A Miraculous Birth

[Stargazer]

17 hours 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.

Well, I do, actually.  If God isn't revealing anything to His prophet, why would he reveal anything to any of us?  You can't say that God told you something if you won't believe God told his prophet something.  And if God isn't speaking to you or his prophet, then you might as well assume God isn't speaking at all, and in that case, we're toast.

Just because Brigham had an opinion and shared it does not mean that God hadn't revealed important other things to him that were actually from God.  

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7 -- and if God has a prophet, he will reveal his doctrine to him.

And then we come to that question, what is doctrine?  The changes you seem to be referring to are not changes in doctrine, but changes in a procedures and guidelines.  Procedures and guidelines must change with circumstances.  The only changes in doctrine that occur seem to happen near the edges of dispensations, and for good reasons. For example, we no longer sacrifice animals in the temple.  Which is a change in doctrine, but only because the ultimate sacrifice (Christ's) has superseded those.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Please help me define God...is he Mary's husband or daughter?

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you think they weren't married?

I had a Sunday School teacher once suggest that they were.  But this is not taught in the church as doctrine.  And whether I believe it or not is immaterial to my salvation.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I do, actually.  If God isn't revealing anything to His prophet, why would he reveal anything to any of us?  You can't say that God told you something if you won't believe God told his prophet something.  And if God isn't speaking to you or his prophet, then you might as well assume God isn't speaking at all, and in that case, we're toast.

Just because Brigham had an opinion and shared it does not mean that God hadn't revealed important other things to him that were actually from God.  

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7 -- and if God has a prophet, he will reveal his doctrine to him.

And then we come to that question, what is doctrine?  The changes you seem to be referring to are not changes in doctrine, but changes in a procedures and guidelines.  Procedures and guidelines must change with circumstances.  The only changes in doctrine that occur seem to happen near the edges of dispensations, and for good reasons. For example, we no longer sacrifice animals in the temple.  Which is a change in doctrine, but only because the ultimate sacrifice (Christ's) has superseded those.

Then why does Joseph try to bring back many edges that Christ got rid of? For instance Joseph did try to bring back animal sacrifice, unless the quote is false. He also brings back polygamy, and thinks restore means to bring back things in the Old Testament. And at one time, many prophets believed the ban on blacks holding the PH was doctrine. 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Then why does Joseph try to bring back many edges that Christ got rid of? For instance Joseph did try to bring back animal sacrifice, unless the quote is false. He also brings back polygamy, and thinks restore means to bring back things in the Old Testament. And at one time, many prophets believed the ban on blacks holding the PH was doctrine. 

Never heard Joseph tried to bring back animal sacrifice.  But apparently, animal sacrifice will be restored briefly in the runup to the Second Coming, since in the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist, it was said by him (John) that the priesthood of Aaron "shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." (D&C 13).  Interestingly, it is said that in modern Israel they are now working to prepare for the time when the sacrifices will again be performed in the Temple at Jerusalem (after the mosque on the Temple Mount is thrown down, of course). So we have this going on: Activists carry out Passover Sacrifice ritual at foot of Temple Mount (in March 2018). I doubt this constitutes an offering "in righteousness", since apparently the sacrifice must occur in the Temple, which doesn't yet exist.

Polygamy was never actually done away with.  Christ said nothing about it, let alone got rid of it.  The Jews after Christ's time were still practicing it, and probably the only reason it died out as a practice in Christianity was because it was forbidden by Roman law.  When Henry VIII was trying to solve his problem of getting a male heir by Catherine of Aragon, his wife at the time, he inquired of Martin Luther for advice. Luther advised him that divorcing her or annulling their marriage was unjust to Catherine, and suggested that he just take a second wife -- clearly recognizing that the Bible had nothing against it.

"Restore" in the context of the "Restoration of All Things" does not mean bringing back "things which were in the Old Testament."  There was much that was lost via the Great Apostasy that needed restoring, including priesthood authority, correct doctrine, and ordinances, such as baptism and endowment. Baptism was changed from immersion to sprinkling (or even done away with entirely), baptism for the dead and endowment were lost completely. Restoration also included doing away with apostate practices, such as forbidding priests to marry and requiring people perform acts of penance in order to gain forgiveness of sin (instead of relying solely upon the sacrifice of Christ). 

 

[InCognitus]

16 hours 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?

