The Virgin Birth Part 1

When sharing your faith with a Latter-day Saint, it helps to know what their church has taught on several basic topics. For this reason, Mormonism Research Ministry has provided its Crash Course Mormonism. Crash Course Mormonism includes concise articles highlighting what LDS leaders and church manuals have taught on issues that will probably come up in a typical conversation.

You can find these informative articles at CrashCourseMormonism.com. That's CrashCourseMormonism.com. Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a Biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism.

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach a Biblical concept of the virgin birth? Welcome to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Aaron Shafawaloff, my colleague at MRM.

Aaron, we're going to be discussing some of the statements made by various Mormon leaders regarding the incarnation of Jesus. Well, Bill, I go down to Temple Square quite a lot. I usually take a break.

Well, I'm starting to take a break during the winter because it's so stinking cold. But I remember last winter I went down to Temple Square where they have all these Christmas lights. It's incredible. It's beautiful.

It's large. There's so many people that come down there. And we think, what a great opportunity to intersect people at the North Gate and do some evangelism. And we got into a lot of conversations about the virgin birth. And I, because it was Christmas season, I asked a lot of people what they thought about past Mormon teachings on this issue. And it might surprise you what Mormons have to say on this issue or what Mormon leaders have had to say on this issue. You might think Mormons celebrate Christmas like any good Christian denomination would, right? There's a doctrinal issue that broods over the Mormon people. It's a historic issue that prevents many Mormons from appreciating the Christian meaning of Christmas. It's an issue that prevents many Mormons from having a saving relationship with the real Jesus Christ. It's an integral part of the larger problem of Mormonism having a false Jesus.

So let's ask ourselves, who is the Mormon Jesus in that manger? How was he conceived and what kind of, I mean, it's important because if you have the wrong Jesus, you've got, you don't have salvation. You don't have the right gospel. One of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity is that Jesus was born of a virgin. It's just, it's an essential doctrine.

If you deny that, you're in deep water. You know that the Bible teaches that though she hadn't yet, not yet had physical intercourse with any man. Speaking of Mary, Mary speak.

Yeah. She had within her miraculously conceived Jesus and she bore a son. Mormons insist that they believe in the virgin birth, yet many of them have described it in a way far removed from what Christians have believed for two millennia. While individual Mormons are divided over this issue to this date, the Mormon church has no unequivocal official position on whether the immortal heavenly father had sexual intercourse with his mortal spirit daughter, Mary, to conceive Jesus. Now, this is not to say that there have not been several Mormon leaders that have addressed this issue and used language that very much sounds like God who has a body of flesh and bones actually came down for a time and physically impregnated Mary. Right. We wouldn't even be talking about this issue if Mormon leaders had not caused the problem. That's a very good way of putting it.

They did cause this problem because they have said things that certainly lead anybody reading those statements to that conclusion. Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, his most explicit denial of the traditional virgin birth goes like this, quote, Christ was begotten by an immortal father, by an immortal father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. That's in Mormon doctrine, page 547, 1966 edition. You might ask, how can Mormons who say this kind of thing say that Christ was born of a virgin?

This is really important. This is done by changing the definition of the word virgin. The virgin, quote, unquote, Mary did not have sexual relations, they say, with a mortal man, but instead she was impregnated by an immortal man. Bruce McConkie wrote, Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin because he is the only person who ever had an immortal father. It's also from Mormon doctrine, page 822.

Well, let me let me add to that because he also says in the promised Messiah on page 466, he says, For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper and also natural, since the father of the child was an immortal being. So here we have a clear case of Bruce McConkie redefining a phrase that has been understood a certain way historically, and now he's tweaking it in order to make Mormonism work. When one considers that Mormonism teaches that every human born on earth is a literal spirit child of God, of Heavenly Father, the concept that Jesus was conceived in a, quote unquote, natural manner becomes even more blasphemous.

Why? Because it means that the Jesus of Mormonism was conceived in an incestuous union between Heavenly Father and his spirit daughter, Mary. Mormons today are divided over this issue.

While some deny that the traditional LDS concept of, quote unquote, virgin is anything different than the traditional Christian understanding, others find it necessary that just to say that the church takes no official position on the mechanics, quote unquote, of the conception of Christ. Robert Millet, this is like one of the best, you know, he's seen as one of the best unofficial spokesmen for the Mormon religion today. He's one of those academic spokesmen. He's seen as a champion even of what I would call progressive BYU neo-orthodox. He's trying to take Mormon theology in a little bit different, well, much of a different direction than his own leaders have taken it. Even he says, quote, while Latter-day Saints clearly believe that Jesus is the Son of God, is the Son of God the Father, there is no authoritative doctrinal statement within Mormonism that explains how the conception of Jesus was accomplished.

