[...]Mormons and Catholics » Ask Mormons[...]…

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!

There is one recurring theme in many of the questions here that has an answer that hasn’t been mentioned…

In “Mormon” terms, it’s captured by the phrase: Eternal Progression. It is one of the core concepts. And it actually fits with pretty much all religions, though it’s not always stated that way. Some religions, and it usually ends up being an “Eastern Philosophy” refer to it as a “continuous personal improvement.”

It is a problem to say that something is “Good enough” when it comes to religious things. Everybody always has room for improvement. Much of that is the failings of the natural body, and some of it is worsened by the spreading of the concept that some things are just normal and you can’t do anything about it. The fact is, if you talk to someone you hold in very high regards, they’ll tell you there are lots of things that they need to improve on. There always are. And if you’re honest with yourself, there are a lot of them.

So in the LDS church, we understand that when you pass into the next world, many things are still the same (you don’t change just because your body itself isn’t there), including your ability to learn, though some things may be more difficult without this world’s experiences (made easier once we get resurrected and have our bodies back, and perfected). So where does it end? I mean, do things stop when you die? Even in the Catholic religion, they believe that when you get to heaven, you don’t just sit around and play a harp for the next 200 billion years. No, you’ll work, you’ll serve God. Guess what? You’ll continue to learn during this time…

And where does that end? I mean, scientists in this world are more and more learning the nature of the universe, and there are things out there (not getting into it) where they are learning how to create matter from energy. Mathematicians have been able to break things down to the point of coming up with a unified theory (string theory) that points to one thing: The universe itself is alive, and we exist on its plane. Thus, something is controlling everything, right? And as scientists are learning, it is possible to create a brane (as it’s called), which would then be its own universe. Scientists, then, are basically learning stuff that supports the concept of a single extremely knowledgable person being the source of everything. To create that universe, He had to come from somewhere else…

To answer an above point: The Creator of this Universe is The Creator. You can’t re-create what soemone has created already. That Being is God for this Universe. As far as you’re concerned anybody else that may have existed doesn’t matter; your God is your God, and there are no others. He is in control here, no one else.

The big problem with scientists is that scientists focus on just the one aspect of life, the physical. A good scientist could still be a wife beater. Knowledge is power, but it’s the spiritual guidance that’s crucial. If you have weak morals, what you do with that knowledge could be scary. (Same reason I wouldn’t want an atheist for a president; what’s to stop him from nuking someone else if he has no belief that what he does really matters in the eternities?)

A lot of people will concentrate on just the spirit, too. Gnostics believed that the body was evil and needed to be shunned, instead of being a gift and an important part of your eternal being. (You still have to learn to control your body, of course.) The Resurrection is to restore your body after this life is over. It must be very important then, right? (Side note- If the body is important, and if it’s something that is a huge gift to us… Why would you think that God himself, before creating everything else, wouldn’t have created Himself a body, presuming He didn’t already have one?)

And it seems most religions also push people to separate the “mind” part of it; that is, separate the science from the rest of it. Think about this though: What God has created is bound by laws; the science of these laws are not in opposition to God, then. He either used it or created it. Thus if something does not make literal sense by those laws, it probably is being looked at wrong.

It’s in the details of this all that things seem confusing without the whole picture. But if you can understand that the entire point of existence (previous world, this world, next world…) is to learn and grow and constantly improve, then the rest of it will make more sense.

So back to the Eternal Progression thing…

What is the goal and hope of a good parent? To raise their children so that they will one day be great people and parents themselves. And a parent takes great joy in watching their children become great ones.

Heck- What is the goal of a roboticist? To make a robot that eventually be able to do everything a human can do, with the complete experience. And a roboticist takes great joy whenever a robot of his progresses and becomes greater.

So what do you think our Heavenly Father’s ultimate goal is? He’s our spiritual parent. In every reasonable way, He is our physical parent too. We know He wants us to be as good as we can be, and if He wants us to keep getting better and learning more and more… Where would it end? To us it is perfectly reasonable to think that He wants us to one day be able to have the same joy of becoming parents to our own universe of children. And so the cycle goes.

And on a separate note:
Being a person who finds it easier to grasp concepts through metaphor, I’ll offer this to answer the Trinity/Gods concept:
Let’s say you have the ultimately perfect President of your country. He is able to see absolutely everything that is going on for what it truly is. And He has the perfect grand plan to fix everything. Not just the country, but the world. And the people in his country know it. Most people in the world are coming to see it too. He finds a vice-president whom he knows joins him completely in his entire vision of the future, who knows it in every detail, and who is able to carry out the execution of the plans perfectly as well. This president can then tell everyone that “When my VP tells you something, it’s coming from me.” Since it’s all coming from the President’s mind, his power, and his vision, then the VP telling you something is still the President telling it to you. It’s the Office of the President, which you just refer to as the President. And it’s all coming from the President.
Substitute “God” for “President,” and you get the idea. Heavenly Father’s son, Jesus, is the perfect one, the one whom He trusts infinitely, and the one who He knew He could send to Earth to represent Him. Thus when you refer to Jesus, or when something comes from Jesus, or when you’re talking with Jesus, you’re talking with God himself. They’re still two individuals, but they are so completely in accordance in every way, that there is no distinction between them except that they are in two separate bodies. Add into that the Holy Ghost, with the same concept (except that it takes a non-corporeal entity to enter into a physical one: your heart)…

Jesus said to “Know me.” Thus, it must be possible, right? And so how does a fuzzy concept of Someone that is everywhere and nowhere and in one tiny place all at the same time fit into that? Sorry, but to me that’s not possible. It makes no sense. But to me, you read the Bible with the above understanding instead, and I don’t see how there’s any confusion. Indeed, in many places, it is pretty clear. Jesus standing on the right hand side of God while the Holy Ghost is elsewhere in the form of a dove… That’s 3 beings, though exactly one in purpose, with the two in perfect service to the one.

And of course, that’s just how I see it.

Oh, and a quick note on the Eucharist: When Jesus gave his Apostles the Sacrament and told them what to say, it was very specifically worded. “…In rememberance of the body of thy Son…” “…In rememberance of the blood of thy Son…” Two separate prayers both specifically written. The key phrase being “In rememberance.” It’s a representation, not actual flesh and blood. And that’s where lies the distinction that our religion sees.

I’m sorry, I know this is a lot to digest in one sitting. I didn’t intend to go on and on like this. I just hope it helps someone, at least to understand where some people are coming from.
Please understand as well that it ultimately comes down to you and your feelings. Pray and ask for specific wisdom through the Holy Ghost on individual topics, with of course an open mind, and ponder individual items… The Holy Ghost will tell you whether it’s true or not. I’ve found for myself that if something is mostly true, I’ll be told that it’s only “mostly” true, and I can break it down from there and find out where the root of the truth lies. Then, follow your conscience.

And, God bless you.