Virgin Birth Part 6

If the LDS Church is not true, which church is?

Didn't the Bible predict the apostasy of the Christian faith? These and 34 other questions often posed by Latter-day Saints are addressed in Answering Mormon's Questions, published by Kregel. Written by MRMs Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Answering Mormon's Questions includes a glossary of Mormon terms and questions for group discussions. Answering Mormon's Questions can be ordered online at MRM.org or at your favorite Christian bookstore.

Be ready to give an answer! 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. Mormonism and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. We continue our discussion here on Viewpoint on Mormonism.

Welcome to the show. I'm Bill McKeever, the founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me is Aaron Shafawaloff, my colleague at MRM, and we have spent the last several broadcasts discussing this issue, the incarnation of Jesus, or the virgin birth, if you will, and what Mormon leaders have actually taught on this subject. Today, we're going to be looking at a statement made by Melvin J. Ballard.

So Aaron, why don't you go ahead and introduce that? Yeah, he was an apostle of the LDS Church. He was a contemporary of James Talmage. And I think, as far as I know, he was the grandfather of M. Russell Ballard, who is a current LDS apostle. So, just to preface this quote, one of the big responses that Mormon defenders and Mormon apologists give to this issue of Mormon leaders seemingly having taught that God the Father had physical relations with Mary, what they'll say is, well, maybe they were just talking about human artificial insemination. And I think that this quote blows that out of the water.

Here we go. One of the great questions that I have referred to that the world is concerned about and is in confusion over is as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that Jesus Christ told the absolute truth, as did those who testify concerning him, the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, wherein he declared to be the very Son of God. And if God the very eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then we are in confusion. Then is he not in reality the Son of God.

But we declare that he is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God and had come to be worthy of the fulfillment of the promises heretofore made to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said, God has done wonderful things unto me. The Holy Ghost came upon her is the story, and she came into the presence of the highest.

This is still quoting Melvin J Ballard here. No man or woman can live in immortality and survive the presence of the highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence of the power of the highest. Who is the Father was present and overshadowed her, and the holy child that was born of her was called the Son of God. Men who deny this or think that it degrades our Father have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal man, the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Jesus became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his Father. Okay, and what would a Mormon apologist say to that?

Well, I don't know. I know what they've said to other quotes, and they've said, well, maybe they're just talking about artificial insemination or some sort of like spiritual figurative metaphorical equivalent to earthly sex. Did you catch something in this quotation that stuck out with me when it uses the phrase, into the divine presence? It gives us the impression, and as McConkie has said also, that there seemed to be a physical touching of some sort between the two entities.

Wouldn't that be even much more so of being in the presence of God the Father than even Joseph Smith in his first vision, which some have said it was just a vision, he never really saw the person of God? I've heard some argue that way. This is definitely not the Father remotely exercising a miracle of human artificial insemination. In fact, I think the thing that most stands out to me in this quote is that he says this very same power of basically procreation that other men have is what the Father exercised here, and that some men take the same power and make it a harp of pleasure to the wicked. I don't think that he's talking about human artificial insemination here.

No. If you think about people prostituting themselves or committing adultery, you're not talking about artificial insemination. You're talking about copulation here. Melvin J. Ballard has, in so many words here, taught that God the Father came down into the presence of Mary, and she needed the sustaining sort of presence of the Holy Spirit to prepare her, he says.

Prepare her for admittance into the divine presence. Bill, you've tried so hard not to laugh. Well, I'm not laughing like it's repugnant to me.

Right. And what's repugnant is that these men claim to be spokesmen for the Almighty, making these horribly blasphemous statements. And sadly, so many Latter-day Saints, if they know that Ballard said that, shame on them. If they don't know that Ballard made this comment or McConkie made these comments, that's even tragic as well, because they are associating themselves with an organization that certainly supports these people in this alleged calling that they have as an apostle. Lord have mercy on us.

This is pretty messed up. Harold B. Lee, he said, teachers, Harold B. Lee, by the way, was a leader of the Mormon church. He was a president, I think he was the 11th president. He said, teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much concerned that some of our church teachers seem to be obsessed with the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated in making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said. You asked about the birth of the Savior. Neither 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. Then the Mary said unto the angel, How should 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, he says on, 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 should do well to remember the words of Isaiah, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, says the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts are higher than your thoughts. Let the Lord rest his case with this declaration and wait until he sees fit to tell us more. I absolutely have to just point out here, he did not deny the teaching of other Mormon leaders that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary. He just said it would not be wise to teach it. It's sort of like, well, it doesn't seem as official as other things yet. He basically leaves the details or the mechanics up to mystery. It's basically the equivalent of modern Mormon saying, well, maybe the Father had relations with Mary, but we don't know. God has said very little of that.

Clearly what Harold B. Lee is doing is what we call damage control. Obviously, someone is saying this, obviously, they got the idea from somewhere. Where did they get the idea? I mean, you don't get it from reading Luke. You don't get it from reading Matthew. Where did these ideas come from?

You get it from Jung and Pratt and McConkie and Talmage. Now he says not to speculate. Well, isn't that exactly, isn't that exactly, folks, what these guys have done? They have gone far beyond the biblical account in the Gospels to add all sorts of information to this event that is certainly not in the Gospels. Harold B. Lee is recognizing that, but as you said, he doesn't correct those past leaders for doing that.

If we had it our way, he would have rightly recognized here that this is not a non-issue, this is an issue. I mean, he even says some of the church teachers are obsessed with the idea and they're teaching it. I mean, I've heard plenty of BYU students talk about how their BYU teachers adopted this idea. But instead of just publicly saying, look, I know our leaders taught this and they were wrong, and we publicly repent as a church for ever having taught this idea or ever having allowed this idea to be taught by our leaders, unchecked, unrepediated. We openly repudiate the idea, we explicitly affirm the traditional notion of the virgin birth, and we specifically deny that that term can be redefined to mean, you know, you've maybe only had never had relations with a mortal, but maybe you had relations with an immortal the way Mormon apologists and teachers have. That apology is never forthcoming. Mormon leaders don't do that.

They just don't apologize for the mistakes or the sins of past leaders or the false doctrine of past leaders. And I tell you, I testify, as it were, to all the listeners, this is still an issue. I've gone down to Temple Square last winter and I went down one Thursday specifically to push this virgin birth issue. And I talked to a descendant of James Talmadge. I asked him, what do you think about what young Pratt Talmadge McConkie taught about God the Father having physical relations with Mary? And he said, that's too sacred to talk about. So he does understand because, I mean, we believe it's sacred, but we could easily say, hey, it was a virgin birth. It's basically saying, his response essentially was, well, maybe God the Father did have sexual relations with Mary, but I don't want to talk about that because that's too sacred. The odd part about that answer, though, Aaron, is many Mormon leaders obviously did not feel the same way because they did talk about it. They did talk about what they thought actually took place. And certainly what Mormon leaders have taught regarding the incarnation of Jesus is not at all what the Gospels say.

It's not at all what Christians have believed throughout the centuries. So obviously where Mormonism is in this particular topic is outside the parameters of Christian thought and practice. 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.