I haven't found anything from the scriptures or from the statements of church leaders to indicate that there was anything unnatural about the birth of Jesus and his parentage, except for the method of impregnation.  And even that doesn't sound far out by today's medical capabilities.  The scriptures say that Mary was with child "of the Holy Ghost", and I think that is referring to the method of impregnation just like those references I provided earlier say.

[longview]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Correct.  God the Father did NOT marry Mary.

Required?  You need to specify which one.

Careful.  Force fitting "requirements" will lead you astray.

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I haven't found anything from the scriptures or from the statements of church leaders to indicate that there was anything unnatural about the birth of Jesus and his parentage, except for the method of impregnation.  And even that doesn't sound far out by today's medical capabilities.  The scriptures say that Mary was with child "of the Holy Ghost", and I think that is referring to the method of impregnation just like those references I provided earlier say.

No one should put a limit on God's capabilities.  He did not need to have "relations" with Mary.  God has power of all kinds to move matter hither and thither.  Mary was a chosen VESSEL as stated by Alma:

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, 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.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Where does it teach that Christ needs to be sealed to God the Father and Mary?

Christ's relationship to God is an exception.  

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where does it teach that Christ needs to be sealed to God the Father and Mary?

Christ's relationship to God is an exception.  

Again with the man-made exceptions...

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again with the man-made exceptions...

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the teaching that Christ is the only begotten son of God is man-made?  That His relationship to God is not an exception?

Again, are there any scriptures that support your opinion on this?  Anything that teaches that Christ must be sealed to Adam’s lineage?

Edited January 20, 2020 by bluebell

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again with the man-made exceptions...

What about God-made exceptions?  Do you know anyone else who was born on this planet from a mortal mother and an immortal Father?  In what way is Jesus the "only begotten" of the Father?

Edit:  Just noticed that bluebell said kind of the same thing (I need to pay attention before posting!)

Edited January 20, 2020 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2020 at 9:50 AM, marineland said:

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

Oh heck I don't know.

Happens all the time.🙄

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2020 at 2:09 PM, 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.

He spent too much time in a barnyard than to understand anything else

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2020 at 3:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Eons earlier his Father voluntarily gave up transcendence to take on immanence for the sake of his children.

It was always part of the plan.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2020 at 5:24 PM, 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?

With comments like that it's pretty easy to see why we don't know the answer.

Disgusting.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2020 at 3:47 PM, 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.

Who else is there?

[Rivers]

On 1/18/2020 at 11:58 AM, 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.

It was done through the manipulation of mitichlorians.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

With comments like that it's pretty easy to see why we don't know the answer.

Disgusting.

I'm not the one coming up with theories about IVF, magical embryo formation, genetic material teleportation and so on.

All because we can't accept that Christ's body might have been created by the same act as virtually everyone else.

Maybe the comment was a little crass, but it was only to emphasize the ridiculous speculation that is favored over a natural act.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who else is there?

Ourselves? 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ourselves? 

We are just men and women though, right?  What is it that makes us trustworthy to always communicate with God correctly that is inherently untrustworthy in a prophet?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not the one coming up with theories about IVF, magical embryo formation, genetic material teleportation and so on.

All because we can't accept that Christ's body might have been created by the same act as virtually everyone else.

Maybe the comment was a little crass, but it was only to emphasize the ridiculous speculation that is favored over a natural act.

We're talking about Christ right?  Christ, who did all sorts of things during His life and death, including being resurrected, that cannot be explained as being the result of natural acts?  Why is his conception the one time that it is ridiculous to consider that something outside of how things normally happen in the mortal world occurred?

 

[mfbukowski]

On 1/18/2020 at 10:45 AM, bluebell said:

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.

I don't know why they want a scientific answer. It's a waste of time we can't possibly know how it was done.

The big questions in life are never about how they are about why.

But if you want a Scientific answer:

Cloning.

Why is Christ supposed to look exactly like his father?

Nice and clean, no barnyard analogies needed

And if you believe in immortality for humans it becomes a non-issue. You just turn on that Gene.

"Only begotten" is, as always, ambiguous 

Edited January 20, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 1/20/2020 at 9:46 AM, mfbukowski said:

He spent too much time in a barnyard than to understand anything else

I don't think Brigham spent much time in a barnyard; maybe not any.  What are you trying to say?