Why do some LDS still deny that their belief is that God came to earth as flesh and had sex with Mary??
The birth of the Savior 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 are of our fathers. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:115
Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 1585.
The flesh body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158
They change the definition of the word virgin. Mormons feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had sex with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the Mormon 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:
* "For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).
In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin.
* By "Virgin birth", Mormons mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!
- Cookie777Lv 61 decade ago
The Book of Mormon says, without any further details:
1 Nephi 11:18-20
"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.
"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!
"And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."
Here the language clearly states that Mary was a virgin both before and after having the baby Jesus. It doesn't matter what 19-century leaders were discussing, because until it is printed in the Standard Works, it is not any more valid than what Jewish rabbis might opine in the Talmud, and arguably even less so. Until someone finds a single account that says Brigham Young or Orson Pratt or anyone else actually had an open vision of the conception process that occurred, I will quote Nephi's personal vision in the Book of Mormon over and over again to you and anyone else with questions. It may be that God used a divine form of artificial insemination, which would indeed leave Mary still a virgin. However, such science did not even occur to anyone in the 19th century, no matter who they were, as the process did not even exist yet, to the best of my knowledge.
Have a happy day, and I send you a gummy bear.
- Brother GLv 61 decade ago
Hmm Does it say they had sex? Meaning God the Father and Mary? NO
You ignore the same sources that say Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus..
Also the Seer by Orson Pratt is a book that is not doctrinal and is called heretical by the church when it came out.
- Free To Be MeLv 61 decade ago
Kamikaze, may I respectfully suggest that you carefully read the answers that have been given here. Your sources at best are shaky and involve much speculation. The official teaching of the Church is that our Lord was born of a virgin. Period. This was given by our prophet today, and many other prophets before him.
Your sources have misused information to lead you to believe something that is false. I would definitely not trust someone, no matter how "good" their intentions are, who is trying hard to get me to believe something that they know is a bunch of lies. The worst part is that they think that they are justified because they are "serving God."
Those who crucified our Lord claimed that they were doing God a favor, too.Source(s): My birth father used to be a pastor who indulged in Mormon bashing. (He gave me up for adoption over money.)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
What? What is so wrong with those quotes?
First to quote LDS leaders I have to assume you believe them also?
Second, part of this doctrine is the belief of Pre-mortal life. That we lived as spirits before we came to this earth.
Third, part of the doctrine of Pre-mortal life is being "foreordained" to certain things here on earth. (see Jeremiah 1:5), We do believe that prophets were foreordained to be prophets. I believe completely that Marry was foreordained to be the Mother of Jesus.
In what manner that took place I don't know. If that was in some way God having Mary as a pre-mortal wife so be it???
Are you saying god does thing out side the bonds of marrage?
- 1 decade ago
The Almighty Father imbues whomesoever he desires with his spirit. The child jesus was of the holy spirit not Mary. The Father does not partake of fleshly pleasures. Heavenly spiritual love is far more intense.
Why on earth would he who owns the world take a wife..? Who would or could be considered worthy of that role and title
Excessive education leads to dementia. Small brain capacities endeavouring to take upon the largesse of the wisdom of God, remain ignorant and are reduced to much babbling on unspecific and ill informed nonsense.
- 1 decade ago
The reason Mormons deny this idea is because they really don't believe it. It is not Mormon doctrine that God had intercourse with Mary. (Most of the scandalous doctrines anti-Mormons claim we believe are crafted lies to paint us in a poor light.)
All the quotes you cited are from two centuries ago and published in books that Mormons do not consider to be theologically binding or necessarily authoritative.
- 1 decade ago
Ok, so I take issue with your interpretation of the quotes you used, as well as your interpretation of our doctrine. This is going to be a long one, so please be patient.
Concerning all of your quotes, they do not represent scripture, and are not viewed as such by us. There are reasons why the Journal of Discourses, The Seer (which I've only today even heard of), Mormon Doctrine, etc are not considered scripture. I don't personally know all the reasons why, but I'm sure it's because they do contain the errors of men.
Now, for your first quote. In reading this quote (for the first time I might add) I read it as a comment on the fact that the Savior was born of Mary just as all humans are born of their Mothers (except Adam and Eve), and that He was not created outside the womb. This being the case, it stands to reason that He was conceived in the womb as well. Personally I don't know if God had sex with Mary in the same way that a husband and wife have sex and create a child, or if it was in some other manner in which one of His sperm was implanted into her (I know it's a wild thought, but as a child after I learned about sex it seemed like a reasonable theory).
