So How Was Jesus Conceived? A Caution to Church Members
"The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." (Lk 1:35, New American Standard Bible 1995)
I hear some circulating na mga discussions among some church members on how was Jesus Christ conceived. there will be absurd claims sa kung papaano naconceive si Jesus Christ which will go against God's nature and the nature of how Jesus Christ would come to this earth. this same claims will be used by Anti-mormons to say that "you believe this" when in reality, we don't really not. ang mga ito ay magbabase on writings of some apostles and leaders taken out of context and misread and writings that do not actually declared as official doctrine but as a heresy. ang circulating claims na ito ay na si Mary conceived Jesus Christ through coitus with God the Father and this is false in all extents and goes against the true nature of how the Son of God came to this earth. firstly, to know what the church actually believes on this, here is from Pres. Harold B. Lee on his letter to a person who wants some clarification on this issue where the prophet said:
January 2, 1969
Bruce Bracken
--------x---------
Logan Utah, 84321" Dear Brother Bracken
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.
Sincerely yours,Harold B. Lee"
When scripture is crystal clear that Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost begat Jesus Christ in Mary (Lk. 1:34-35). Scripture is also clear that Jesus Christ will be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14). Isaiah 7:14 where Isaiah prophesied of the virgin birth, and Luke 1:34 ay may indication ng lack of sexual relations si Mary she said that she "has seen no man" which is used in the King James Version and in the modern English language which uses the phrase "know no man" which is in fact, a expression of Jews on virginity! the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (almah - young lady) which is used in Isaiah 7:14 can be used interchangeably with בְּתוּלָה (betulah - virgin) which can be seen in text like Genesis 24:16, 43 on Rachel before meeting Jacob, which reads:
" The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin [בְּתוּלָה] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up . . . As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman [עַלְמָה] who comes out to draw and to whom I say, "Please, let me drink a little water from your jar." (Gen. 24:16, 43, JPS Tanakh)
"Young lady" can be expected as a virgin so sa semantics nalang yung issue, with the use of the same phrase of Jews to indicate virginity being seen also in the text of Genesis 24:16, 43. hindi din po pala ito bago sa Northwest Near Eastern Languages which includes Hebrew and Ugaritic. the terms can interchange. recalling the use of the expression "know no man"/"see no man" (KJV), in the New Testament, Luke 1:34 reads:
"Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man? [ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω]" (Luke 1:34, New King James Version)
Since Mary is a virgin, and conceived Jesus Christ as a virgin, and gave birth to Jesus Christ as a virgin, it therefore follows na walang involved na coitus sa conception ni Jesus Christ but it is miraculous. Nephi in the same way when he had a vision, he saw Mary and said "And in the city of Nazareth, I beheld a virgin and she was exceedingly fair and white" and she is the "...most beautiful and fair above all virgins" (1Ne. 11:13-14) and the angel who showed Nephi these things said " Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." (1Ne.11:15-20). in addition, Alma also echoes ang overshadowing ng Holy Ghost kay Mary, he said on Mary that "....she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Alma 7:10). God is powerful enough to have Jesus Christ enclothed in flesh without Mary losing her virginity. it is through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. furthermore, early church leaders have the following statements on the conception and birth of Jesus Christ through the virgin Mary:
Who was Jesus Christ? Why, He is called the babe of Bethlehem. He was once a babe, then? Yes. He was born of the Virgin Mary. (George Q. Cannon; Collected Discourses 1:233-34)
If ever, there was a time when there was need for the testimony of these men that are sent out, these seventies, these elders, testifying for Jesus, standing for Jesus; the miraculous Jesus, the Jesus who was begotten by His Father, the Lord God Almighty, and born of the virgin Mary--the Jesus of miraculous birth and miraculous life. (Charles W. Nibley; Conference Report, April 1911, p. 54)
The second is that he shall be without reservation a Christian, believing that Jesus Christ was in very truth the Son of God, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he lived as the scriptures declare He did. (James E. Talmage; Conference Report, April 1914, p. 95)
He was "the only begotten Son of God," born of the Virgin Mary. (Charles W. Penrose; Conference Report, April 1915, p. 37)
Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary, was literally and truly the Son of the Father, the Eternal God, not of Adam. (Charles W. Penrose; Conference Report, April 1916, p. 23)
