Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[halconero]

14 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Please, take a stand.  Is Nephi real or not? If not then the entire conjecture is moot!

Nah. Not really relevant for the point I'm trying to make.

Edited January 19, 2016 by halconero

[Ginger Snaps]

11 hours ago, longview said:

My speculation for the need of "plural marriage" is that there are many more worthy and righteous females (both in the pre-existence, mortality, and hereafter) than there are of men that can qualify for the top rungs of the Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe by a ratio of 20 women for every man?  If only monogamy was permitted, then too many righteous women will be denied their rightful stations in the Eternities.  Then "creation will fail" because the "Law of Justice" will not tolerate such a situation.

The global demographics do not necessarily support this supposition.  For starters, there are roughly 101 baby boys born for every 100 girls.  Males are statistically more likely to die before the age of two.  Add in some biblical horrors like Herod's widespread male infanticide, and you've got huge swaths of male babies dying before the age of accountability--all of whom will presumably be worthy for the CK, and needing to be paired up to do so.  

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ginger Snaps

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

The global demographics do not necessarily support this supposition.  For starters, there are roughly 101 baby boys born for every 100 girls.  Males are statistically more likely to die before the age of two.  Add in some biblical horrors like Herod's widespread male infanticide, and you've got huge swaths of male babies dying before the age of accountability--all of whom will presumably be worthy for the CK, and needing to be paired up to do so.  

See the problem with the mathematical argument  is a limited perspective on the human family.
100% of God's children aren't going to be exalted in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It will be a small percent if we believe the scriptures.  100% percent of God's children aren't going to be in eternal marriage relationships.

Polygamy, if it is indeed required for exaltation, doesn't need to be viable with the entire population demographic.  It doesn't even need to be viable for the entirety of Church membership.
It only needs to be viable for those who are willing to live a 100% Celestial life and law.  Does that mean in the end more women than men will be willing to live by every law of God and the Celestial Kingdom?  I'll let someone else figure that one out.  (Mosiah Hancock sure thought so )

Edited January 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:16 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

I wish we knew whether or not we'll be living polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom so it'd be less confusing when thinking about the topic.

Some will, some won't.  That's scriptural.

[halconero]

Funny experience from last Saturday. I work in the temple and we're both allowed and encouraged to bring family names and use those in ordinances. In fact it's encouraged, and close to 65% of the names we do are family file.

Anyways, I was assigned to help out with sealings, which was awesome as I wanted to get some accomplished for ancestors on both my maternal and paternal side.

Everyone was shocked when my 3rd Great Grandfather, Price Falconer, was sealed over 6 times to different women. He lived in India with the British Colonial Office, and he outlived his first 5 spouses who died of various tropical diseases (including my 3rd Great Grandmother, Jane Selina, who was his 3rd wife). One man there made the comment "now there's a Mormon if I ever saw one."

Edited January 21, 2016 by halconero

[RevTestament]

On 1/20/2016 at 9:13 PM, JLHPROF said:

See the problem with the mathematical argument  is a limited perspective on the human family.
100% of God's children aren't going to be exalted in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  It will be a small percent if we believe the scriptures.  100% percent of God's children aren't going to be in eternal marriage relationships.

Polygamy, if it is indeed required for exaltation, doesn't need to be viable with the entire population demographic.  It doesn't even need to be viable for the entirety of Church membership.
It only needs to be viable for those who are willing to live a 100% Celestial life and law. 

Or for those who happened to live in SLC and were called by the brethren to marry another wife...otherwise not so much.

[longview]

On 1/19/2016 at 1:48 PM, SamIam said:

- - - but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. - - - That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. This answer may suffice you—you need never inquire more upon that point.” (Young, Brigham, Journal of Discourses 11:268)

I do not take as Gospel everything that BY has commented on.  Especially the Journal of Discourses being imperfectly transcribed and relayed from SLC to England.  I feel strongly that Mary was NOT the wife of Heavenly Father, that Mary was STILL a virgin (though betrothed to Joseph) at the time of the conception.  Some members believe the urban myth that there was sexual relations between her and God.  NOT true, as has been clarified by the General Authorities.  Mary was simply a "chosen vessel" to carry the "Only Begotten of the Father" as explained here:

“He shall be born of Mary, … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God” (Alma 7:10; italics added).

Just as Jesus was able to walk through walls after His Resurrection, the Holy Ghost (I believe) simply passed the DNA information onto Mary's egg through the linings of her body without the usual transit.  When Mary birthed Jesus, she was STILL a virgin.

