Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: See my reply to Longview in the other thread. Scripture only says that she was a virgin prior to conception. No scripture states she was a virgin AFTER conception. For example - 2 Nephi 17:14 Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. So Mary was a virgin. She conceived. No longer a virgin. Many virgins conceive. Happens all the time. "1 Nephi 11:20 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms." might back your position, although Nephi could still just be identifying the woman as the previously identified virgin. I'm going to assume he had no way of knowing she was still a virgin after giving birth. Let's face it, it's also perfectly possible for a woman to get pregnant without ever having to " know a man." While a man's seed is essential for a woman to get pregnant, a man doesn't necessarily have to be present to make iit happen. Whether the woman delivers a boy or girl, the baby still has a literal biological father. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Let's face it, it's also perfectly possible for a woman to get pregnant without ever having to " know a man." While a man's seed is essential for a woman to get pregnant, a man doesn't necessarily have to be present to make iit happen. Whether the woman delivers a boy or girl, the baby still has a literal biological father. Are we back to Celestial turkey basters again? With these particular hoofbeats I prefer to think horses than zebras.
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Are we back to Celestial turkey basters again? With these particular hoofbeats I prefer to think horses than zebras. Regardless, it's still a possibility and that causes me to want to keep an open mind. But in your favor there is the prophet Joseph Smith's famous statement that what is wrong and sinful in one situation may not necessarily be sinful in another. So when you're dealing with a holy Being who's is not at all motivated and driven by the carnal lusts of a fallen nature, the prophet's dictum may apply.
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Regardless, it's still a possibility and that causes me to want to keep an open mind. But in your favor there is the prophet Joseph Smith's famous statement that what is wrong and sinful in one situation may not necessarily be sinful in another. So when you're dealing with a holy Being who's is not at all motivated and driven by the carnal lusts of a fallen nature, the prophet's dictum may apply. Oddly enough, I find the non-sexual, non-married explanations more sinful and immoral. I prefer to think if the perfect creator of the universe wanted to have a child with a woman he would marry her first.
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Oddly enough, I find the non-sexual, non-married explanations more sinful and immoral. I prefer to think if the perfect creator of the universe wanted to have a child with a woman he would marry her first. So then, if you"re right what we have here is an example of celestial/earthly polyandry. No?
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: So then, if you"re right what we have here is an example of celestial/earthly polyandry. No? More of a Levirate marriage (except not brothers). Heavenly Father is Mary's eternal companion. Joseph was her husband for mortality/time (many scholars believe he was married before he married Mary). Think Robert Thompson/Hyrum Smith/Mercy Fielding. For it to be polyandry God would have to be living on the earth with Mary. Edited January 23, 2016 by JLHPROF
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: More of a Levirate marriage (except not brothers). Heavenly Father is Mary's eternal companion. Joseph was her husband for mortality/time (many scholars believe he was married before he married Mary). Think Robert Thompson/Hyrum Smith/Mercy Fielding. For it to be polyandry God would have to be living on the earth with Mary. You're not a lawyer by profession, are you? As they say, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Being married to two living men at the same time (it could rightly be said God the Father is more alive than we are), then I believe it's too clever by half to say it's not some version of polyandry.
Jeanne Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 i still want to know for sure..was Jesus, the begotten Son..a son of the flesh and spirit between Mary and the Father? Rev has me so confused. Everything sounds different from what I used to believe.
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: You're not a lawyer by profession, are you? As they say, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Being married to two living men at the same time (it could rightly be said God the Father is more alive than we are), then I believe it's too clever by half to say it's not some version of polyandry. No lawyer. Just a poor bookseller. By that argument if Robert Thompson was resurrected before Hyrum or Mercy died that would have been polyandry too. I think it's safe to say if one of the husbands (the eternal companion) resides on the other side of the veil it is a levirate marriage, not polyandry.