Your second quote: I must point out that it says "it MAY be", not that it IS. These are his opinions, his theories. As for him saying that God was her "first husband", I chalk that up to a matter of convienence. It is much easier to see God as her husband, and therefore having a legitimate (as far as Man sees it) right to produce a child with her than to infer that it was not legally or morally right. No one (in or out of the church) teaches, believes or intends to infer that God did anything that would be considered wrong or illegal or immoral to Mary while Christ was conceived. Therefore it seems rather politically correct (in a good way, not in the way it is now) to say that God was her first husband.
Third quote: Again, I see it as an issue of trying to clear up any misconceptions associated with the legality and morality of God's actions, which I have already commented on.
Your first comment about our beliefs: I've never heard or been taught what you claim we believe. I've been a member for 15 years, and converted just a month before turning 20.
Your fourth quote: Not knowing your belief of what an immortal being is, I say, our belief of an immortal being may be slightly different than yours. We believe that God was once a mortal man, and as such had sperm. We believe that when God went from being a mortal to an immortal, that He still retained the physical features of a mortal man, in that He has a body of flesh and bones, that He still had need of sperm in order to physically create a Child. God can not be in the presence of unclean things, He is also (of course) Diety. Diety are immortal. (Not all immortals are Diety, but all Diety are immortals.) To suggest that Mary was anything but a virgin and therefore clean (especially in terms of sexual purity) also suggests that God could have been in the presence of uncleanness, which He can't because He is God/Diety/immortal.
Your second comment about our beliefs beginning with "In other words": Since we don't know exactly how God's sperm met with Mary's egg, how on earth can we draw such a conclusion!
And again, I repeat that these books from which you get these quotes are not considered scripture. We are counseled repeatedly when preparing lessons that we are to use only the manuals provided, and the scriptures as our sources of information, not other sources of information even if they are written by LDS authors, even if they are Apostles.
EDIT: ...YahooPulpit lol, I like it. Way to go norrispenguin!
EDIT: ha, asker, I just noticed your name, it suits you :)
- hollisterLv 44 years ago
No and no. The God having sex with Mary is in accordance to some costs that were opinion, no longer doctrine, that were taken out of context. i imagine what replaced into being suggested replaced into that Christ replaced into made actually an similar way we were, as in, genetic textile from 2 human beings. no longer as in having sex. As for Jesus having been married, there is no doctrine about that both way. some human beings contained in the church have self assurance He replaced into, some do not. the in hassle-free words position I easily have heard that Jesus replaced right into a polygamist replaced into via human beings on right here who've suggested it really is what we've self assurance. provided that i have under no circumstances heard it in church, i might want to say it really is definitely no longer even on the fringe of what we've self assurance. EDIT: None of what Ezek revealed is doctrine. The Seer is taken into consideration Heretical and the church easily made a aspect of protecting it really isn't any longer doctrine. Mormon Doctrine isn't doctrine both. it really is the critiques of Bruce R. Mckonkie. The church took situation with that e book besides. we do not have self assurance our leaders to be infallible. We actually have self assurance they are allowed their personal critiques. in the journey that they say something from the pulpit, we are to desire about it and ascertain for ourselves no matter if that's God's be conscious. also, to make certain that issues to be considered doctrine now, a truth has to has the signature of all 3 contributors of the first presidency.
- CurlySueLv 61 decade ago
You've had several LDS answers telling you with doctrinal references that that belief is false.
Why do you still deny that Mormons don't believe in that interpretation of yours, is my question.
Could it be that you just don't get it and you should just accept that you might not understand and can ACTUALLY BE wrong? Or are you to proud to admit that you're wrong?
You're what I would classify as a false prophet. Someone claiming they know the truth, when they say everything else is false.
- 1 decade ago
Thses are not legitimate quotes. They are theories and ideas presented by prominent Mormons, but are not cannonized, or even expressed as doctrine by the authorities of the church. In the case of Orson Pratt, they actually have been identified as FALSE by the authorities of the LDS church.
What have the Mormons done to you to make you so hateful? What motives do you have to present slander? Or are you just so ignorant as to believe these things? If you do the research to find quotes by Orson Pratt, you must also do the research to find that those statements have been declared by the actual church to be false! But no, you just want to be hateful and mean. Some Christian you make. In Galatians we are taught to recognize Things from God as being loving and kind. Clearly, your message does not come from God. Which only gives you one other option.
Satan, I rebuke you.