In a recent video, ex-Catholic/Mormon/Protestant now Eastern Orthodox apologist Dave Bartosiewicz plugged an article, Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex, repeating the old, tired claim that "Mormonism" teaches that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary is repeated. However, a careful reader will note there is a lot of quote-mining and eisegesis therein. For instance, the article quotes Brigham Young as saying the following:
“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
It might surprise the author of the piece, but there is a 9-month difference between the birth of a person and their conception. Unless one holds to a Docetic/Gnostic understanding of Jesus' humanity, Jesus' birth was natural. Perhaps investing in a basic book on human biology and/or a reading comprehension course would benefit them? Just saying. Furthermore, even if such quotes did teach this concept, that does not mean that, ipso facto, "Mormonism" teaches it. The Church has very careful guidelines as to what constitutes official theology. See my article On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine for a discussion.
Biblical proof that Jesus birth was, as Brigham said, natural and like all other births, is supported by the Bible. In Luke 2:21-24 (RSV) we read the following:
And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
As Eric Svendsen noted about this pericope and v. 23’s reference to the phrase “opens the womb”:
The Roman Catholic teaching of Mary’s virginity during birth (in partu) (i.e., without rupture of the hymen) seems to be negated by Luke’s phrase in v. 22 that Jesus “opened the womb” (διανοῖγον μήτραν). The sacrifice made in vv.21-24 presupposes a normal birth process for Jesus, and many Catholic scholars note that it is unlikely that Luke would have employed this phrase if he had known of this Marian tradition. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 143)
The official teaching of the Church is that Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived, but that God the Father is the biological Father of Jesus--in other words, God (miraculously) impregnated Mary with His divine Son, and that Jesus had 23 chromosomes from Mary and 23 chromosomes from God the Father. The conventional view on the biology/theology of the virginal conception has been challenged by mainstream theologians who realised that such results in a very problematic Christology. As Wayne Grudem, an Evangelical Protestant wrote:
[W]e should not say we say that Jesus got his “male humanity” from Mary. If Jesus’s human nature had been derived solely from Mary’s physical body, he would have been her clone, and therefore he would have been a woman. The doctrine of the virgin birth must be understood in a way consistent with Matt. 1:20, which says, “That which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirt.” What was conceived in Mary’s womb was a human baby, and it was “from the Holy Spirit,” which suggests that half of the genetic material that Jesus received was miraculously created by the Holy Spirit, and half was from Mary. (Wayne Grudem, “Doctrinal Derivations from Evangelical-Feminist Arguments about the Trinity,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Person, Implications for Life, eds. Bruce A. Ware and John Starke [Wheaton, Illin.: Crossway, 2015], pp.17-45, here, p. 26 n. 18; emphasis in original).
I agree with Grudem to claim that there was no genetic contribution from another person other than Mary results in a perverted understanding of the humanity of Jesus; the New Testament, after all, emphasises the true, full humanity of Jesus Christ, and condemns those who reject such (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Of course, in LDS theology, it is the person of the Father, not the Holy Spirit, that is the “father” of Jesus vis-à-vis His humanity. With respect to Matt 1:20, such has to be read in light of the parallel text in Luke 1:35:
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (NRSV)
The term translated as “Most High” is ὕψιστος which corresponds to the Hebrew עֶלְיוֹן which is a title of God (the Father) in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. This is further strengthened by the fact that Luke is borrowing language from the LXX that speaks of God's glorious presence at work:
Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Whenever the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on each stage of their journey. (Exo 40:35-36 NRSV)
The term translated as "settled upon [the tent]" is επισκιαζω, the same verb translated as “overshadow” in the Lucan text.
The same holds true of Psa 91:4 (90:4, LXX):
He will cover (επισκιαζω) you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness is a shield and buckler. (NRSV)
Some, such as James Dunn (Christology in the Making) and Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah), among others, have argued that the person of the Holy Spirit is not in view in Luke 1:35, but it is to be understood as a form of parallelism, with “holy Spirit” and “Most High” being synonymous with one another, and the locution, “holy Spirit” to be interpreted as the operational presence of God, not the person of the Holy Spirit. In light of the Bible’s penchant of synonymous parallelism, as well as other types of parallelism, such is more than plausible an exegesis of the text.