We know that God is the Lord, and we are perfectly satisfied, I believe, in the truth of the enunciation made by our President this morning, that the Father is a personage, not a mere spiritual imaginary breath, and that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, is his only begotten Son in the flesh, and that we are made in their image, as revealed in scripture. (Charles W. Penrose; October 1916, p. 16)
In that vision it was shown unto him that Christ would come upon the earth, and be born of the Virgin Mary. (Daniel G. Miller; Conference Report, october 1916, p. 123)
Many people are growing to believe in Jesus Christ as the veritable Son of God, born of the virgin Mary and begotten of His Father. (G.E. Ellisworth; October 1916, p. 133)
Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he fulfilled his earthly mission, and that his life was concluded in the sacrifice that he offered for us and for the world. (William T. Jack; Conference Report, April 1917, p. 114)Here is also what church leaders said in addition to the letter from Pres. Harold B. Lee:
It occurs to me that this same Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and the Son of God, to whom the Father introduced the boy, was the same Jesus Christ who lived upon the earth during the meridian of time: that he was the same Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary. He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. He lived upon the earth for a short period of time, for about 33 years. He entered upon his ministry; he organized his Church with apostles, and evangelists and so on. In time he gave up his life for the sins of the world. that all the children of our Father in heaven who live today, and who lived at the time of the Savior, or who had lived upon the earth before his day, or shall live after we have passed away, might be saved through obedience to his laws. He gave up his life as a ransom for us all. My brethren and sisters, the Savior who talked with Joseph Smith the boy prophet was the identical Savior, the identical Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was crucified upon Calvary's hill, whose body was laid in the tomb, and arose from the tomb on the third day and appeared to his friends and brethren. That identical Jesus Christ who was baptized in Jordan, appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the necessary instruction for the founding of his Church in our day. (Joseph Reece, Conference Report, October 1918, p. 114)
God was manifest in the flesh, in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, and he was verily the Son of God, begotten of the Father, and his mother was the virgin Mary. There should be no dispute in regard to this matter, because it has been made so clear and full in the revelations of God to us. (Charles W. Penrose, Conference Report, April 1920, p. 30)
The elements of his body are eternal, and the elements of the spirit are eternal, without beginning; but there was a beginning to his body, when he was born of the virgin Mary, and God was his Father. His power overshadowed the virgin and, as she was told by the angel Gabriel, the offspring was the Son of God. Jesus Christ taught that doctrine to his apostles and made it very plain. (Charles W. Penrose, April 1921, p. 12)
[W]e have an abiding faith in their purport and believe with all our souls that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, and is therefore the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is also important to believe that during his lifetime he promulgated the plan of life and salvation, and taught the children of men as no one else has ever taught them the glorious principles of eternal life. It is also important that we should believe with all our souls that he gave his life as a ransom for the sins of the whole world, and that his precious blood was spilled as a means of saving mankind from the fall. It is also important that we shall believe with all our souls that on the third day he rose from the dead and overcame death and the grave, and became the first fruits of the resurrection. These are the important things: The observance of these two holy days in commemoration of our Savior's marvelous birth of the Virgin Mary, and his miraculous resurrection from. the dead, is quite general throughout all Christian lands and among the various so-called Christian churches. (Rulon S. Wells, Conference Report, April 1923, p. 124)
Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary crucified upon Calvary, and risen from the dead, is the Redeemer of the world. (Athony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1923, p. 141)
We believe that Jesus Christ was, and is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, immaculately conceived and born of the Virgin Mary. That through the atonement wrought out by him all men are redeemed from the penalty of death, pronounced upon our father Adam, through the resurrection from the grave, which he made possible, and that by obedience to the divine principles of right living which he taught, mankind may be redeemed from personal sin, and brought back into the presence of the Father, to enjoy the fellowship and association of the Son. (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1925, p. 24)
was born of the virgin Mary, that he was crucified on the cross by his enemies who were inspired by disgruntled religious leaders of his day, that he arose the third day from a borrowed grave where he was buried, and finally that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, about whom the prophets of Israel spoke. (Alma Sonne, Conference Report, October 1965, p. 36)