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: i still want to know for sure..was Jesus, the begotten Son..a son of the flesh and spirit between Mary and the Father? Rev has me so confused. Everything sounds different from what I used to believe. I think nobody really knows for sure, and that is the issue. (And I too find the Rev a bit confused on this). I believe that Christ was the biological child of Mary and the Father, conceived in the old fashioned way, with the exception being the nature of the bodies of the mother and father at the time of conception. Most current leaders and members go with the "we don't know" belief. I go with Brigham's teachings. I think you are safe to go with whichever makes the most sense to you since it doesn't change our salvation.
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No lawyer. Just a poor bookseller. By that argument if Robert Thompson was resurrected before Hyrum or Mercy died that would have been polyandry too. I think it's safe to say if one of the husbands (the eternal companion) resides on the other side of the veil it is a levirate marriage, not polyandry. Who would be May's eternal companion, Joseph or Elohim?
Jeanne Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think nobody really knows for sure, and that is the issue. (And I too find the Rev a bit confused on this). I believe that Christ was the biological child of Mary and the Father, conceived in the old fashioned way, with the exception being the nature of the bodies of the mother and father at the time of conception. Most current leaders and members go with the "we don't know" belief. I go with Brigham's teachings. I think you are safe to go with whichever makes the most sense to you since it doesn't change our salvation. Thanks..I guess we really don't know..but I was so convinced. I remember big discussions on this in Seminary.
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Who would be May's eternal companion, Joseph or Elohim? Do you really want ME to answer that? You've been here long enough to know I have differing opinions with current Church leaders. Mary's eternal companion would be the Father. (To me and Brigham Young that's Adam). But my differing opinions aside, one of my biggest pet peeves in gospel discussion is the absolute insistence of some members that Christ was the exception to every rule rather than the perfect example. It horrifies some members to think of Christ as married with children, possibly a polygamist, as being conceived by sexual relations, as being sealed to his parents, being ordained to priesthood office, receiving his endowment, and on, and on, and on. As if there is something wrong with the pattern we follow. It drives me crazy. Christ is the perfect example of a law keeper, not the exception to eternal laws. Edited January 23, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Do you really want ME to answer that? You've been here long enough to know I have differing opinions with current Church leaders. Mary's eternal companion would be the Father. (To me and Brigham Young that's Adam). But my differing opinions aside, one of my biggest pet peeves in gospel discussion is the absolute insistence of some members that Christ was the exception to every rule rather than the perfect example. It horrifies some members to think of Christ as married with children, possibly a polygamist, as being conceived by sexual relations, as being sealed to his parents, being ordained to priesthood office, receiving his endowment, and on, and on, and on. As if there is something wrong with the pattern we follow. It drives me crazy. Christ is the perfect example of a law keeper, not the exception to eternal laws. None of those things bother me any because I know God is perfectly good and totally pure. I'm just having an interesting chat. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: None of those things bother me any because I know God is perfectly good and totally pure. I'm just having an interesting chat. Don't you find an increasingly evangelical trend among members to change the nature of Christ? To make him the exception to pattern laid out? Ah well, if that increases their faith in him that's a good result I can live with.
