-G
Free Energy for Your Home

I read recently that this refers to Mary’s conception, not Jesus’s. Just so that everyone is on the same page here. (I didn’t understand that before)

Namely, the question in how Mormons think lies in the question: How can Jesus be conceived without Mary having had sex?

Think in modern terms: Do you have to have sex with someone to carry their child? Nope. There is artificial insemenation, there is surrogacy (is that a word?), and there is also genetic modification of existing zygotes/gametes and their DNA. Heck, there’s cloning. And God, knowing everything, including way more than we could possibly fathom right now, would surely know about all this.

One crucial point: Sexual drive and concerns about it are all a mortal issue. An angel doesn’t care if they are standing next to you while you’re naked in the shower, for instance. So please strip away your mortal concerns on that aspect of it.

There are certain things which are passed-on by the father. Certain familial traits and blessings must come from him. The woman has no way of controlling if a child is a son or daughter; the Y-chromosome comes strictly from the father. Thus, the scientific explanation of patrilineal heritage; the same Y chromosome gets passed on from father to son.

For Jesus to be a man, he needed that Y chromosome. To be God, his body needed that Divine heritage. We believe that Jesus truly was a literal son of God. What form that took is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; but the point is that Mary was still a virgin.

Now, the immaculate conception, if I understand it preciesly, is regarding the missing of the sin passed on by Adam and Eve. That is also a source of difference between us; that is: The Fall was necessary in order to fulfill / obey the greater commandment, to multiply and replenish the Earth. And Adam and Eve, both of whom were so righteous that they walked and talked with God (for an indeterminite length of time; it might have been millions of years), eventually had to break that lesser law since they were otherwise breaking the greater law. It was necessary. They made that choice. They had to make that choice. We are to revere them, not look down upon them, for that choice.

If that sin as the Catholics see it was able to be removed, wouldn’t that mean that the person would again live forever?

Side note: Ancient Americans believed that it was the cocoa bean that was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I know what chocolate does for me. I’ve heard what effect it has on other people. Makes perfect sense, I think! heh heh

Anyway, in the LDS church, one of our Articles of Faith is that we will be judged for our own sins and not for Adam’s transgressions. (You wouldn’t expect to be held accountable for something your grandfather did before you were born, would you? Well, Adam was our great-great-…-great-grandfather.) Thus, there is no need to baptize babies to remove a sin that isn’t held against them. Babies are innocent. It’s not until a child is old enough to know better that they’re held accountable for their actions. And that also applies to Mary. Mary was simply a very righteous young woman, and one worthy of carrying the responsibility of raising the child that is to become the Savior of the world. Such a righteous person would stand out among others, which is why the comment was made beginning with “Hail Mary…”

As such, the LDS faith reveres Mary, but we don’t pray to her. She was a saint; one who lives as best they can to follow the commandments of God and be as righteous as they can be.

And that’s basically how we see Mary.

Again, sorry for the rambling!