Luke 1:  34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Edited January 23, 2016 by longview

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

  I feel strongly that Mary was NOT the wife of Heavenly Father, that Mary was STILL a virgin (though betrothed to Joseph) at the time of the conception.  Some members believe the urban myth that there was sexual relations between her and God.

I would be one of those members.  I believe this completely.

Quote

NOT true, as has been clarified by the General Authorities.

CFR please.  Something "authoritative" please.

[JLHPROF]

Dupl.

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I do not take as Gospel everything that BY has commented on.  Especially the Journal of Discourses being imperfectly transcribed and relayed from SLC to England.  I feel strongly that Mary was NOT the wife of Heavenly Father, that Mary was STILL a virgin (though betrothed to Joseph) at the time of the conception.  Some members believe the urban myth that there was sexual relations between her and God.  NOT true, as has been clarified by the General Authorities.  Mary was simply a "chosen vessel" to carry the "Only Begotten of the Father" as explained here:

“He shall be born of Mary, … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God” (Alma 7:10; italics added).

Just as Jesus was able to walk through walls after His Resurrection, the Holy Ghost (I believe) simply passed the DNA information onto Mary's egg through the linings of her body without the usual transit.  When Mary birthed Jesus, she was STILL a virgin.

Luke 1:  34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

I happen to be one who completely agrees with you. That kind of stuff is what gets lampooned in the cartoons - not that that is why I don't believe it - I don't believe the Father married Miriam because that is contrary to the law. The law says for another to marry a married woman and have relations is adultery. Yosef married Miriam and they had James and more children. To me it's unthinkable, and also contrary to the NT and the Book of Mormon as you point out. BY bit off more than he could chew with that one. Or possibly the JoD just got it wrong, and no one in SLC knew. But I find that unlikely, because Pratt repeated it in his book. The end.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I would be one of those members.  I believe this completely.

CFR please.  Something "authoritative" please.

 

Posting on behalf of Longview:

I seem to be having a bad day composing replies.  Several got mangled.  My reply to your CFR might be visible to you but I am unable to see the result.  Just in case you do not see it, I am repasting from my notepad:

Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ:
God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. [3]
In the same volume, Elder McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:
"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false. [4]

It is believed that Jesus is the literal Son of God, but there is no official stance on the process by which he was conceived.
Some members and leaders have made and do make this assumption, but this is not a doctrine of the Church—such speculation was more common before assisted reproductive techniques (e.g., IVF, "test tube babies," etc.) made it clear that one can be a literal parent without sexual intercourse. The key has always been to defend the idea of God's literal Fatherhood of Jesus; the Church and its leaders always resisted efforts to allegorize or spiritualize this vital doctrine.

1 Nephi 11:
 18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
 19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Longview:

It is believed that Jesus is the literal Son of God, but there is no official stance on the process by which he was conceived.
Some members and leaders have made and do make this assumption, but this is not a doctrine of the Church—such speculation was more common before assisted reproductive techniques (e.g., IVF, "test tube babies," etc.) made it clear that one can be a literal parent without sexual intercourse. The key has always been to defend the idea of God's literal Fatherhood of Jesus; the Church and its leaders always resisted efforts to allegorize or spiritualize this vital doctrine.

 

Apparently we read what we want to read.
You said "NOT true, as has been clarified by the General Authorities."

Elder McConkie here says "there is no official stance" and "The key has always been to defend the idea of God's literal Fatherhood of Jesus; the Church and its leaders always resisted efforts to allegorize or spiritualize this vital doctrine".

Neither of these state the doctrine is false.  Just another "we don't know" dismissal.
Brigham said it's true.  Elder McConkie (who was not the prophet) said we don't know.

I choose to believe Brigham.
Oh, and "Virgin" can mean pure just as easily as it can mean "never had sex".

Edited January 23, 2016 by JLHPROF

[SamIam]

2 hours ago, longview said:

I do not take as Gospel everything that BY has commented on.  Especially the Journal of Discourses being imperfectly transcribed and relayed from SLC to England.  I feel strongly that Mary was NOT the wife of Heavenly Father, that Mary was STILL a virgin (though betrothed to Joseph) at the time of the conception.  Some members believe the urban myth that there was sexual relations between her and God.  NOT true, as has been clarified by the General Authorities.  Mary was simply a "chosen vessel" to carry the "Only Begotten of the Father" as explained here:

“He shall be born of Mary, … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God” (Alma 7:10; italics added).

Just as Jesus was able to walk through walls after His Resurrection, the Holy Ghost (I believe) simply passed the DNA information onto Mary's egg through the linings of her body without the usual transit.  When Mary birthed Jesus, she was STILL a virgin.

