The Virgin Birth
Yesterday the Narrator shared with us a paper for his Mormon Theology class entitled, “What do we Really Really Believe—Facing Harder Issues.” I thought the paper was quite fascinating. I became interested in one of the examples in which Robert Millet teaches a woman what Mormons “really believe” about the Virgin Birth of Christ:
Millet’s point (at least expounded by the Narrator) is that true Mormon Doctrine has “sticking power,” and if it isn’t taught in the Church today, it isn’t what we “really, really believe.” According to Millet, “True Doctrine. . . is taught and discussed and perpetuated over time.” A belief is ‘unstuck’ as “falsehood and error [are] eventually. . . detected and dismissed” by Church leaders.After the meeting an LDS woman came up to me [Robert Millet] and said: “You didn’t tell the truth about what we believe!” Startled, I asked: “What do you mean?” She responded: “You said we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and you know very well that we don’t believe that.” “Yes we do,” I retorted . . . “I’m aware of [the teaching that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary], but that is not the doctrine of the Church; that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the curricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?”
This was the first time that I had heard that the Father being the literal parent of Christ was being downplayed in the Church. So I did a little poking around to see just what kind of “sticking power” this teaching had. Here are a few things I found:
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)
The fleshly 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... 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 the 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 158)
They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible...Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God! Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18)
I likewise believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ. With all my soul I believe in him, and I put my hope of peace in this life and of exaltation and happiness in the life to come in the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe he was a Son of God in the same sense that we were sons and daughters of God in the spirit, and I believe that he was and is the Son of God in the flesh. I do not believe that Joseph was the father of Jesus Christ, although I do believe that he was a good and great man. I believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus as my mother was my mother, and I believe that the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh was Elohim, my Eternal and Heavenly Father.” (Elder Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1948, Second Day Morning Meeting, p.77)
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. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 742)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7).
Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son." (Gospel Principles, pg.64).
For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman (see Virgin Birth). Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title "the Only Begotten Son of God" (John 3:16; Benson, p. 3; see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). He was not the son of the Holy Ghost; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35; 1 Ne. 11:19). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ, Fatherhood And Sonship)
Talk about “sticking power!” God’s literal paternity of Jesus has been taught in the Church for 170 years. I found no evidence that this doctrine is now being dismissed by Church leaders. Has anyone heard anyone besides Robert Millet preach the Virgin Birth (other than our usual apologetic that she was technically a virgin because her relations with the Father were with an immortal being)? Have Mormons become ashamed of this teaching? I’d like to hear if this teaching bothers any of my readers, what in particular they are disturbed by, and whether they believe the Church is trying to effect a change.
Labels: doctrinal
posted by Bored in Vernal @ 10:23 PM
25 comments
25 Comments:
I don't think the Church is playing down the doctrine that God literally fathered Jesus Christ. However, while I think that most Latter-day Saints believe that Christ was literally God's Only Begotten Son, I think we are downplaying the doctrine that God had sexual intercourse with Mary.
It sounds a little paradoxical, but I grew up under the impression that while God was Christ's literal father, Jesus was conceived through some supernatural process rather than literal intercourse, thus preserving Mary's status as a "virgin."
It's not uncommon for GAs to refer to God as the literal Father of Jesus, while still referring to Mary as a virgin. For example:
"Yes, God was the father of His fleshly tabernacle, and Mary—a mortal woman and a virgin—was His mother. He is, therefore, the only person born who rightfully deserves the title 'the Only Begotten Son of God.'" (Ezra Taft Benson, “Jesus Christ: Our Savior, Our God,” Ensign, Apr. 1991, 2)
I honestly have never thought much about this issue. I always believed that God was Christ's literal Father, but that He didn't actually have intercourse with Mary. Maybe that's just me though.
Steve,
Good point--just about all the quotes I read last night could be taken to mean that Mary was impregnated by God the Father through some supernatural process; or even a procedure such as insemination. I don't believe, however, that in the early days that is what they meant to say. (see, for example, Orson Pratt.) And there hasn't been an official statement that clearly refutes this teaching. Thus, some LDS believe it and some don't.