It was he then who came to this earth, in the meridian of time, born of the virgin Mary. He was the literal Son of God the Father, "the Only Begotten Son." (Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1968, p. 43)
Even our great Redeemer, whose death and sufferings we are this afternoon celebrating, was born up in yonder world before he was born of the Virgin Mary. (Orson Pratt, November 12, 1876; JOD 18:290)
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Scriptures tell us; and she bare record of it, and there were many witnesses of this fact, and the record teaches us that he was begotten by the power of God, and not of man, and that she had no intercourse with mortal man in the flesh until after she gave birth to the Savior, who is called the Son of God. I will also say that Adam was called the Son of God. (Erastus Snow, March 4, 1878; JOD 19:271)
And with Latter Day Saint church leaders today:
Even yet she comprehended but in part the import of this momentous visitation. Not in the spirit of doubt such as had prompted Zacharias to ask for a sign, but through an earnest desire for information and explanation, Mary, conscious of her unmarried status and sure of her virgin condition, asked: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” The answer to her natural and simple inquiry was the announcement of a miracle such as the world had never known—not a miracle in the sense of a happening contrary to nature’s law, nevertheless a miracle through the operation of higher law, such as the human mind ordinarily fails to comprehend or regard as possible. Mary was informed that she would conceive and in time bring forth a Son, of whom no mortal man would be the father:—“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.” Then the angel told her of the blessed condition of her cousin Elisabeth, who had been barren; and by way of sufficient and final explanation added: “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” With gentle submissiveness and humble acceptance, the pure young virgin replied: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman. Jesus Christ was to be born of mortal woman, but was not directly the offspring of mortal man, except so far as His mother was the daughter of both man and woman. In our Lord alone has been fulfilled the word of God spoken in relation to the fall of Adam, that the seed of the woman should have power to overcome Satan by bruising the serpent’s head. (Elder James E. Talmage: Jesus The Christ [Salt Lake City, Ut. Intellectual Reserve inc. 2006])
Nonbelievers find it hard to accept the miracles of the Old and New Testaments and the Savior’s virgin birth and Resurrection. They view these events with the same skepticism as the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith. They are not open to the possibility of a heavenly plan presided over by a supreme being. They do not have faith. (Elder Quentin L. Cook: Our Heavenly Father's Plan—Big Enough For All His Children, Liahona Apr. 2006)
"Just as Jesus is literally the Son of Mary, so he is the personal and literal offspring of God the Eternal Father. … Matthew’s statement, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost,’ properly translated should say, ‘she was found with child by the power of the Holy Ghost.’ (Matt. 1:18.) Luke’s account (Luke 1:35) accurately records what took place. Alma perfectly describes our Lord’s conception and birth by prophesying: Christ ‘shall be born of Mary, … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.’ (Alma 7:10.) Nephi spoke similarly when he said that at the time of her conception, Mary ‘was carried away in the Spirit,’ with the result that the child born of her was ‘the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father.’ (1 Ne. 11:19–21.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:82–83).
So sadly ay may mga ilang members of the church that tries to justify these things na inaaccuse satin ng mga critics of the church that we supposedly "believe" when it is not! these anti-mormons will take out the intended meaning of some writings ng mga apostles at prophets as will even take some condemned writings and see that the church believes that it is binding doctrine. here is an example which is forwarded to me via messenger and the quotes are badly eisegeted and put words on the mouth of these authors that was done in the same way that Anti-mormons did. remember also that some of these writings and statements by some church leaders are openly condemned by church leaders that followed them for doctrinal inconsistency:
"..........Elder Bruce R. McConkie have taught:
“…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. EACH OF THE WORDS IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is NO NEED TO SPIRITUALIZE away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is NOTHING FIGURATIVE OR HIDDEN OR BEYOND COMPREHENSION in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” 📖 Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.— Bro JM...............Elder Orson Pratt have taught: ‘the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called 'the Only Begotten of the Father;' that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones’ 📖 The Seer, 158."........."".......The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128)."
