![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
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.
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{H2\n\|L(.*)\n\|H2(.*)\n(.*)\n(.*)\n\|T +{{H1\n|L\1\n|H1\2\n\3\n\4\n|T)) |
m (→top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
{{H1 | {{H1 | ||
− | |L= | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Conception of Christ |
− | | | + | |H=Conception of Christ |
|S= | |S= | ||
|L1= | |L1= | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|>=[[../LDS "Birth Machines"|LDS "Birth Machines"]] | |>=[[../LDS "Birth Machines"|LDS "Birth Machines"]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | |||
{{Author claims label}} | {{Author claims label}} | ||
Line 17: | Line 16: | ||
* Is it true that Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus Christ was not "conceived in any way that might be considered supernatural" and that He was not "miraculously begotten, for instance, by the Holy Ghost, as Christianity teaches?" | * Is it true that Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus Christ was not "conceived in any way that might be considered supernatural" and that He was not "miraculously begotten, for instance, by the Holy Ghost, as Christianity teaches?" | ||
− | |||
{{Author sources label}} | {{Author sources label}} | ||
Line 25: | Line 23: | ||
*Brigham Young, August 19, 1866, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_11/Delegate_Hooper%E2%80%94Beneficial_Effects_of_Polygamy,_etc. ''Journal of Discourses'', vol. 11, 268]. | *Brigham Young, August 19, 1866, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_11/Delegate_Hooper%E2%80%94Beneficial_Effects_of_Polygamy,_etc. ''Journal of Discourses'', vol. 11, 268]. | ||
− | |||
{{Conclusion label}} | {{Conclusion label}} | ||
The author distorts Brigham's argument ''and'' LDS doctrine into an offensive construction that no Latter-day Saint would recognize as his or her beliefs. We have a right to declare our own doctrine and the interpretation of its implications, not hostile and ill-informed critics like the author of ''One Nation Under Gods''. | The author distorts Brigham's argument ''and'' LDS doctrine into an offensive construction that no Latter-day Saint would recognize as his or her beliefs. We have a right to declare our own doctrine and the interpretation of its implications, not hostile and ill-informed critics like the author of ''One Nation Under Gods''. | ||
− | |||
{{Response label}} | {{Response label}} | ||
Too much education damaging | A FAIR Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods, a work by author: Richard Abanes
|
LDS "Birth Machines" |
The author distorts Brigham's argument and LDS doctrine into an offensive construction that no Latter-day Saint would recognize as his or her beliefs. We have a right to declare our own doctrine and the interpretation of its implications, not hostile and ill-informed critics like the author of One Nation Under Gods.
This misrepresents LDS sources and doctrine.
Here is more of Brigham's statement:
"Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea—"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties." (emphasis added)
LDS doctrine teaches that Christ was the Son of God the Father, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Brigham said:
LDS doctrine holds that God is Christ's literal Father, through the power of the Holy Ghost. The mechanism by which this was accomplished has been speculated upon, but as Brigham said, "this answer may suffice you--you need never inquire more upon that point." We know that God is Christ's father, but how this was accomplished is not revealed, and is unlikely to be.
Brigham's point here, though, is that the Christians of his day are being hypocritical by being offended at the idea of legitimately bearing children by one person when married to another. Brigham points out that Mary was married to Joseph, and yet bore a child that was not his, but God's. There are only two options—one can, as the "infidels" do, assert that Jesus was an illegitimate child. Or, one can conclude that God can, under some circumstances, make it proper for someone to be married to one person, and yet bear the child of another. If this is possible, why then is it impossible for God to command a man to father children by two women to whom he is legitimately married?
Thus, Brigham's argument is not about the mechanism of Christ's conception. Rather, he is using it as a reductio ad absurdum (if taking an argument to its logical conclusion results in an absurdity, then the argument is false). He does this to illustrate the fallacy in his Christian critics' attack on polygamy.
It is claimed that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, and that Mary therefore was not a virgin when Jesus was born. It is also claimed that Latter-day Saints reject the "Evangelical belief" that "Christ was born of the virgin Mary, who, when the Holy Ghost came upon her, miraculously conceived the promised messiah."
Often used as evidence are a handful statements from early LDS leaders, such as Brigham Young, that directly or indirectly support this idea. However, such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception.
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 do believe that Jesus Christ was literally the Son of God, not the son of Joseph or even the son of the Holy Ghost. (see 2 Ne 25꞉12 and D&C 93꞉11) As Ezra Taft Benson stated,
[T]he testimonies of appointed witnesses leave no question as to the paternity of Jesus Christ. God was the Father of His fleshly tabernacle, and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserves the title “the Only Begotten Son of God.”[1]
J. Reuben Clark |
This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:
|
Harold B. Lee |
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
|
First Presidency |
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
|
References |
Notes
|
The canonized scriptures are silent on how the conception took place—even Nephi's detailed vision of then-future Messiah is veiled during the part where Mary conceives (1 Nephi 11:19).
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.)
Critics have noted that this statement, and others like it, can be read to indicate there was sexual intercourse involved in the conception of Jesus. Regardless of this speculation--which goes beyond the textual data--Brigham Young's view may be seen by some contemporary Latter-day Saints as correct in that Jesus was literally physically the Son of God, just as much as any children are "of our fathers." Modern science has discovered alternative methods of conceiving children--e.g., in vitro "test tube" babies--that don't involve sexual intercourse. Thus, though processes such as artificial insemination were unknown to Brigham and thus likely not referenced by his statements, it does not necessarily follow from a modern perspective that the conception had to come about as the result of a literal sexual union. It is certainly not outside of God's power to conceive Christ by other means, while remaining his literal father. (Put another way, Jesus shared God's genetic inheritance, if you will, without necessarily requiring a sexual act to combine that inheritance with Mary's mortal contribution).
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]
Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even immediately after conceiving and bearing Jesus.
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 McConkie emphasized 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.
Harold B. Lee said,
We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.
You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. [5]
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.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now