Replies

This is an old claim, repeated over the decades. I won't even argue it anymore, it's been done so many times here on FR.

Try this instead. I'm going to bed. ;-)

Was Mary a virgin?

by W. John Walsh

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).

One of the more common misrepresentations spread by anti-Mormons is that Latter-day Saints do not believe in the virgin birth (i.e., that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born). Let's begin by clearly stating the official doctrine of the Church, as contained in the Book of Mormon:

"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." (Alma 7:10, emphasis added)

As we can see, the virgin birth is an official doctrine of the Church. Occasionally, the critics produce statements from LDS literature like the following:

"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." (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.742)
"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (President Brigham Young on April 9, 1852. The Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50)

The critics would offer these types of statements as evidence that Latter-day Saints believe that Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was born. They falsely say that descriptive terms like "normal and natural course of events" must mean normal sexual relations as we understand them. While this might be a possible interpretation if no other information existed on this subject, the critics conveniently ignore all other information that proves their interpretation of these types of statements to be incorrect, such as:

"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. (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.822, emphasis added)

"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.)" ("Joy in Christ," Ensign 16 [March 1986]: 3-4., emphasis added) (See President Benson's Teachings About Christ)

It is worth noting that many of these clarifying statements appear in the exact same literature as the other statements quoted above. Therefore, the critics were aware of them and purposely chose to ignore them. I will leave it to the reader's judgment as to why our enemies might do such a thing.

Since it is clear that Latter-day Saints believe in the virgin birth, then how do we interpret the statements that might imply otherwise [implied only if nothing else were known]? The key to understanding lies in the differences between Trinitarian theology and LDS doctrine. Unlike Trinitarians, who believe that the Father and Son are of one essence, Latter-day Saints believe that the members of the Godhead are separate personages united in purpose, power, and glory. This is a key theological difference between us and the Trinitarians.

Since the Holy Ghost is a separate personage from God the Father, it is important to point out that Jesus is the only begotten son of God the Father and not the son of the Holy Ghost. We should make it clear that when Church leaders state that Jesus is not the son of the Holy Ghost, they are not saying that the power of the Holy Ghost was not used in the conception process. They are simply saying that the Holy Ghost personage is not the father of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father is abundantly testified to by scripture: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16). When Jesus was baptized, God the Father spoke from heaven and said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17) If one cannot believe God, then whom can one believe? President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

"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, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (Come unto Christ, p. 4.)

If Jesus is truly the Son of God the Father, then what part did the Holy Ghost play in his miraculous conception? The Father used the power of the Holy Ghost as an agent, or enabler, so that a virgin could give birth to his Son. The specifics are beyond our knowledge and possibly our comprehension.

Therefore, the statements from Church leaders indicating that Jesus was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events should be understood that God works through natural means in everything that he does. At times, his works like the Virgin Birth may seem to defy natural laws as man knows them. In those cases, we should understand that "[our Heavenly Father beget Jesus of a virgin] not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (Elder James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 81).

For example, President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

"A miracle is not, as many believe, the setting aside or overruling natural laws. Every miracle performed in Biblical days or now, is done on natural principles and in obedience to natural law. The healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, giving eyesight to the blind, whatever it may be that is done by the power of God, is in accordance with natural law. Because we do not understand how it is done, does not argue for the impossibility of it. Our Father in heaven knows many laws that are hidden from us." (Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 484- TLDP:649, emphasis added)

Elder James E. Talmage taught:

Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify it -- as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space. At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy. The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. (Jesus the Christ, Ch.11, p.148, emphasis added)

In other words, while we may not understand how a virgin can conceive a child, the virgin birth did occur and it was a natural event, not an unnatural one.