Bobbieaware Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Don't you find an increasingly evangelical trend among members to change the nature of Christ? To make him the exception to pattern laid out? Ah well, if that increases their faith in him that's a good result I can live with. It is as you say. For example, he surely was -- and is -- the ideal husband. 1
RevTestament Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: i still want to know for sure..was Jesus, the begotten Son..a son of the flesh and spirit between Mary and the Father? Rev has me so confused. Everything sounds different from what I used to believe. I will confess Jeanne that what I am saying I have not heard in the Church lessons, but I guarantee you it is scriptural, so if you believe the scriptures, shouldn't you be ok? Isn't that why God gave them to us? Let's review the ones I am talking about: Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Hebrews 1:5 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 5:5 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Moses 5:9 9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. So if He was begotten FROM THE BEGINNING, how can He be the begotten son by conception in Miriam? He is already begotten before that point according to the NT and Moses 5:9. And did the Father tell Him as in infant in the womb, "This day I have begotten thee"? I say no. Nowhere does the scripture say this, because it was said to Him in another place according to Hebrews 5:6, and this is when he became the Father's High Priest according to 5:5. To me these scriptures show without question that Jesus was begotten "spiritually" or by covenant or "oath" of the priesthood. And "adopted" as God's begotten Son. Even like Moses married Jethro's daughter, Christ married God's church. Anyway, I am sorry this confuses you. I can understand this when you have not ever been taught it before. I am just trying to explain my beliefs, and why I assert they are right and true.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) On 1/20/2016 at 7:12 AM, Stargazer said: ...................................................... By the way, Elohim is Hebrew for Gods, and it applies to the Father because His excellence and majesty requires a plural noun, not because he represents a council of some sort. He is still the single presiding authority of the universe, even if none may come to Him except through the Son. I don't know whether Elohim is the presiding authority over the multiverse, the universe, or the galaxy, since there is no beginning and no end, and he is eternal (as are we). We need a point of reference in time and space, and we don't really have one. As to the Hebrew term ʼĔlōhîm, Gregorio del Olmo Lete characterizes ilhm in Ugaritic texts as "the ʼIlāhūma, divine beings," and relates them to Hebrew ʼĕlōhîm.[1] He suggests that ilh, whether “a secondary retro-formation from ilhm or radical expansion of *ʼl must take into account the form ʼlh in” Old South Arabic, Arabic, and Hebrew, “and the primary semantic meaning ‘god’.”[2] He further sees “the syntagm ilhm bˁlm . . . as two asyndetic designations of the same divine entities, not as two different groups of the pantheon.”[3] Tess Dawson likewise says that "the Ugaritic word ʼilahuma is related to one of the names of the Hebrew deity, Elohim, which means 'gods'." However, she sees the ʼilahuma or Divine Assembly specifically as the sons and daughters of ʼAthiratu and Ilu,[4] i.e, of Asherah and El. [1] del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed. (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 82,85,87,180. [2] del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 342 n14. [3] del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2nd ed., 343 n17; cf. p. 60. [4] Dawson, The Horned Altar: Rediscovering & Rekindling Canaanite Magic (MN: Llewellyn Worldwide, 2013), 48, ʼAthiratu = Asherah, who is elsewhere the consort of YHWH (at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom); Steve Wiggins, A Reassessment of Asherah: With Further Considerations of the Goddess (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Pres, 2007). Edited January 24, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 2
Jeanne Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 17 hours ago, RevTestament said: I will confess Jeanne that what I am saying I have not heard in the Church lessons, but I guarantee you it is scriptural, so if you believe the scriptures, shouldn't you be ok? Isn't that why God gave them to us? Let's review the ones I am talking about: Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Hebrews 1:5 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Hebrews 5:5 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Moses 5:9 9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. So if He was begotten FROM THE BEGINNING, how can He be the begotten son by conception in Miriam? He is already begotten before that point according to the NT and Moses 5:9. And did the Father tell Him as in infant in the womb, "This day I have begotten thee"? I say no. Nowhere does the scripture say this, because it was said to Him in another place according to Hebrews 5:6, and this is when he became the Father's High Priest according to 5:5. To me these scriptures show without question that Jesus was begotten "spiritually" or by covenant or "oath" of the priesthood. And "adopted" as God's begotten Son. Even like Moses married Jethro's daughter, Christ married God's church. Anyway, I am sorry this confuses you. I can understand this when you have not ever been taught it before. I am just trying to explain my beliefs, and why I assert they are right and true. You have a very interesting concept here that you have made more sense of in this last paragraph. Thank you.
RevTestament Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: You have a very interesting concept here that you have made more sense of in this last paragraph. Thank you. You are quite welcome. Christ is the Way because he showed the way.
Recommended Posts