. You may only have a small portion of that light and you may not know how to search and discover truth using the portion of light you currently have. Joseph in contrast, had grown in the spirit and learned how to ask and receive an answer. 

[JAHS]

Don't you find that method of belief rather dull?

No, because even though I might not accept or believe such things as "official doctrine", I nevertheless can see them as having the potential for being true doctrines.

Or as Spock would say......."interesting".

[Ahab]

Thank you for proving my point. In the absence of revealed absolute knowledge, all we have is conjecture.

So how do you tell the difference between revealed absolute knowledge and conjecture? You do realize not everyone is going to agree either way, don't you?

My question remains, is there any reason not to believe the conjecture until a better choice comes along?

Uh, yeah. To believe in a conjecture is to believe in what is only a possibility, and while I believe it is good to consider and ponder the possibilities until I know what is true I'd rather reserve my beliefs for only what is true rather than believe in the possibilities as if they were true because I might confuse myself into believing a possibility is really the truth.

[ERayR]

So how do you tell the difference between revealed absolute knowledge and conjecture? You do realize not everyone is going to agree either way, don't you?

Uh, yeah. To believe in a conjecture is to believe in what is only a possibility, and while I believe it is good to consider and ponder the possibilities until I know what is true I'd rather reserve my beliefs for only what is true rather than believe in the possibilities as if they were true because I might confuse myself into believing a possibility is really the truth.

 

Personal revelation.  Yep ain't it great?

 

Oh come now I would bet that right now you have a belief or two that will probably turn out to be less true than you now believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course not. You may only have a small portion of that light and you may not know how to search and discover truth using the portion of light you currently have. Joseph in contrast, had grown in the spirit and learned how to ask and receive an answer. 

 

i've got a pretty good understanding of what the Church teaches, and how to gain truth from it, and the secular world. Truth is truth no matter where we find it.

Yet JS himself claimed no such inerrancy.