A Miraculous Birth

[marineland]

This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual).
 
30 – The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though  
he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal  
Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966],  
155).
 
30 - Conclude by asking students what thoughts and feelings they have for the Savior  
as they consider His condescension and the miraculous nature of His birth.
 
What is miraculous about a birth between an immortal man and a mortal woman?
 
Thanks
 
Tony

[Kenngo1969]

Unless one counts mythology, it's not as though there are myriad cases of mortal-immortal parentage and only this case is notable or special.  (Unless you're aware of other such cases of which I, by contrast, am not.  In that case, do tell!)

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, marineland said:

What is miraculous about a birth between an immortal man and a mortal woman?

The offspring. 😉

And remember, she wasn't in normal mortal conditions when she conceived.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, marineland said:

This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual).
 
30 – The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though  
he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal  
Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966],  
155).
 
30 - Conclude by asking students what thoughts and feelings they have for the Savior  
as they consider His condescension and the miraculous nature of His birth.
 
What is miraculous about a birth between an immortal man and a mortal woman?
 
Thanks
 
Tony

Well, two reasons that I can think of.  First, most of the world does not believe that immortal men exist, let alone that they would create life with a mortal woman and Second, If the woman is still a virgin after she conceives, that would also be seen as miraculous by the world.

[longview]

Mary remained an actual virgin when she conceived the Savior in her womb.  The Conception occurred with the Power of the Holy Ghost conveying the seed of God the Father through her body without the sex act.  Similar to Jesus passing through walls to meet with the Apostles after His Crucifixion.  Not a conventional pregnancy.  Many miracles manifested to bring about the Birth of the Lamb of God.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Mary remained an actual virgin when she conceived the Savior in her womb.  The Conception occurred with the Power of the Holy Ghost conveying the seed of God the Father through her body without the sex act.  Similar to Jesus passing through walls to meet with the Apostles after His Crucifixion.  Not a conventional pregnancy.  Many miracles manifested to bring about the Birth of the Lamb of God.

I don't think I believe that at all.  I prefer Brigham's teachings.

[JAHS]

"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. (Luke 1:35) 

In the Book of Mormon it speaks of Mary as:
"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)
The Holy Spirit, in some miraculous way unknown to mortals, used His power to prepare Mary so that she could endure the presence of God the Father (the Highest) when Jesus was conceived. One question that comes to mind regarding the Holy Ghost  is what does "overshadow" mean? We may never know, but God, being all powerful, was certainly capable of placing His seed in Mary in ways other than that used by mere mortals. Mary was still considered a virgin afterwards, since virginity is a concept confined to earthly human beings and can only be violated by an earthly man.

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

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think I believe that at all.  I prefer Brigham's teachings.

What Brigham believed isn't necessarily correct. Just because he was a prophet does not mean that he knew everything. It's a sufficiently intimate topic that I doubt that God would give that kind of knowledge to someone who would be authorized to teach it as doctrine.

So I guess I understand why Brigham would believe what he taught, I don't think he knew it as fact.  He was not averse from expressing his personal opinions.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, marineland said:

.............................
 
The condescension of God (meaning the Father) .....................

His condescension and the miraculous nature of His birth................................

Seems to me that neither one of these is correct, the first referring to the Father, the second to the Son.

It is not the wonderous nature of his birth which is condescension.

The condescension of the Son is to leave his exalted station and become mere mortal, and to allow himself to suffer and to be killed on behalf of all mankind.  Indeed, he emptied himself of all divine power in what is called the kenosis (Philippians 2:7).  His life could not be taken from him.  He had to allow it.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

What Brigham believed isn't necessarily correct. Just because he was a prophet does not mean that he knew everything. It's a sufficiently intimate topic that I doubt that God would give that kind of knowledge to someone who would be authorized to teach it as doctrine.

So I guess I understand why Brigham would believe what he taught, I don't think he knew it as fact.  He was not averse from expressing his personal opinions.

Par for the course on many of the changes in church doctrine, that's why I do not trust a man to speak for God.

[sunstoned]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Par for the course on many of the changes in church doctrine, that's why I do not trust a man to speak for God.

^^^ virtual rep point ^^^

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think I believe that at all.  I prefer Brigham's teachings.

I'm not sure that Brigham Young was teaching what you might think he was teaching (but I may have missed something).   The word "flesh" does not mean sex, nor is the word "by" the same as the word "of".

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure that Brigham Young was teaching what you might think he was teaching (but I may have missed something).   The word "flesh" does not mean sex, nor is the word "by" the same as the word "of".

He was pretty clear.  But besides you hear hoofbeats, you think horses.

I don't see a reason to think anything about Christ's conception and birth wasn't traditional beyond the scriptual statements.

Luke 1:35 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.

Matt 1:18 ¶ 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.

We either take these literally or we go with natural means.  Neither verse indicates the method of conception and both indicate not the Father but the Holy Ghost that impregnated her.