The person of God the Father is presented as being the one who “overshadows” Mary, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirt, no doubt, in part, to allow Mary to withstand the presence of deity (cf. D&C 67:11); in that respect, it is plausible to also understand God the Father as being the “father” of Jesus, vis-à-vis His humanity, with the same “genetic contribution” from the Father as Mary, Jesus’ biological mother (without going into “how” such genetic material was created [ex nihilo or some other means]).
In his article in response to James R. White, Who Physically Begat the Son? Wade Englund asked the following questions of the view of the virginal conception, including:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ had a literal physical Father?
Regarding Christ's conception, where did the Y chromosome (the male chromosome) come from? (It could not have come from Mary because the female genes have but two X chromosomes.)
Who was the source of the "miracle" that introduced the Y chromosome into Jesus' DNA strand at his physical inception?
Who triggered the cell fusion and activated the cell division (thus producing the same effect normally brought on by the uniting of the sperm with the egg) needed to prevent the onset of menstration and allow for Jesus to develop through the various stages of physical growth from zygote to birth?
Do you consider Jesus to be, in your mind, the first recorded instance of cloning (having received all his physical attributes from his mother, Mary)?
Do you think that "siring" (fathering) a physical child can only occur through sexual intercourse?
Can you accept the fact that others may legitimately believe that "siring" (fathering) the physical child, Jesus Christ, may also have occured through means other than sexual intercourse (including artificial insemination, induced chromosome manipulated parthenogenisis or cloning, or some other form of conception or impregnation thus far unknown--each of which would certainly count as a miracle)?
Can you accept the same regarding the use of such terms and phrases as (these are phrases from the LDS quotes used in Dr. White's article): "as natural as are the births of our children;" "[God] created man, as we create our children;" "naturally begotten;" "Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle;" "the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus;" "our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. . .literally;" "in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers;" "literal Son;" "conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events;" etc.?
Is your belief in parthenogenesis (Virgin Birth), as it relates to the conception of Christ in the flesh, strictly religious, or does it also include the biological meaning of the term?
If not literally, do you think God the Father to be indirectly, or figuratively the physical Father of Christ? If so, in what way? (In other words, do you see the Father as having participated, in any way, in the creation of Jesus' physical body--i.e via artificial insemination, gene-manipulation, etc.)
Indeed, that Mary remained a virgin after the miraculous conception of her Son is the explicit witness of early Latter-day Saints. Note the following:
Who was Jesus Christ? Why, He is called the babe of Bethlehem. He was once a babe, then? Yes. He was born of the Virgin Mary. (George Q. Cannon; Collected Discourses 1:233-34)
If ever, there was a time when there was need for the testimony of these men that are sent out, these seventies, these elders, testifying for Jesus, standing for Jesus; the miraculous Jesus, the Jesus who was begotten by His Father, the Lord God Almighty, and born of the virgin Mary--the Jesus of miraculous birth and miraculous life. (Charles W. Nibley; Conference Report, April 1911, p. 54)
The second is that he shall be without reservation a Christian, believing that Jesus Christ was in very truth the Son of God, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he lived as the scriptures declare He did. (James E. Talmage; Conference Report, April 1914, p. 95)
He was "the only begotten Son of God," born of the Virgin Mary. (Charles W. Penrose; Conference Report, April 1915, p. 37)
Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary, was literally and truly the Son of the Father, the Eternal God, not of Adam. (Charles W. Penrose; Conference Report, April 1916, p. 23)
We know that God is the Lord, and we are perfectly satisfied, I believe, in the truth of the enunciation made by our President this morning, that the Father is a personage, not a mere spiritual imaginary breath, and that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, is his only begotten Son in the flesh, and that we are made in their image, as revealed in scripture. (Charles W. Penrose; October 1916, p. 16)
In that vision it was shown unto him that Christ would come upon the earth, and be born of the Virgin Mary. (Daniel G. Miller; Conference Report, october 1916, p. 123)
Many people are growing to believe in Jesus Christ as the veritable Son of God, born of the virgin Mary and begotten of His Father. (G.E. Ellisworth; October 1916, p. 133)
esus was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he fulfilled his earthly mission, and that his life was concluded in the sacrifice that he offered for us and for the world. (William T. Jack; Conference Report, April 1917, p. 114)