What do we "really, really believe?"
PS: Commenters telling me things are "not essential to my eternal salvation" are not welcome on this blog. :]
I don't believe, however, that in the early days that is what they meant to say. (see, for example, Orson Pratt.) And there hasn't been an official statement that clearly refutes this teaching.
Oh yeah, I totally agree. I think the early leaders meant that Mary was impregnated by God through literal intercourse.
The Church doesn't seem too keen on retracting anything previous leaders said. Which is unfortunate when it comes to issues like racist teachings in our history.
I haven't been keeping up with mainstream Church doctrines for the past few years, however I do remember being taught that Jesus is the literal son of God. Specifically, that when He suffered in Gethsemane, He was able to suffer for the sins of the world due to His immortality. In order to die on the cross, He had to shed that immortality and His mortal side is what let Him die. (Unfortunately I don't have the scriptures or quotes to back that up, sorry.)
I think what we really, really believe is the what, not the how. God is literally Jesus' Father. I suspect the how isn't talked about because it falls outside the realm of necessary knowledge. Not that we can't think about it, but I just don't think we are supposed to expect that all non-salvation-producing knowledge will be expounded upon. I think that is why our leaders don't spend time and energy trying to either support or refute all past teachings. As interesting as it would be, it would most likely be a distraction to the core of their callings. And besides, what would be left for us to mull over and figure out on our own? :)
I wasn't trying to get kicked off your blog...just pointing out why I think we don't hear our leaders talking about this kind of thing, or spending time going through past quotes, supporting or refuting them. Again, not that I don't understand the desire to understand, but I do think there are things that God lets us ponder on our own.
OK, M&M, I'll let it slide just this once.
I just don't think we are supposed to expect that all non-salvation-producing knowledge will be expounded upon.
The problem here is that this is a teaching that has been expounded upon. Like several other problematic doctrines, it has been taught in official Church publications, in General Conference, and by the General Authorities of the Church. I was taught that the Father had relations with Mary to conceive his Son when I was a college student. I have believed this for 30 years. Apparently I am not the only one. I rather like the teaching, and am not embarrassed by it. It fits in quite well with traditional LDS thought. Tell me, M&M, what is one to do? As the Narrator wrote about in his paper, this is only a small example of a dilemma which often arises when a Latter-day Saint encounters these ambiguities. Should members continue to believe a teaching which was quite standard in the Church for some time? Should they change their thinking when they realize that a spokesman such as Robert Millet is now teaching something in opposition to that which was once believed? (Remember that no official change has been made.) Or shall we continue to avoid the harder issues?
Are you annoyed with me? Sorry if I bugged.
I think we can think what we want if current teachings don't either refute or clarify. Robert Millet is hardly an official spokesperson. I don't argue with the literal Fatherhood of God and the only official statements in your collection tell simply that -- the WHAT. They don't describe the HOW. It isn't doctrine to describe the how, so Millet was right on that. But if you want to consider unofficial statements by earlier leaders, nothings stops you or anyone from doing this. In fact, a religion prof I highly respect repeated those earlier teachings and was quite comfortable with them. Actually, I don't have a problem with that idea being possible, either, but I'm not going to preach it as THE doctrine of the Church because I don't think it ever has been.
Ambiguity leaves two choices. Either study and search and ponder and pray to see if one gets direction and insight (that can't be preached as doctrine but might be interesting to mull over), or let it go. I don't know that it needs to be something that becomes "a dilemma."
Official doctrine is always what comes through living prophets. I think that is all Millet was saying. I can't help but wonder if he considers the earlier statements as possibly true. But he's smart not to go on record as proclaiming something as doctrine that isn't.