Response: this does not say either na may coitus na nangyari. you have to consider that 1. we believe that Jesus is begotten by the Father literally and the question to this is papaano? papaano na-inherit ni Jesus Christ ang mga genes ni Heavenly Father? Jesus Christ has a Father just like us, Jesus Christ inherited genes just like us, Jesus Christ was a son just like us. Jesus Christ was conceived in a womb just like us. Jesus Christ was born just like us. Jesus Christ inherited genes from the Father and these can be done without coitus which is through the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary! Jesus Christ was woven in Mary's womb without sexual intercourse! and 2, for the writing ni Orson Pratt, we should remember na ang book ni Orson Pratt na "The Seer" is openly condemned by the church where it has inconsistencies with doctrine and teachings that the church does not actually teach like Jesus as the bridegroom in the feast of Cana! (which was wrong, for Jesus and his apostles were guest in that wedding: Jn. 2:1-2). Elder B.H Roberts of the Seventy said " “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.“ (B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.2, 294.). and on Joseph Fielding Smith's statement, it is the Father's business to beget Jesus Christ and not of the Holy Ghost, but this is done through the power of the Holy Ghost! the apostle Jude also defined the sin of immortals having intercourse with mortal beings (as it was called σαρκὸς ἑτέρας - sarkos heteras: Jude 1:5-7) na kung saan ay isang reason kung bakit iba ito sa mortal having intercourse with a mortal. One ay hindi pwedeng matawag na isang “virgin” if they have had intercourse with someone and ito ay contradictory. we can absolutely affirm that Jesus is the literal son of the Father and Mary without making any problematic assertions of the “delivery method” used. we can believe that Jesus Christ is the literal only begotten Son of God nang hindi naniniwala sa mga falsehoods na ganito. si Heavenly Father ay ang creator ng universe and it is through Jesus Christ that the universe was created (Jn. 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-3) and Heavenly Father do not need coitus to have Jesus weaved inside the womb of the virgin Mary just like how Jesus Christ does not need to bake to have 5,000 people fed. these members also quotes the following and has some serious problems with it:
"..........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: … 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.[The Seer, 158.] “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” [Journal of Discourses, vol. 11:41]"
With quoting again from writings that are openly condemned by the church and writings that does not constitute doctrine like The Seer, these church members would try to justify accusations of anti-mormons to Latter Day Saints. the problem with this is it will ask the question (as asked by a tatay in apologetics), sino ba ang eternal companion ni Mary? note also na throughout scripture and church doctrine, a woman cannot have more that one husband. sino ba ang asawa ni Joseph? sino ba ang magiging Ina ng mga anak niya?
Furthermore, Latter Day Saint biblical scholar, Theologian, and apologist, Robert Boylan wrote in response to anti-mormon Dave Bartosiewicz:
In a recent video, ex-Catholic/Mormon/Protestant now Eastern Orthodox apologist Dave Bartosiewicz plugged an article, Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex, repeating the old, tired claim that "Mormonism" teaches that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary is repeated. However, a careful reader will note there is a lot of quote-mining and eisegesis therein. For instance, the article quotes Brigham Young as saying the following:
“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,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
It might surprise the author of the piece, but there is a 9-month difference between the birth of a person and their conception. Unless one holds to a Docetic/Gnostic understanding of Jesus' humanity, Jesus' birth was natural. Perhaps investing in a basic book on human biology and/or a reading comprehension course would benefit them? Just saying. Furthermore, even if such quotes did teach this concept, that does not mean that, ipso facto, "Mormonism" teaches it. The Church has very careful guidelines as to what constitutes official theology. See my article On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine for a discussion.
Biblical proof that Jesus birth was, as Brigham said, natural and like all other births, is supported by the Bible. In Luke 2:21-24 (RSV) we read the following:
And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
As Eric Svendsen noted about this pericope and v. 23’s reference to the phrase “opens the womb”:
The Roman Catholic teaching of Mary’s virginity during birth (in partu) (i.e., without rupture of the hymen) seems to be negated by Luke’s phrase in v. 22 that Jesus “opened the womb” (διανοῖγον μήτραν). The sacrifice made in vv.21-24 presupposes a normal birth process for Jesus, and many Catholic scholars note that it is unlikely that Luke would have employed this phrase if he had known of this Marian tradition. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 143)
The official teaching of the Church is that Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived, but that God the Father is the biological Father of Jesus--in other words, God (miraculously) impregnated Mary with His divine Son, and that Jesus had 23 chromosomes from Mary and 23 chromosomes from God the Father. The conventional view on the biology/theology of the virginal conception has been challenged by mainstream theologians who realised that such results in a very problematic Christology. As Wayne Grudem, an Evangelical Protestant wrote:
[W]e should not say we say that Jesus got his “male humanity” from Mary. If Jesus’s human nature had been derived solely from Mary’s physical body, he would have been her clone, and therefore he would have been a woman. The doctrine of the virgin birth must be understood in a way consistent with Matt. 1:20, which says, “That which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirt.” What was conceived in Mary’s womb was a human baby, and it was “from the Holy Spirit,” which suggests that half of the genetic material that Jesus received was miraculously created by the Holy Spirit, and half was from Mary. (Wayne Grudem, “Doctrinal Derivations from Evangelical-Feminist Arguments about the Trinity,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Person, Implications for Life, eds. Bruce A. Ware and John Starke [Wheaton, Illin.: Crossway, 2015], pp.17-45, here, p. 26 n. 18; emphasis in original).
