The Virgin Birth

[_Jason Bourne]

Taking these facts into a doctrinal stance, here are some things that might be interesting to discuss and think about.

Why is it that Mormons, in particular, believe that the only way God the Father could bestow powers upon Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, would have to be done through physically "siring" him?

I think this is better said why did 19th century Mormons teach this and why did some 20th century GAs continue to do so? I do not know why. I think this has fallen out of favor.

Why could Jesus not be the physical son of Joseph and Mary? Joseph and Mary WERE married when Mary was pregnant with Jesus. The betrothal was the first state of marriage. The reason that Joseph had the option of Mary being "put away" is because she conceived during an "off season" time for a kingly line. Both Mary and Joseph were instructed by angels that the child Mary was carrying was the Messiah, or the rightful king of kings.

Sure. Some early Christians believe Jesus was an ordinary man who was adopted to be the Son of God at the time of his baptism. Though this was was later considered a heresy and stamped out.



I

[_The Nehor]

I think this is better said why did 19th century Mormons teach this and why did some 20th century GAs continue to do so? I do not know why. I think this has fallen out of favor.

Probably due to the advent of another famous virgin birth done by microscopic organisms within the mother's body and the coming forth of Darth Vader. Now it doesn't seem so silly.

[_Gazelam]

Liz,

I lost my original post from last night, it got erased somehow, so Ill try again.

First let me say that your discovery concerning the religious practices of the time was great. Very interesting reading, thanks for sharing it.



The important scripture reference here is found in 1 Nephi Chp.11
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 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.
19 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!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

As Nephi was instructed Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.

There is nothing incestual about this when you take into account the LDS understanding of the nature of our spirits. While God the Father is the Father of Mary in the sense that he awakened her and organized her intelligence, she is co-eternal with him in the sense that she has always existed just as he has.

[_Paracelsus]

Or should I remain on topic and handle another tale?

I would prefer you stay on topic for this thread, but your analysis sounds fascinating. It deserves a thread of it's own.

Really, I am not interested in the Rotkäppchen story.

For the Virgin Birth I prefer the version of Robert Graves.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Jesus:

King Jesus is a semi-historical novel by Robert Graves, first published in 1946. The novel is controversial for the way it treats Jesus not as the son of God, but rather as a philosopher with a legitimate claim to the Judaean throne through Herod the Great, and also for the way it treats numerous Biblical stories and contradictions while demystifying Jesus' life.

I don't want to tell you the story. Read it, it is a good book, and as it is not scripture so you should not believe in it. You should only think about.

In this book Jesus IS the grandson of Herod the Great. For other information read it. Making a tsantsa out of any book makes it unnecessary to read. (See FARMS reviews ...)
Books are to read.

Please don't forget, we are talking about a myth. It may be a special one, but anyway it is a myth. It didn't happen this way or that way, it didn't happen at all.
We can tell our opinion, we can say "I like one version more than all others".

[_Yoda]

I think this is better said why did 19th century Mormons teach this and why did some 20th century GAs continue to do so? I do not know why. I think this has fallen out of favor.

Probably due to the advent of another famous virgin birth done by microscopic organisms within the mother's body and the coming forth of Darth Vader. Now it doesn't seem so silly.

LOL!!

From one "Star Wars" nerd to another...I do love you, Nehor!

[_Yoda]

There is nothing incestual about this when you take into account the LDS understanding of the nature of our spirits. While God the Father is the Father of Mary in the sense that he awakened her and organized her intelligence, she is co-eternal with him in the sense that she has always existed just as he has.

You can't have it both ways, Gaz. Either the Proclamation of the Family and the Plan of Salvation are true, and we are eternal families from the beginning......or.....The Catholics and the Protestants are onto something, and we're all brothers and sisters in the next life.

The Mormons are the ones who insist that sex and creation of offspring last into the eternities.

My LDS understanding, as a member of the Church for 45 years....is that we are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. This includes Mary.

[_bcspace]

My LDS understanding, as a member of the Church for 45 years....is that we are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. This includes Mary.

That is correct. However, Mary is not his child in the physical sense, and of course, in that sense, no incest occured if sex was the way Jesus was brought into this life. Probably doesn't help you at all though........

All I can say is that I truely can't understand why such would be a problem for anyone.

[_harmony]

My LDS understanding, as a member of the Church for 45 years....is that we are the spirit children of our Heavenly Father. This includes Mary.

That is correct. However, Mary is not his child in the physical sense, and of course, in that sense, no incest occured if sex was the way Jesus was brought into this life. Probably doesn't help you at all though........

All I can say is that I truly can't understand why such would be a problem for anyone.

Then you see nothing wrong with any incest.

[_Yoda]

Probably doesn't help you at all though........

You're right. It doesn't. Incest is incest.

[_harmony]

Probably doesn't help you at all though........

You're right. It doesn't. Incest is incest.

The Devil's in De-tails!