Luke 1:  34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Okay, that's an understandable position.  It also illustrates why I am careful in these things to not push too hard or heavy as I am not trying to upset anyone's apple cart.  These types of discussions are not pertinent to anyone's salvation and so that I may disagree with you is not a significant issue and we go no further.  I will say that the quote I provided only discusses the state of their relationship and nothing with methodology. This it is not in disagreement with the Elder McConkie quote that basically covers the same distance. Nonetheless, I have found one truth that I can share.  It comes from an observation by Boyd K. Packer:

Quote

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

 

About 12 years or so ago, I took on as my study topic, the atonement. I write as I study and am over 500 pages on various aspects of the gospel and I have to agree with Elder Packer, there are many things that may appear to stand alone or not directly connect to the atonement.  However, it is us that simply cannot see the connection.  There is not any aspect of the restored gospel that does not have some sort of direct connection to the atonement and once one can see that connection things fit so flawlessly that it completely erases all confusion.  So it was for polygamy and plural marriage.  Still perhaps another day.

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by SamIam

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wondered for a while if I'd be living polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, so I went to the temple and prayed about it to free up confusion, and the answer and revelation I received in the Celestial Room of the Payson temple is that I'd definitely be okay living it in the CK and would think it would bring me wonderful blessings I can't even imagine in my mortal state. I did not, however get a definite answer on if I personally will be able to practice it, but I did realize I'm willing to live it and think it would bring me joy and happiness during exaltation.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, VideoGameJunkie said:

I wondered for a while if I'd be living polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, so I went to the temple and prayed about it to free up confusion, and the answer and revelation I received in the Celestial Room of the Payson temple is that I'd definitely be okay living it in the CK and would think it would bring me wonderful blessings I can't even imagine in my mortal state. I did not, however get a definite answer on if I personally will be able to practice it, but I did realize I'm willing to live it and think it would bring me joy and happiness during exaltation.

Polygamist in your faith - just as Brigham said was required.

[halconero]

Thanks JLHPROF,

We do not know the exact mechanics of how Christ was conceived. What has been stressed over and over is that Jesus, is the Only Begotten Son of the Father in a literal way. The Father is his biological Father. 

There just happens to be a few of us who consider the extrapolation that Christ was born in the covenant a logical extension of this, not a leap in speculation.

[SamIam]

12 minutes ago, halconero said:

Thanks JLHPROF,

We do not know the exact mechanics of how Christ was conceived. What has been stressed over and over is that Jesus, is the Only Begotten Son of the Father in a literal way. The Father is his biological Father. 

There just happens to be a few of us who consider the extrapolation that Christ was born in the covenant a logical extension of this, not a leap in speculation.

I am sure that Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie would concur...

[longview]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently we read what we want to read.
You said "NOT true, as has been clarified by the General Authorities."

Elder McConkie here says "there is no official stance" and "The key has always been to defend the idea of God's literal Fatherhood of Jesus; the Church and its leaders always resisted efforts to allegorize or spiritualize this vital doctrine".

Neither of these state the doctrine is false.  Just another "we don't know" dismissal.
Brigham said it's true.  Elder McConkie (who was not the prophet) said we don't know.

I choose to believe Brigham.
Oh, and "Virgin" can mean pure just as easily as it can mean "never had sex".

I am not very good at searching within lds.org for statements by GA's on this question.  I do remember a few years back that at least one made the definite statement that Mary did NOT have sex with God.  And this person was not Bruce McConkie.

I consider Luke 1:34 to be decisive in declaring that Mary had NO sexual relations with anyone (including her betrothed Joseph) UNTIL AFTER she birthed Jesus.  I suppose she probably held off consummating her marriage with Joseph until Jesus was about a year old.  I would invite you to cite scriptures (or any conference talks, don't include BY, a real can of worms) in other contexts using the word virgin with the meaning of being pure but "deflowered." 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I consider Luke 1:34 to be decisive in declaring that Mary had NO sexual relations with anyone (including her betrothed Joseph) UNTIL AFTER she birthed Jesus.  I suppose she probably held off consummating her marriage with Joseph until Jesus was about a year old.

The problem with your interpretation of Luke 1:34 is you have it out of chronological sequence.  Read 35 too.

• 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
  35 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.

At the time of Luke 1:34 Mary had not yet become pregnant so she WAS still a virgin.
There is no scripture after she was carried away and returned pregnant stating she was still a virgin, only that she was a virgin until she conceived.  Additionally, if the veil was restored to her memory after being carried to God's presence where she was "overshadowed", there is no reason she would remember all the events.
Either way, procreation makes far more sense than some magical DNA implantation or Celestial turkey baster.