I agree with Grudem to claim that there was no genetic contribution from another person other than Mary results in a perverted understanding of the humanity of Jesus; the New Testament, after all, emphasises the true, full humanity of Jesus Christ, and condemns those who reject such (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Of course, in LDS theology, it is the person of the Father, not the Holy Spirit, that is the “father” of Jesus vis-à-vis His humanity. With respect to Matt 1:20, such has to be read in light of the parallel text in Luke 1:35:
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (NRSV)
Some, such as James Dunn (Christology in the Making) and Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah), among others, have argued that the person of the Holy Spirit is not in view in Luke 1:35, but it is to be understood as a form of parallelism, with “holy Spirit” and “Most High” being synonymous with one another, and the locution, “holy Spirit” to be interpreted as the operational presence of God, not the person of the Holy Spirit. In light of the Bible’s penchant of synonymous parallelism, as well as other types of parallelism, such is more than plausible an exegesis of the text.
The person of God the Father is presented as being the one who “overshadows” Mary, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirt, no doubt, in part, to allow Mary to withstand the presence of deity (cf. D&C 67:11); in that respect, it is plausible to also understand God the Father as being the “father” of Jesus, vis-à-vis His humanity, with the same “genetic contribution” from the Father as Mary, Jesus’ biological mother (without going into “how” such genetic material was created [ex nihilo or some other means]).
In his article in response to James R. White, Who Physically Begat the Son? Wade Englund asked the following questions of the view of the virginal conception, including:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ had a literal physical Father?
Regarding Christ's conception, where did the Y chromosome (the male chromosome) come from? (It could not have come from Mary because the female genes have but two X chromosomes.)
Who was the source of the "miracle" that introduced the Y chromosome into Jesus' DNA strand at his physical inception?
Who triggered the cell fusion and activated the cell division (thus producing the same effect normally brought on by the uniting of the sperm with the egg) needed to prevent the onset of menstration and allow for Jesus to develop through the various stages of physical growth from zygote to birth?
Do you consider Jesus to be, in your mind, the first recorded instance of cloning (having received all his physical attributes from his mother, Mary)?
Do you think that "siring" (fathering) a physical child can only occur through sexual intercourse?
Can you accept the fact that others may legitimately believe that "siring" (fathering) the physical child, Jesus Christ, may also have occured through means other than sexual intercourse (including artificial insemination, induced chromosome manipulated parthenogenisis or cloning, or some other form of conception or impregnation thus far unknown--each of which would certainly count as a miracle)?
Can you accept the same regarding the use of such terms and phrases as (these are phrases from the LDS quotes used in Dr. White's article): "as natural as are the births of our children;" "[God] created man, as we create our children;" "naturally begotten;" "Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle;" "the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus;" "our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. . .literally;" "in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers;" "literal Son;" "conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events;" etc.?
Is your belief in parthenogenesis (Virgin Birth), as it relates to the conception of Christ in the flesh, strictly religious, or does it also include the biological meaning of the term?
If not literally, do you think God the Father to be indirectly, or figuratively the physical Father of Christ? If so, in what way? (In other words, do you see the Father as having participated, in any way, in the creation of Jesus' physical body--i.e via artificial insemination, gene-manipulation, etc.)
In addition, Barry Rickmore in response to Isaiah Bennett wrote the following:
Virgin Birth
When nonauthoritative statements of LDS leaders do not deliver the desired "punch," anti-Mormon authors will often expand the authoritative to include their own dubious interpretations of LDS doctrine. This is especially true with regard to the LDS doctrine of the virgin birth. Bennett quotes a number of nonauthoritative statements by LDS leaders saying that Jesus is the "only begotten after the flesh," that Jesus was begotten "in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," that Mary "must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father," and the like (IM, pp. 292, 293; WMC, p. 93). He takes these statements to mean that members of the Church of Jesus Christ "do not believe that [Mary] was a virgin when [Jesus] was conceived or afterward because they believe conception occurred in the ordinary, natural way" (IM, p. 292) and that "God the Father begot Jesus in the flesh through copulation with the Virgin Mary" (WMC, p. 92). Since the LDS have an anthropomorphic concept of deity, it is certainly possible to interpret these statements in the way Bennett indicates. However, this is not the only interpretation possible, and Bennett leaves out important statements from our prophets and scriptures that lead to much more modest conclusions.