All else is speculation.  Why assume some crazy celestial turkey baster theory?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

He was pretty clear.  But besides you hear hoofbeats, you think horses.

I don't see a reason to think anything about Christ's conception and birth wasn't traditional beyond the scriptual statements.

Luke 1:35 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.

Matt 1:18 ¶ 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.

We either take these literally or we go with natural means.  Neither verse indicates the method of conception and both indicate not the Father but the Holy Ghost that impregnated her.

All else is speculation.  Why assume some crazy celestial turkey baster theory?

Why should we assume that Heavenly Father had sex with someone He wasn’t married to though?  Isn’t that the odder thing to believe?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why should we assume that Heavenly Father had sex with someone He wasn’t married to though?  Isn’t that the odder thing to believe?

What makes you think they weren't married?

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We either take these literally

And the literal meaning of the original word translated by “overshadow”?  And how does a spirit do that?

Edited January 19, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Mary remained an actual virgin when she conceived the Savior in her womb.  The Conception occurred with the Power of the Holy Ghost conveying the seed of God the Father through her body without the sex act.  Similar to Jesus passing through walls to meet with the Apostles after His Crucifixion.  Not a conventional pregnancy.  Many miracles manifested to bring about the Birth of the Lamb of God.

I am about as interested in the details of the intimacies of my immortal parents as I am in that of my mortal parents. In other words, not at all.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 shall be called

If one really wants to read the text.

(Not singling you out JLHPROF, only because you posted the pertinent passage.)

Of course, I don't know what the Greek is saying there. That's English.

[JLHPROF]

I just think it's fascinating that despite the vaguest of language in scripture and reference to his conception being hidden in poetic terms so many act so certain.

The idea that Christ's physical tabernacle was created by exactly the same method as every other physical body is just unacceptable to many for some reason.  As if the way our bodies are made is less  perfect.

Yes, his Father had an immortal resurrected body and his Mother had been transfigured by the spirit.  But why do we need to come up with a supernatural alternative for a natural result?

 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea that Christ's physical tabernacle was created by exactly the same method as every other physical body is just unacceptable to many for some reason. 

Which includes IVF these days.  For some it isn’t even sperm that is transferred into the mother’s body, but an embryo.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I just think it's fascinating that despite the vaguest of language in scripture and reference to his conception being hidden in poetic terms so many act so certain.

The idea that Christ's physical tabernacle was created by exactly the same method as every other physical body is just unacceptable to many for some reason.  As if the way our bodies are made is less  perfect.

Yes, his Father had an immortal resurrected body and his Mother had been transfigured by the spirit.  But why do we need to come up with a supernatural alternative for a natural result?

 

Because the miraculousness was that she was a virgin even after pregnancy!

[InCognitus]

On 1/18/2020 at 10:50 AM, marineland said:

This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual).
 
30 – The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though  
he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal  
Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966],  
155).
 
30 - Conclude by asking students what thoughts and feelings they have for the Savior  
as they consider His condescension and the miraculous nature of His birth.
 
What is miraculous about a birth between an immortal man and a mortal woman?

This is one of those topics that people will take however they want to see it.  I honestly came at this with an open mind when I researched this years ago, but I'm not sure I see enough real evidence for the idea that this was not a miraculous event.   The religion manual quotes McConkie, but observe the following quotations from the same author:

Quote

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.822,  VIRGIN BIRTH

 Virgin Birth

See ANNUNCIATION, BIRTH, CHRIST, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THEORY, MARY. 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.  (McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. 2nd ed., rev. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.)

And:

Quote

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pp.463-464

Jesus was thus conceived in the womb of Mary. He took upon himself the nature of man in the same way that all men do. And yet the account is particular to say Mary "was found with child of the Holy Ghost," and "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." If this is interpreted to mean that the Holy Ghost is the Father of our Lord, we can only say the record has come down to us in a corrupted form, for the Holy Spirit and the Father are two separate personages. But providentially there are parallel passages that clarify and expand upon the paternity of Him whom Mary bare.

 The Messianic language of Abinadi, speaking of things to come as though they had already happened, says: "He was conceived by the power of God." (Mosiah 15:3.)

Gabriel's great proclamation to Mary was: "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Mary asked how this could be, "seeing I know not a man?" Gabriel replied: "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." (Luke 1:31-35.)

All ambiguity and uncertainty of meaning, if there is any, is removed by Alma, whose Messianic utterance announced: "The Son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, 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 7:9-10.) Jesus, thus, is the Son of God, not of the Holy Ghost, and properly speaking Mary was with child "by the power of the Holy Ghost," rather than "of the Holy Ghost," and she was, of course, "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, in a way incomprehensible to us, when the miraculous conception took place.  (McConkie, Bruce R. The Promised Messiah. The Messiah Series, vol. 1. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978. , pp.463-464)

Now I think McConkie had Brigham Young in mind in his last paragraph, when he made the distinction that Jesus is the "Son of God", and not the son of the Holy Ghost, because that seems to be what Brigham Young was teaching when he said, "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness.  He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (JOD, Vol 1, p.50-51).  This is what I meant when I said the word "by" is not the same as the word "of".  It appears they are simply trying to say that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but Jesus was begotten by the power of the Holy Ghost in such a way that Mary remained a virgin.  This should not be a hard concept to grasp in our era of modern science, because now days it is possible for a virgin to conceive a baby without having sex.