 

Quote

 I would invite you to cite scriptures (or any conference talks, don't include BY, a real can of worms)

I reject such limitations.  Brigham was the mouthpiece of the Lord in his day, as entitled to be the authority on doctrine as President Monson is today.
So unless a prophet of God claims contradictory inspiration/revelation I will continue to accept President Young's teachings.
Nor do I limit my doctrinal beliefs to the scriptures.  Not all inspired writings and teachings are in the scriptures and never will be.

Oh, and Revelation 14:4 identifies all the 144,000 great High Priests as virgins.  Given what we know of that position from D&C 77 and other places, I'm going to guess they weren't unmarried men.

Edited January 23, 2016 by JLHPROF

[SamIam]

32 minutes ago, longview said:

I am not very good at searching within lds.org for statements by GA's on this question.  I do remember a few years back that at least one made the definite statement that Mary did NOT have sex with God.  And this person was not Bruce McConkie.

I consider Luke 1:34 to be decisive in declaring that Mary had NO sexual relations with anyone (including her betrothed Joseph) UNTIL AFTER she birthed Jesus.  I suppose she probably held off consummating her marriage with Joseph until Jesus was about a year old.  I would invite you to cite scriptures (or any conference talks, don't include BY, a real can of worms) in other contexts using the word virgin with the meaning of being pure but "deflowered." 

One of the wonderful things about Elder McConkie is that he was able to discern points that people get hung up on and then rephrase the problem in such a way as to alleviate part of the burden - not all but part.  As JLHPROF notes Elder McConkie neither robs Brigham Young and leaves a small gap for his possibilities and yet he leaves a small gap for those who find distaste in Brigham Young's possibilities and lets them step away from the sticking point so that the conversation can advance beyond the sticking point. I wish more members were as gracious.  The tendency is that people take the gap of belief that they prefer, sustain that as the "obvious" point and continue to rebel vociferously against the other not able to leave the sticking point. 

 

Elder McConkie does this with Adam/God, blacks and priesthood and several other points of doctrine that people tend to get anxious about.  I have always seen this as a brilliant exercise of his calling as an apostle to bring people unto Christ.  If there was something in the way of that process from the more controversial aspects of LDS theology and he felt it was stymieing people's growth he attempted to ameliorate those points of controversy.  However, it is obvious that not everyone reads Elder McConkie the way that I do, as many tend to borrow from the force of their own distaste of a doctrine and feed that into his observations as if they are one and the same.  I think for the conversation here that if it makes sense that Christ would be born in the covenant and that it makes sense that we can extrapolate from that that in some fashion Mary is sealed to God the Father and if we can just step over the mechanics of conception that we can advance the conversation. If we wish to advance this discussion into how plural marriage may of necessity be required in the eternities we at least need to be able to see the possibility of sustaining the multiple leaders, Joseph Fielding Smith, Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Melvin J. Ballard to name a few who seem to share a firm belief in the eternal union of Mary and our Father in Heaven. 

[SamIam]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I reject such limitations.  Brigham was the mouthpiece of the Lord in his day, as entitled to be the authority on doctrine as President Monson is today.
So unless a prophet of God claims contradictory inspiration/revelation I will continue to accept President Young's teachings.
Nor do I limit my doctrinal beliefs to the scriptures.  Not all inspired writings and teachings are in the scriptures and never will be.

This is so brilliantly stated that I simply must echo my agreement.  Joseph often stated that he could not reveal all that he knew as the brethren would reject him if he did and thus he often goes along, not always correcting erroneous belief, not improving on the saints understanding because the overall effect of sharing the truth in some instances is the rejection of that truth and everything that leads to it. 

So many of the things that I have learned over the years were only available to me because I have always believed that I do not have to understand why a prophet or apostle defines a point the way he does but that I must recognize him as the superior probability of being correct ahead of my prejudices, bias and lesser spiritual talent. From my perspective I consider myself in a state of prideful judgment to think otherwise.  Whenever I run into something that a prophet or an apostle states that I do not understand, I have learned far too many times to enumerate, that if I take that point of confusion and study it out, sometimes for years, I will begin to have opened to me the spirit that prompted their observations. Far better idea, for me at least, to turn towards these men rather that turn away from them. 

 

[longview]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

At the time of Luke 1:34 Mary had not yet become pregnant so she WAS still a virgin.
There is no scripture after she was carried away and returned pregnant stating she was still a virgin, only that she was a virgin until she conceived.

Carefully read Alma 7:10 " - - - conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost - - - "   it was the HG that conveyed the DNA information from Heavenly Father.  If HF had physical sexual relations, why would the HG be involved?   This scripture shows HF's behavior was above reproach.  It would be a "real can of worms" if the Church had to explain why HF would have a physical relationship with a mortal person.  The "Law of Justice" would really get its dander up!  Nothing magical about the power of the HG.