Certainly the prophets have clarified that the virgin birth was a case of sexual reproduction.[97] That is, Jesus had both a father and a mother in the flesh,and his flesh obtained its genetic blueprint from both. Similarly, they have made clear that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was told, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35). To us this indicates that Mary had to be transfigured by the power of the Holy Spirit to withstand the presence of God (see Moses 1:11). On the other hand, it is equally clear that our scriptures and prophets have affirmed that "His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)"[98] That is, whatever the particular mode of conception, Mary came out of the experience still a virgin. Consider the following statement by President Harold B. Lee:
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.[99]
Regarding McConkie's supposed statement, Bennett opines, "Of course, this is ridiculous. Sex is sex, whether it is with an immortal manor a mortal man" (WMC, p. 93). Is it really so obvious? We do not know what the mechanics of reproduction are when celestial beings are involved. As James E. Talmage explains, Jesus was begotten "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof."[101] That is, it was a miracle.[102] What is the "higher manifestation" of natural law that occurred here? Talmage never says.
Indeed, one of Bennett's prime witnesses is Orson Pratt, who said that the Father and Mary "must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife" (IM, p. 294), but if Bennett had read just a few more lines, he would have found that Pratt also said the Father "overshadow[ed] the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband." Surely, Pratt meant that God acted in the capacity of a husband by begetting a child with Mary; but as for the mechanics of conception, Pratt only ventured to apply the scriptural language that God "overshadowed" her.
Consider this analogy. Jesus has a resurrected, celestial body. At one point he transported this undeniably physical body right through a solid wall, and the wall remained intact (see Luke 24:36-40). Christians of all stripes affirm that this event really occurred. It did not happen spiritually or figuratively—a solid body was literally transported through a solid wall and nothing happened to the wall! How did Jesus do it? Here, most Christians will stop short and look puzzled. It was a miracle, after all, and it seems a little silly to ask how Jesus did it. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out why many Latter-day Saints stop short and look puzzled when anti-Mormons tell us how we must believe the miracle of Jesus' conception and the virgin birth were accomplished. No matter what they may have personally speculated,the modern prophets have never explicitly, and certainly never authoritatively, stated what Isaiah Bennett says they have.
Endnotes for the Above
[97] I thank Russell McGregor for this exceptionally clear explanation.
[98] The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 7.
[99] The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996),14.
[100] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 822. I find it significant that Bennett uses quotations rather than paraphrases in every other instance in this section of Inside Mormonism. Did he know that McConkie's words did not quite go as far as he would have liked?
[101] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 77.
[102] Talmage defined miracles in these words: "Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. . . . The operation of a higher law in any particular case does not destroy the actuality of an inferior one." James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 200. See Paul C. Hedengren, "Miracles," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:908: Miracles are "a beneficial event brought about through divine power that mortals do not understand and of themselves cannot duplicate." (https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=16)
We should take note that not everything that a church leader said in the past does not always constitute binding doctrine and we should also remember, brothers and sisters, as members of the church ay kapag may accusation laban satin na pinaniniwalaan daw natin when it's not if you take a look on what we actually believe, we should not defend it. you cannot justify lies. ang mga tunay na tagapagsunod ni Jesucristo, ay laging tapat sa katotohanan (Ps. 71:22; 86:11; 138:2; Prov. 3:3; Zac. 8:16-19; Rom. 2:8; 2Cor. 4:2; Gal. 3:1; Eph. 4:25; Phil. 4:8; 2Ths. 2:10-13; 1Tim. 4:3; 2Tim. 2:25). calling it "deep doctrine" would not justify it either when it goes against sa nature ni Heavenly Father at sa Messianship ni Jesus Christ. you cannot justify it when it is inconsistent with the truth contained in the Gospel. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah and he is born of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Ghost. this is what we believe and not what our critics say that we believe
__________________
Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Facebook.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nathan-Lerr