So, I'm curious to know what would change if we knew the details of the how in this issue. Would it change anything? If everything was crystal clear, there would be no questions left to ask, right? :)
But he's smart not to go on record as proclaiming something as doctrine that isn't.
But isn't that exactly what he's doing?
I suspect the how isn't talked about because it falls outside the realm of necessary knowledge. Not that we can't think about it, but I just don't think we are supposed to expect that all non-salvation-producing knowledge will be expounded upon.
Sorry to get hung up on this, but I have a few issues with this oft-used argument.
There are areas of Mormonism that are gray and speculative. I sometimes think we get carried away with speculation, and the answers to certain questions really probably aren't that important (e.g., whether or not Adam had a belly button).
However, the acquisition of knowledge--all kinds of knowledge--was central to Joseph Smith's concept of salvation. Joseph taught that as a man increased in intelligence, he became more like God. The revelations are filled with seemingly "non-necessary" or "non-salvation-producing knowledge." Think of Abraham's vision of the cosmos--is a knowledge of Kolob necessary to salvation? Probably not, but it's there. What about Joseph's teachings that the earth, in its sanctified state, would be a sea of glass or a huge Urim and Thummim? Or that each person entering the celestial kingdom will receive a white stone with a new name written on it? What this even means is mind-boggling, but it's in the revelations. Joseph's teachings are full of this stuff. To him, knowledge exalted man; there was no "non-necessary" knowledge.
So I don't think we can dismiss doctrinal issues--especially the one at issue here, upon which so many GAs have weighed in--on the grounds that they're simply not necessary for salvation.
But isn't that exactly what he's doing?
I don't see it that way. I see him saying that this (the 'how') is not official doctrine because it hasn't stuck and been repeated. It's sort of like the whole Jesus was married thing. Early leaders took stabs at it, current leaders don't, and go so far as to say that the Church doesn't have an official position on it. I would suspect He was married, but I think it's important to trust our leaders and what they choose to focus on and make doctrinal. Some things they may not know for sure, and some things they may choose not to address. But that doesn't mean we can't personally ponder and pray about these things. The scriptures tell us we can know the mystery of all things until we know them in full. T fulness will be built on a foundation of doctrine and then the rest will be received through personal revelation.
So I don't think we can dismiss doctrinal issues--especially the one at issue here, upon which so many GAs have weighed in--on the grounds that they're simply not necessary for salvation.
I'm not dismissing it. "So many GAs" did not weigh in on the HOW. They weighed in on the what, with a few taking a stab at the how. As BiV said, most of the quotes could be interpreted as being simply a statement about the WHAT, not the HOW.
I fully believe in what JS said about intelligence and knowledge. All I am saying is that not all knowledge will come specifically through the prophets, and we shouldn't expect that it will. I think that is something that should excite those of us who like to seek and learn, not frustrate or bewilder or create a dilemma.
I think it's important to trust our leaders and what they choose to focus on and make doctrinal.
Sorry for a tangent, but this raises an important question... Is something 'doctrine' by virtue of it being 'true' (e.g., it accurately describes reality), or merely by virtue of it being declared 'doctrinal' by an authority?
I don't think we can say they're one in the same. Brigham was pretty bold about saying that the Adam-God theory was doctrine (i.e., true), as was Joseph about the theory that God was once a man. But later authorities have case doubt on both of these doctrines (even declaring Adam-God a "heresy").
Just a question and a thought.
Steve M.,
I think what we see over time is that doctrine is established not by a one-time thing, but by the very sticking power that is addressed in this post. That, I think, was Millet's point. We can't isolate a quote here or there and call it doctrine. We create dilemma when we do that. Since we don't believe leader are infallible, isolated statements are subject to error. (That doesn't mean that every isolate quote IS in error, though.)
Doctrine sticks around; it doesn't change; it is repeated throughout the decades. That won't mean that isolated quotes along the way are all going to be false, either, IMO. But "doctrinal" isn't just about someone in authority saying something once. It's about the law of witnesses and the test of time that give teachings doctrinal legitimacy.