I agree with you at the time Gabriel visited with Mary, she probably had not yet conceived.  In Matt 1:18-25, Joseph did notice Mary's pregnant condition and was later told about the special occasion,  not to fear of taking her as his wife.  It is surprising that Mary did not divulge her special mission to her betrothed.

The clincher for me is Nephi's vision in 1 Ne 11:20  "And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."  Mary was still called a virgin after Jesus' birth.

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, and Revelation 14:4 identifies all the 144,000 great High Priests as virgins.  Given what we know of that position from D&C 77 and other places, I'm going to guess they weren't unmarried men.

But did you miss the beginning part of the verse?  It says:  "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."  I do not know how old these guys are but it appears they have no relations with women.  Maybe they will be virginal 17 year olds who will be ordained to be HP.  By definition, they are virgins (not simply pure as you say).  Please try to find another context to show the distinction between virgin and pure.  Thanks.

[halconero]

22 minutes ago, longview said:

But did you miss the beginning part of the verse?  It says:  "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."  I do not know how old these guys are but it appears they have no relations with women.  Maybe they will be virginal 17 year olds who will be ordained to be HP.  By definition, they are virgins (not simply pure as you say).  Please try to find another context to show the distinction between virgin and pure.  Thanks.

Ummm...do you consider newlyweds on their wedding night as "defiling" each other?

The 1828 dictionary, a useful piece for any study of 100+ year-old documents lists several meanings for virgin that don't fall under your rather strict umbrella.

[SamIam]

37 minutes ago, longview said:

Carefully read Alma 7:10 " - - - conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost - - - "   it was the HG that conveyed the DNA information from Heavenly Father.  If HF had physical sexual relations, why would the HG be involved?   This scripture shows HF's behavior was above reproach.  It would be a "real can of worms" if the Church had to explain why HF would have a physical relationship with a mortal person.  The "Law of Justice" would really get its dander up!  Nothing magical about the power of the HG.

I agree with you at the time Gabriel visited with Mary, she probably had not yet conceived.  In Matt 1:18-25, Joseph did notice Mary's pregnant condition and was later told about the special occasion,  not to fear of taking her as his wife.  It is surprising that Mary did not divulge her special mission to her betrothed.

The clincher for me is Nephi's vision in 1 Ne 11:20  "And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."  Mary was still called a virgin after Jesus' birth.

But did you miss the beginning part of the verse?  It says:  "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."  I do not know how old these guys are but it appears they have no relations with women.  Maybe they will be virginal 17 year olds who will be ordained to be HP.  By definition, they are virgins (not simply pure as you say).  Please try to find another context to show the distinction between virgin and pure.  Thanks.

3933 parthénos – properly, a virgin; a woman who has never had sexual relations; a female (virgin), beyond puberty but not yet married; (figuratively)believers when they are pure (chaste), i.e. faithful to Christ their heavenly Bridegroom (2 Cor 11:2; Rev 14:4).

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, SamIam said:

This is so brilliantly stated that I simply must echo my agreement.  Joseph often stated that he could not reveal all that he knew as the brethren would reject him if he did and thus he often goes along, not always correcting erroneous belief, not improving on the saints understanding because the overall effect of sharing the truth in some instances is the rejection of that truth and everything that leads to it. 

So many of the things that I have learned over the years were only available to me because I have always believed that I do not have to understand why a prophet or apostle defines a point the way he does but that I must recognize him as the superior probability of being correct ahead of my prejudices, bias and lesser spiritual talent. From my perspective I consider myself in a state of prideful judgment to think otherwise.  Whenever I run into something that a prophet or an apostle states that I do not understand, I have learned far too many times to enumerate, that if I take that point of confusion and study it out, sometimes for years, I will begin to have opened to me the spirit that prompted their observations. Far better idea, for me at least, to turn towards these men rather that turn away from them. 

 

Bias and prejudice of the listeners cannot account for inserting things contrary to the record. To marry is a covenant and requires mutual consent. The NT record just doesn't really leave any room for such. Miriam is clearly surprised by the announcement of the angel, and the Bible says she had known no man, and didn't know Yosef till after Jesus was born. There really is no room for another "marriage", and there is no secret marrying someone without their knowledge and consent. Further, The Father would not come to the world in its fallen state, since He will never see corruption. The whole idea is really preposterous imho. I know this is a touchy subject, and I honor the desire to follow the prophets. If BY said like the prophets of old that "the Lord has said" I would honestly give it more weight, but it is just not there for me.....