? Jesus' Virgin Birth

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by lattelady

The LDS church today teaches the virgin birth--are there members that still subscribe to the teachings of some of the former prophets that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus?

I believe that God the Father is the literal, physical father of Christ, but that doesn't mean that the Father had intercourse with Mary.

I look at it more this way:

If the father has flesh and bones, then those flesh and bones are constructed by DNA (I think; there may be something of a higher level at work but for this exercise's sake, we'll assume it's DNA). A literal son would have the DNA of his parent's- at birth, 50% is from his mom and 50% is from his dad.

Christ received godly DNA from his Father and human DNA from his mother. Somehow, Mary got impregnated and the resultant embryo contained 50% Mary's DNA and 50% God the Father's.

How exactly this occurred is anyone's guess; however I'm of the opinion that it wasn't through traditional means.

[bmy-]

Ivf

[Bob_Blaylock]

Originally Posted by lattelady

The LDS church today teaches the virgin birth--are there members that still subscribe to the teachings of some of the former prophets that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus?

You seem to be arguing a false dichotomy.

It is doctrinally very clear—Mary was a virgin at the time she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that she had not, up to the point, engaged in sexual intercourse with anyone.

However, this does not mean that Jesus is not literally, biologically, the son of God; I think doctrine is fairly clear on the point that he is.

As “Tarnished” has pointed out, we—being far less powerful and advanced than God—have the capability to cause a woman to become pregnant, without her having to engage in sexual intercourse. When we do it, it's called “artificial insemination”. We mortals have this power; why wouldn't God?

[lattelady]

Bob, I wasn't really trying to argue a false dichotomy. FORMER doctrine seemed to indicate with clarity that it wasn't anything like "holy artificial insemination." It's this quote that I want to ask about :
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, no, nor was he begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Reed A. Benson p.7)
But I read in the Bible and also in the Book of Mormon that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. So I'm confused by the conflicted teachings. If you don't believe that God had physical relations with Mary (and I'm getting that very strong impression from most posters), but you DO believe that God impregnated her miraculously...do you make a separation between which personage of the Godhead actually caused her to become pregnant? Was it God the Father or the Holy Spirit, is what I mean. I realize my question has morphed a bit from the original question; I'm trying to balance what you're saying with what scripture is saying.

[Dravin]

But I read in the Bible and also in the Book of Mormon that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Originally Posted by Alma 7:11

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, 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.

This says he was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, not that the Holy Ghost is the father of Christ so there isn't any contradiction with the quote you provide.

Originally Posted by Matthew 1:20

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Another way to look at it is that the baby Mary was pregnant with was of the Spirit (aka the Holy Ghost) and not the result of Mary engaging in premarital sex, keep in mind the purpose of the statement in the verse is to calm Joseph's fears that Mary had cheated on him (They were betrothed at this point unless I'm confusing my Bible History, a real possibility) and was carrying around another man's baby. Telling him that the child within her is of the Spirit, or of the Holy Ghost, is not a statement of paternity (Christ is the Holy Ghost's child) but a reassurance that whatever is happening concerning her being pregnant is of God not mischief. That said I can understand how you can read it as you do, it isn't unreasonable when taken by itself.

Was it God the Father or the Holy Spirit, is what I mean.

Think of it as God the Father's DNA (to use Maxel's terminology) that was placed there using the Holy Ghost, or in other words, through the power of the Holy Ghost. It need not be either/or as you propose.

Lets say my wife is having trouble conceiving. We go to a fertility clinic, I provide my share of the DNA before the conception to be screened (or what have you). Later the Doctor takes that and combining it with my wife's eggs places it in the womb. My wife is pregnant through the actions of the doctor (without his actions in this scenario, no pregnant wife), so one could say my wife conceived through the power of the doctor (or modern medicine), the child however is still mine. So its not an either or proposition, Heavenly Father can be the father and the Holy Ghost still be involved.

[lattelady]

Thanks, Dravin, for your clarification and explanation of the verses from a Member point of view. I appreciate the answer to my question.

[ryanh]

I really don't grasp why you might be so interested in 'member views' as opposed to what is actual doctrine. I would expect you could go to any denomination of any religion and find a variety of views and personal opinions that surrond what the official doctrine of that religion/denomination is. What's the point of doing that? To measure variability among members? What's doctrine is doctrine, and varying personal viewpoints are worth little.

[Alana]

Hey Dravin, I totally thought of it like that, too. Like the Holy Ghost is the doctor, and Jesus was literally the son of God, but there was no intercourse, she was a virgin.

[john doe]

Originally Posted by ryanh

I really don't grasp why you might be so interested in 'member views' as opposed to what is actual doctrine. I would expect you could go to any denomination of any religion and find a variety of views and personal opinions that surrond what the official doctrine of that religion/denomination is. What's the point of doing that? To measure variability among members? What's doctrine is doctrine, and varying personal viewpoints are worth little.

It's a way to bring divisiveness in. If I can pit you against someone else then I can sit back and enjoy watching you two duke it out and claim innocence in the whole affair.

[lattelady]

I apologize if that's the impression you've gotten. That's not my intention at all.