So, by that definition, we believe in the doctrine that the Savior was and is God's only Begotten in the flesh. As far as I am aware, that has always been taught. The doctrine, however, does not get into the how.
Adam-God never passed the test of time or repetition. Brigham was a prophet, but he wasn't infallible. :)
The doctrine, however, does not get into the how.
p.s. Even the quotes that try to address the "how" could leave plenty of room for things to happen in ways that perhaps we aren't aware are possible.
Personally, I think it's enough to know that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't know that the how is really important at this point. Not that I begrudge someone wanting to understand it, but I think we set ourselves up for frustration when we expect things like this to come from our leaders (even if past leaders wanted to take a stab at something). IMO, we will have a lot greater chance of finding out mysteries of godliness by trusting first in our leaders, not wishing they were doing something different. I think they teach us the things that allow us to find out more of the mysteries on our own.
It's about the law of witnesses and the test of time that give teachings doctrinal legitimacy.
But that doesn't address the question of whether doctrine is classified as such because it is actually descriptive of reality, or whether it becomes such merely through being taught by authority figures. That is, is X teaching "doctrine" because it's literally true, or is it "doctrine" because Gordon B. Hinckley and a lot of other GAs have taught it throughout the history of the Church?
We can't isolate a quote here or there and call it doctrine...
Adam-God never passed the test of time or repetition.
How much repitition is necessary? Brigham Young taught the doctrine multiple times, in public and in private, over several years. It was incorporated into the endowment ceremony. Other leaders embraced and taught the doctrine.
The doctrine clearly didn't pass the test of time. It didn't have that "sticking power," I suppose. But I don't think we're talking about one or two "isolated" quotes. We're talking about a doctrine that was developed over several years and integrated into LDS temple worship.
That is, is X teaching "doctrine" because it's literally true, or is it "doctrine" because Gordon B. Hinckley and a lot of other GAs have taught it throughout the history of the Church?
How do you suppose one knows if a doctrine is literally true or not true?
I believe the two to be pretty much synonomous. The Spirit leads me to accept and follow their teachings, and as I do, I feel they are true. I personally think that a lot of focus and concern with why current leaders don't teach some of what past leaders teach is more distraction to learning more than anything else.
I think this is part of the reason, too, that we have the teachings of the prophets curriculum. It helps us see what has been repeated through the decades/centuries of the Restoration. There is PLENTY of repetition and consistency in the docrine.
As to Adam-God, that is one that I am not convinced is understood well, and I don't much worry about it. It seems that sometimes this is brought up as a reason to not trust our leaders, and I think that is a mistake. In the end, I do think we are held to what our current leaders teach and uphold. I think the Lord cares a lot more about what we do with the things our leaders whom we sustain teach rather than what we think about stuff that has faded over time.
I'm still curious to know what you think about the question you posed to me.
I think that truth exists independent of authority. The leaders of the LDS Church, as well as those of other faiths, do their best to grasp that truth and teach it to their followers, and I think they do a damn good job, for the most part.
But I have a hard time making "truth" or "morality" contingent upon one's authority. If doctrine is supposed to be literally true, then it should be independent of authority. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.
So I have a hard time accepting that something is true or false simply because a lot of men in authority say it's true. I think our leaders, inspired as they are, do a great job approximating truth, but because we're human, we're never going to be totally right about anything.
I don't think our leaders create truth, but they are authorized to teach it. Of course, there is more to know beyond what they teach us, but I believe they play a significant role in helping us figure out some pretty important elements of life and faith. I think if we don't accept the doctrine they teach, we will have less ability to know truth.
Thanks for clarifying what you mean, btw. I wasn't quite sure where you wanted to go with that, but now I think it makes more sense.
I don't want to play the its not important card, but is it really any of our business. I mean, maybe we don't know the How precisely because it is just a little too sacred to be held up as the object of ridicule from those on the outside. I don't know if I would want my sex life to become the object of heated theological debates. It seems irreverent to the extreme to get in a tit for tat with an evangelical over such a private and sacred idea, aside from the fact that really only Mary knows, and she kept these things in her heart and pondered them.
