Do Mormons believe God literaly had sex with Mary?

[_Jason Bourne]

Nope, no Mormon believes this, save the rare nut.


Further, the context of those leaders words are debunking a popular "Christian" view of the day, that Christ was actually a child of the Holy Ghost. They were debunking false doctrine, not trying to teach God has "sex" with Mary.

BY, McConkie, JFS, LDS Manuals all said God had sex with Mary in the literal sense. So are they the rare nut?

BY said:

"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218).

BY Said:

"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 were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

McConkie said:
"There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).

[_Drifting]

half of Jesus's chromosomes came from Mary and the other half of His chromosomes did literally come from God the Father.

CFR

[_Drifting]

Is this going to be another of those issues, where despite of dozens of quotes a few in church published manuals, you are going to say that it does not cross the rubicon of official doctrine, like you do with the global flood?

When have I denied that the Global flood is LDS doctrine?

Bcspace, I believe you have said previously that you personally do not believe in a literal global flood despite that being the official Church doctrine.

[_lulu]

Is this going to be another of those issues, where despite of dozens of quotes a few in church published manuals, you are going to say that it does not cross the rubicon of official doctrine, like you do with the global flood?

When have I denied that the Global flood is LDS doctrine?

I think that the typical Chapel Mormon doesn't think about this at all--they are totally oblivious to BY's teachings on this matter

Likely because they accept the Church's definition of doctrine. However, there is no doubt about the literalness of Jesus' Divine Sonship. The doctrine is emphasized and stressed, even at the Primary ages, that God the Father is Jesus' literal Father in the same way our own mortal fathers are our literal fathers.

bcspace, why do you always delete the names of the people you are quoting?

Surely you know how to leave them in. You're a Computer Scientist.

[_Equality]

Do Mormons believe God himself literally had sexual intercourse with Joseph's wife Mary in order to produce the offspring known as Jesus Christ?

I personally do not believe that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. I think Brigham Young's statements reflect the fact that Young wasn't aware of any other way for Mary to get pregnant except by intercourse. Young correctly understood that Jesus was literally God the Father's Son; half of Jesus's chromosomes came from Mary and the other half of His chromosomes did literally come from God the Father. But Young wasn't aware that there are other ways for Jesus to have been conceived that didn't involve sexual contact.

Right. And he wasn't aware because he wasn't really talking to God and Jeebus. He was just spouting his own opinions, which were formed in ignorance. But he told people that he got revelation from God and Jeebus. It's the same problem all the LDS prophets have--they claim to have superior knowledge revealed to them from deity but in reality they are just trading in ignorances.

[_ldsfaqs]

BY, McConkie, JFS, LDS Manuals all said God had sex with Mary in the literal sense. So are they the rare nut?

BY said:

"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218).

BY Said:

"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 were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

McConkie said:
"There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).

Nope, you can't interpret words correctly.

All of these leaders state that Christ in the "literal sense" is the Son of God, and in the "literal sense" was born a mortal just as any man is.

Not a single statement from an LDS states in a "literal sense" that sex was the "process".
Not a single leader state the "process" of the conception itself.

Even worse your lying, is that you entirely ignore the self same LDS leaders teaching the traditional Christian view on the matter, that she was a Virgin, that the process occurred by the Power of God through the Holy Ghost.

In fact, this statement is the ONLY "process" statement LDS and other Christians have ever said on the subject. It occurred by God's Power through the Holy Ghost, clearly indicating a "spiritual in-vitro fertilization".

Even worse, you all entirely ignore entire Church history in which every single LDS leader has taught the traditional understanding of Christ's birth and conception.

This issue is a perfect example of how you people use a little truth to tell great lies.
1. You misrepresent their words.
2. You entirely ignore the context those words were even said in the first place (debunking other religions doctrines concerning the Holy Ghost).
3. You entirely ignore the words of the men themselves on the subject which clearly teach the common understanding.
4. You entirely ignore 180 years of LDS history in which we have taught exactly the same on the subject, contrary to your interpretation of these "select quotes".

Your actions are the very definition of being liars.....

[_SteelHead]

Ldsfaqs reading comprehension approaches 0.

Quote:

McConkie said: "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).

Conceived and born in the natural normal way.

[_Tobin]

Tobin,
The difficulty for the believer becomes then: which prophets were speaking as a prophet and which was as man. If we throw out teachings of BY do when then throw out the Book of Abraham? The Book of Mormon? It becomes a rabbit hole with no end escalated by the teachings that the prophet can not lead the church astray. If BY was wrong on Adam-God, then was he actually the true successor to Joseph Smith? Were the rlds actually correct, the flds?

But see Tobin there seems to be a lot of that in the LDS Church. They Prophets and Apostles run the Church not you. When does "The Prophets got that wrong" become a problem for the LDS Church and for you?

The Prophets and Apostles often get it wrong; it just comes with being human. I'm sure it is fun for those that aren't Mormon to point out how often this occurs to TBM's that hold that Prophets and Apostles are infallible. If a prophet is teaching something that is true, then I'm happy to endorse it. Let's look at one of my favorite prophets, MLK. He was far from a perfect infallible man, but what he said and taught about equality and racial dignity was the truth and it is unfortunate that Mormons of the period didn't immediately embrace his ideas. Now, I would point out that the opposite is true here. What BY taught about the virgin birth is not only not true, but highly offensive if you think about it to a great many people.

[_KevinSim]

Right. And he wasn't aware because he wasn't really talking to God and Jeebus. He was just spouting his own opinions, which were formed in ignorance. But he told people that he got revelation from God and Jeebus. It's the same problem all the LDS prophets have--they claim to have superior knowledge revealed to them from deity but in reality they are just trading in ignorances.

It's not a matter of whether or not God was talking to Brigham Young. It's a matter of, is God or is God not a micro-manager? Did God ever intend to supervise Young so closely that Young would never get anything wrong?

[_SteelHead]

With as much of what Brigham taught being declared wrong...... Please provide an example of what he got right.