Another thing that gets twisted is the idea that Jesus was born in a "natural" way, but this is really just another way to teach that Jesus is the literal Son of God.  A popular reference that is quoted to support this idea is also from McConkie:

Quote

SON OF GOD

"What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" (Matt. 22:42.) The true and revealed answer is: Christ is the Son of God and he has been so designated from the beginning to show the personal, intimate, family relationship that exists between him and his Father. (1 Ne. 10:17; 2 Ne. 25:12, 19; Alma 7:10; 3 Ne. 9:15; D. & C. 6:21; Matt. 27:43; John 10:36; Moses 6:54.)

 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. (1 Ne. 11.)   (McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine., p.742, 2nd ed., rev. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.)

Obviously, McConkie cannot be referring to physical sex in this article entry in Mormon Doctrine because in the very same volume under the topic “VIRGIN BIRTH” (quoted above) McConkie says that Jesus was born of a virgin.  In that article he also says that "the conception" of Jesus "took place by the power of the Holy Ghost."  In the article entry above, McConkie's emphasis is on the literal sonship of Jesus, the fact that he is literally the Son of God.  McConkie's reference to Jesus having been begotten in the same way as mortals is to this very point, the formation of the zygote, the embryo, the fetus that grew into the infant Jesus who was born of Mary.  Mary conceived and carried Jesus for the normal nine month gestation, and birthed Him as other mothers have done since the beginning of time (i.e. Jesus didn’t just miraculously appear in his mother's arms as an infant boy).  Thus, Mary is literally his mother, and God the Father is literally his Father.  There is nothing figurative about this.  Yet unlike mortal men, his conception took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost," which made it possible for Mary to remain a virgin. 

I'll add one more reference, this one from Encyclopedia of Mormonism (see: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Virgin_Birth )

Quote

Virgin Birth

Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. Of Old Testament prophets, Isaiah alone foretold this circumstance (Isaiah 7:14), but Book of Mormon prophets also foresaw the virgin birth. Nephi1 described Mary as "a virgin, most beautiful and fair" and "mother of the son of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Ne. 11:15, 18). Alma declared that Christ "shall be born of Mary…a virgin…who shall… conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God" (Alma 7:10).

 In fulfillment of these prophecies, Gabriel "was sent from God…to a virgin…and the virgin's name was Mary," and Gabriel announced to her that she would "bring forth a son, and…call his name Jesus." To her question, "How shall this be?" Gabriel answered, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee…therefore [the child]…born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:26-35). Thereafter, Joseph married Mary but "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (Matt. 1:25). Thus, Jesus was born of a mortal mother who was a virgin.   (Ludlow, Daniel H, ed. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 4 vols. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992.)

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by InCognitus

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

He was pretty clear.  But besides you hear hoofbeats, you think horses.

I don't see a reason to think anything about Christ's conception and birth wasn't traditional beyond the scriptual statements.

Luke 1:35 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.

Matt 1:18 ¶ 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.

We either take these literally or we go with natural means.  Neither verse indicates the method of conception and both indicate not the Father but the Holy Ghost that impregnated her.

All else is speculation.  Why assume some crazy celestial turkey baster theory?

Of course the pregnancy was according to natural means. But we don’t know the method, nor are we likely to in this life. Anything anyone says is useless speculation. 
 

BY had an opinion. But it wasn’t necessarily correct and was never propagated as doctrine. 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you think they weren't married?

We would have to assume a lot with absolutely nothing to support such assumptions.  That seems like a good reason right there not to think they were married.  Mary was never told she would need to marry God, the angel never mentioned it.  We have no record of her consent to such a thing.  No record of the marriage or even the need for it.  

You implied before that we should take the scriptures literally.  How can we follow that implication and also believe something that is not taught anywhere in the text? 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

We would have to assume a lot with absolutely nothing to support such assumptions.  That seems like a good reason right there not to think they were married.  Mary was never told she would need to marry God, the angel never mentioned it.  We have no record of her consent to such a thing.  No record of the marriage or even the need for it.  

You implied before that we should take the scriptures literally.  How can we follow that implication and also believe something that is not taught anywhere in the text? 

Do we really believe Christ's parents weren't married?  That his genetic father and mother were not under the covenants required.  That Jesus wasn't born under the covenant?

Sorry, that's too big a stretch for me.

I just don't believe in all these exemptions to eternal gospel laws people want to give Christ and his Father.  I prefer to believe they were perfectly obedient in all things.