I don't know if I would want my sex life to become the object of heated theological debates.
I would agree, except that the Bible and the Book of Mormon make such a point of calling Mary a "virgin." The exact details of how Jesus was conceived may be insignificant, but I believe that any doctrine or teaching that calls into question the virgin birth, a tenet of Christianity for centuries, is worth discussing, and shouldn't be so quickly thrown into the "we don't need to know" pile.
To get back to the original question -- this whole post surprised me. I'd never heard the theory that God actually had intercourse with Mary. So I'd have to say that it's a theory that is definitely being downplayed. Like Steve M, I've always been taught (and believed) that God was Christ's literal father (i.e. provided the necessary genetic material). I've never thought that he had sex with Mary, though. I honestly haven't ever thought about it that much, but I guess I've always been under the impression that it was some type of artificial insemination or the like.
I mean, maybe we don't know the How precisely because it is just a little too sacred to be held up as the object of ridicule from those on the outside.
I actually tend to agree with this, which would be another possible reason it's not discussed publicly. What matters is that He is the Son of God. And I don't think Mary's virginity was ever in question in our doctrine, anyway.
it is just a little too sacred to be held up as the object of ridicule from those on the outside.
How do we determine when something is too sacred to talk about, and when something is so sacred that it needs to be shared with everyone we know?
Let me explain. We hold up the atonement of Christ and the First Vision as some of the most sacred things that have ever occured in the history of mankind. We clearly reverence them, and so we talk about them as frequently as possible. These are some of the first things that we tell investigators about. It seems that we are so willing to talk about these precisely because they are so central and sacred.
However, with other things (e.g., the temple, Heavenly Mother, the manner of Jesus' conception), we don't talk about them openly, apparently because they are so sacred. Well, what determines when something sacred should or should not be talked about?
I'm not trying to be contentious (although, I do admit to being somewhat of a "devil's advocate"). But seriously, I've wondered about this for a long time.
To be frank, it seems more likely to me that it comes down to what we're comfortable talking about, and the degree of certainty we have about the ideas being discussed, rather than the degree of sanctity surrounding such issues (except in extraordinary cases, such as specific portions of the temple ceremony which we've covenanted not to reveal outside the temple).
Just a thought.
How do we determine when something is too sacred to talk about, and when something is so sacred that it needs to be shared with everyone we know?
I think we can often look to our prophets to know what can be talked about. Consider, for example, how they talk about how intimate relationships between a husband and wife are sacred and private. I think doc brought up a good point that this is likely good counsel to consider when deciding what to do with the topic at hand.
I also think Al. 12:9 gives good guidelines regarding your question.
"It is given unto many to aknow the bmysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart conly according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him."
What is sacred and should not be discussed openly is that which is not included in the word the Lord allows to be proclaimed to the Church, and the world, at large.
I wouldn't assume that just because our leaders don't talk about some questions we might have doesn't mean they don't always know. Sure, there are things they have admitted they don't know, but I am certain there are also things they simply don't tell because the Lord knows they can keep a secret. :) (If I had my Infobase I could find the quote about how the Lord would reveal more to us if we knew how to keep secrets....)
There is no question that it was taught in the church that Elohim had sexual relations with Mary to conceive her (their) son Jesus. Several years back it seemed to have dropped off the screen, so I asked the local CES person about it. He said they (CES teachers) had been instructed not to teach it, and if it came up to say the birth of Jesus was a sacred subject for which we did not have all of the details. He told me of one teacher who got into serious trouble for continuing to teach it. Bob Millet as a BYU professor is under the direction of CES, and of course would comply with the directives. But I can assure you is well aware of what the doctrine has been for many years, and why the Church is backing away from, and downplaying such radical positions.
Post a Comment
<< Home