FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Jesus Christ/Conception"
m (→Further reading) |
(Added some more info and quotes) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Indeed, as President Ezra Taft Benson taught: | Indeed, as President Ezra Taft Benson taught: | ||
| − | :He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, '''both before and after she gave birth'''. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.){{ref|benson1}} | + | :He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, '''both before and after she gave birth'''. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/20#20 1 Nephi 11:20].){{ref|benson1}} |
President Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even after conceiving and bearing Jesus. | President Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even after conceiving and bearing Jesus. | ||
| − | + | ===Theological differences=== | |
Leaders' statements on the 'natural' birth of Christ were often a reaction to various ideas which they considered to be false: | Leaders' statements on the 'natural' birth of Christ were often a reaction to various ideas which they considered to be false: | ||
* they disagreed with the tendency of conventional Christianity to deny the corporeality of God. They thus insisted that God the Father had a 'natural,' physical form. There was no need, in LDS theology, for a non-physical, wholly spirit God to resort to a mysterious process to conceive a Son. | * they disagreed with the tendency of conventional Christianity to deny the corporeality of God. They thus insisted that God the Father had a 'natural,' physical form. There was no need, in LDS theology, for a non-physical, wholly spirit God to resort to a mysterious process to conceive a Son. | ||
* they disagreed with efforts to 'allegorize' or 'spiritualize' the virgin birth; they wished it understood that Christ is the literal Son of God in a physical, 'natural' sense of sharing both human and divine traits in His makeup. This can be seen to be a reaction against more 'liberal' strains in Christianity that saw Jesus as the literal son of Mary and Joseph, but someone endowed with God's power at some point in His life. | * they disagreed with efforts to 'allegorize' or 'spiritualize' the virgin birth; they wished it understood that Christ is the literal Son of God in a physical, 'natural' sense of sharing both human and divine traits in His makeup. This can be seen to be a reaction against more 'liberal' strains in Christianity that saw Jesus as the literal son of Mary and Joseph, but someone endowed with God's power at some point in His life. | ||
| − | * they did not accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of one "essense," but rather that they are distinct Personages. Thus, it is key to LDS theology that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the Holy Ghost. To a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; for an LDS Christian it is crucial. | + | * they did not accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of one "essense," but rather believed that they are distinct Personages. Thus, it is key to LDS theology that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the Holy Ghost. To a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; for an LDS Christian it is crucial. |
Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ: | Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ: | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
| − | Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like | + | Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, critics often read statements through their own theological lenses, and ignore the key distinctions which LDS theology is attempting to make by these statements. Instead, they try to put a salacious spin on the teaching, when this is far from the intent of the speakers. |
==Endnotes== | ==Endnotes== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
*Virgin birth, ''lightplanet.net'' [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/birth/virgin_birth_eom.htm *] | *Virgin birth, ''lightplanet.net'' [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/birth/virgin_birth_eom.htm *] | ||
*W. John Welsh, "Was Mary a virgin?" ''lightplanet.com''[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm *] | *W. John Welsh, "Was Mary a virgin?" ''lightplanet.com''[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm *] | ||
| − | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
===Printed material=== | ===Printed material=== | ||
*Printed resources whose text is not available online | *Printed resources whose text is not available online | ||
--> | --> | ||
Revision as of 19:10, 6 November 2005
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
Contents
Criticism
Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary. As evidence they point to a handful statements from early LDS leaders that directly or indirectly say so.
Response
Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth.
At the annunciation, Mary questioned the angel about how she could bear a child: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34; the expression "know" in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations). Nephi likewise described Mary as a virgin (1 Nephi 11:13-20), as did Alma1 (Alma 7:10).
Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (e.g., 2 Nephi 25:12; D&C 93:11). He was literally the Son of God, not the son of Joseph or even the son of the Holy Ghost.
What the Church has not taken a position on is how the conception took place. The scriptures are silent on the issue—even Nephi's detailed vision of then-future Messiah is veiled during the part where Mary conceives (1 Nephi 11:19).
With the scriptures quiet on this issue, some early leaders of the Church felt free to express their beliefs on how the conception took place. For example, Brigham Young said the following in a discourse given 8 July 1860:
- "...[T]here is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is not purely philosophical. The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers."[1]
But are these types of statements official Church doctrine, required for all believing Latter-day Saints to accept? No—they were never submitted to the Church for ratification or canonization. (See General authorities' statements as scripture.)
It is possible that Brigham Young was correct, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the conception had to come about as the result of a sexual union. Science has discovered alternative methods of conceiving children that don't involve sex, so it is certainly not outside of God's power to conceive Christ by other means.
Indeed, as President Ezra Taft Benson taught:
- He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)[2]
President Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even after conceiving and bearing Jesus.
Theological differences
Leaders' statements on the 'natural' birth of Christ were often a reaction to various ideas which they considered to be false:
- they disagreed with the tendency of conventional Christianity to deny the corporeality of God. They thus insisted that God the Father had a 'natural,' physical form. There was no need, in LDS theology, for a non-physical, wholly spirit God to resort to a mysterious process to conceive a Son.
- they disagreed with efforts to 'allegorize' or 'spiritualize' the virgin birth; they wished it understood that Christ is the literal Son of God in a physical, 'natural' sense of sharing both human and divine traits in His makeup. This can be seen to be a reaction against more 'liberal' strains in Christianity that saw Jesus as the literal son of Mary and Joseph, but someone endowed with God's power at some point in His life.
- they did not accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of one "essense," but rather believed that they are distinct Personages. Thus, it is key to LDS theology that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not the Holy Ghost. To a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; for an LDS Christian it is crucial.
Bruce R. McConkie said this about the birth of Christ:
- 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.[3]
In the same volume, Elder McConkie explained his reason for his emphasis:
- "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.[4]
Note that Elder McConkie seeks to emphasize the literal nature of Christ's divinity, his direct descent from the Father, and the fact that the Holy Ghost was a tool, but not the source of Jesus' divine Parenthood.
Conclusion
Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, critics often read statements through their own theological lenses, and ignore the key distinctions which LDS theology is attempting to make by these statements. Instead, they try to put a salacious spin on the teaching, when this is far from the intent of the speakers.
Endnotes
- [note] Brigham Young, "Discourse...," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt, J.V. Long and others, (8 July 1860), Vol. 8 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1861), 115–115.off-site wiki (See also 1:238; 4:218; 11:268).
- [note] Ezra Taft Benson, "Joy in Christ," Ensign (March 1986): 3. (emphasis added)*
- [note] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 742. GL direct link
- [note] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 822. GL direct link
Further reading
FAIR wiki articles
FAIR web site
- FAIR Topical Guide: Virgin Birth
- Gary Bowler, "Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Teach That God Had Sex with Mary?," FAIR brochure