And the reason he feels like he has to say something like that is because it's such an issue. In a few of his books, he talks about being confronted, it's a strong word, but I think of an LDS woman at one of his events, and she was so distraught that some non-Mormon Christians had shown her the evidence that past leaders had taught that God the Father had natural sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. And Millet's sort of, what he thinks is a very pastoral sort of, you know, taking the pressure off kind of response is to say, well, that's not the official doctrine of the church. And somehow, for a lot of Mormons today, that just sort of solves the problem. And that's what's frustrating to us because they do tend to hide behind the word official as if that just absolves all the strange things you're hearing our leaders say. The Mormon Church is based on this whole idea that they have God-given, God-inspired, Latter-day leaders who speak on behalf of God. But yet, when you quote these guys, whenever they say something that is certainly off the wall, as many of these leaders have, all of a sudden, well, that's not official. But yet, I've found, and you've probably found this too, Aaron, that when you ask the Mormon, well, tell me, do you believe it anyway?

Oh, yeah, of course. So what's the big deal with this word official then? When Millet responded to that woman, he didn't alleviate her concerns by repudiating the idea or by assuring her that that such an idea isn't true. He responded by saying that it's not official.

So here's some discernment questions that everyone listening should put on their belt. When a Mormon says that something taught isn't official, you need to follow that up with, well, do you personally believe it? Because sometimes a Mormon will personally believe something yet not feel publicly obligated to sort of own up to it because it's not a part of the quote unquote core official doctrine. Now, let me ask you this, though, since you've said that, because I've asked that question many times, but what if they say no? What do you say then? If they say they don't believe it. If they don't believe the way you just brought up, because I've had this happen many times, they'll say, well, that's not official doctrine or that's just his opinion.

Right. So now what do you say? OK, well, on the virgin birth issue, multifaceted here, I'd probe a little deeper and say, well, do you think virgin birth, the term, so the doctrinal term can acceptably encompass the idea that God the Father was, you know, physically impregnated Mary via intercourse?

Secondly, I ask questions like this. Would you would it bother you if you met another member who believed such a thing? And would it bother you if you found out that your own leaders have taught such a thing? Because I'm not really merely looking for this sort of, you know, correct checkbox doctrinal answer. I'm looking for the heartbeat, the pulse of the heart of a love for truth.

And if it doesn't bother them, to Mormons listening to this on the radio right now, wherever, if it doesn't bother you that your leaders and many of your members believe and have taught that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. It's kind of like when you go to the doctor's office and they kind of tap your knee and they're looking for some sort of your leg doesn't jump. Right. That's a heart problem. That's a serious issue. You've got to ask God for more sensitivity and more passion for repentance over the issue of truth.

You know what? The honor of your church doesn't matter nearly as much as the honor of Jesus Christ. But we do find a lot of times that we do find a mixed bag when it comes to Latter-day Saints and some will adamantly deny that that was ever a teaching. Then what's really odd is, though, when you show them the teaching, then they'll say something like, oh, well, I guess we do believe it.

Right. And I'm like, wait a minute. You were so adamant that it couldn't be true. Your first emotion was, oh, no, that's so off the wall.

That just can't be true. But now that I've shown you they actually taught it, now you have no problem with it. I think that's one really good reason to sort of when they when they first respond with this more healthy conscience to sit on that for a moment and to really pivot on that and say, you know, would it bother you if you found out that they taught that or why does that bother you or you seem very bothered by such a problem?

I am, too. Or it's kind of the same thing with the Joseph Smith and polygamy. You'll get, you know, you'll claim Joseph Smith had thirty four wives, eleven of whom were married to living husbands. That's an awful anti-Mormon vicious lie.

Well, sit on that for a moment and say, well, if such a thing were true, what implications would there be for you and your religion? And also, though, if the if a Mormon says no, he doesn't agree with it. The way I often respond is, well, then would you agree then with me that you think your leader spoke irresponsibly? Because if you don't think they're right and maybe you're right, they are wrong. Would you admit to me that they spoke irresponsibly? I find that's rare for a Mormon to ever say yes to that question. Right. They know better not to do that because once a lay member starts questioning or correcting the leadership above them, it's not that it doesn't happen. It happens a lot. But technically, that's not the way priesthood authority works.

It doesn't go up. And what they're basically doing is correcting someone within the Mormon Church that they have no authority to correct. And if I was to join the Mormon Church and I've often asked Mormons this, would I be obligated to believe what you are telling me right now? Or would I be more obligated to believe what the general authorities have taught? If you don't take your lead, if you don't take your leaders seriously, why should I? Exactly.

If you cannot take your leaders seriously, what makes you think that I should take the leaders seriously? So when it comes to this issue of the virgin birth or any other topic, then clearly the Mormon is not selling their religion very well when they're showing us that they don't even agree with what their leaders have said. All of us at Mormonism Research Ministry want to wish you and yours a joyous Christmas season as we remember the miraculous birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who came into this world to save His people from their sins. If Viewpoint on Mormonism has been a blessing to you, would you consider a generous year-end gift to help further the efforts of Mormonism Research Ministry? Please know that your tax-deductible gift to MRN is very much appreciated and we humbly thank you for your kind support.