It occurs to me that this same Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and the Son of God, to whom the Father introduced the boy, was the same Jesus Christ who lived upon the earth during the meridian of time: that he was the same Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary. He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. He lived upon the earth for a short period of time, for about 33 years. He entered upon his ministry; he organized his Church with apostles, and evangelists and so on. In time he gave up his life for the sins of the world. that all the children of our Father in heaven who live today, and who lived at the time of the Savior, or who had lived upon the earth before his day, or shall live after we have passed away, might be saved through obedience to his laws. He gave up his life as a ransom for us all. My brethren and sisters, the Savior who talked with Joseph Smith the boy prophet was the identical Savior, the identical Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was crucified upon Calvary's hill, whose body was laid in the tomb, and arose from the tomb on the third day and appeared to his friends and brethren. That identical Jesus Christ who was baptized in Jordan, appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the necessary instruction for the founding of his Church in our day. (Joseph Reece, Conference Report, October 1918, p. 114)
God was manifest in the flesh, in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, and he was verily the Son of God, begotten of the Father, and his mother was the virgin Mary. There should be no dispute in regard to this matter, because it has been made so clear and full in the revelations of God to us. (Charles W. Penrose, Conference Report, April 1920, p. 30)
The elements of his body are eternal, and the elements of the spirit are eternal, without beginning; but there was a beginning to his body, when he was born of the virgin Mary, and God was his Father. His power overshadowed the virgin and, as she was told by the angel Gabriel, the offspring was the Son of God. Jesus Christ taught that doctrine to his apostles and made it very plain. (Charles W. Penrose, April 1921, p. 12)
[W]e have an abiding faith in their purport and believe with all our souls that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, and is therefore the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is also important to believe that during his lifetime he promulgated the plan of life and salvation, and taught the children of men as no one else has ever taught them the glorious principles of eternal life. It is also important that we should believe with all our souls that he gave his life as a ransom for the sins of the whole world, and that his precious blood was spilled as a means of saving mankind from the fall. It is also important that we shall believe with all our souls that on the third day he rose from the dead and overcame death and the grave, and became the first fruits of the resurrection. These are the important things: The observance of these two holy days in commemoration of our Savior's marvelous birth of the Virgin Mary, and his miraculous resurrection from. the dead, is quite general throughout all Christian lands and among the various so-called Christian churches. (Rulon S. Wells, Conference Report, April 1923, p. 124)
Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary crucified upon Calvary, and risen from the dead, is the Redeemer of the world. (Athony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1923, p. 141)
We believe that Jesus Christ was, and is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, immaculately conceived and born of the Virgin Mary. That through the atonement wrought out by him all men are redeemed from the penalty of death, pronounced upon our father Adam, through the resurrection from the grave, which he made possible, and that by obedience to the divine principles of right living which he taught, mankind may be redeemed from personal sin, and brought back into the presence of the Father, to enjoy the fellowship and association of the Son. (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1925, p. 24)
The Latter-day Saints, one and all, the thousands that gather upon such occasions as this, if the question were put to them and they were asked if they knew and could declare with conviction that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, that our eternal Father in heaven, indeed, is his Father, and that he was born of the virgin Mary--every man and woman almost without exception would answer in the affirmative that they know it, because they have received the truth and have abided in the truth, and the truth has made them free. (Joseph L. Lillywhite, Conference Report, October 1925, p. 67)
We believe in the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and that the Child born at Bethlehem of Judea was in very deed the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. That he is our advocate with the Father, the medium through which we reach the throne of grace. (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1926, p. 23 [note that Anthony Ivins uses "Immaculate Conception" to refer to the virginal conception, not the Roman Catholic dogma--such an error is rather common, both inside and outside of, Roman Catholicism])
What can we do if we cannot accept such irrefutable evidence? To me their testimonies mean but one thing, and that is that Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary, who preached the gospel after his own name, who sought the lost ones, whose life as we know it, even from the fragmentary accounts thereof, is an inspiration and has been an inspiration to millions, for two thousand years, who was crucified in ignominy and who was buried: that this same Jesus Christ arose from the grave literally, and that the early Christian church was founded upon that divine fact. (David O. McKay, Conference Report, April 1926, p. 38)
He if was who came in the meridian of time and was born of the Virgin Mary. Thus he was made flesh. This Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, who now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on High from whence proceedeth the light to fill the immensity of space, even "the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things." (Doc. and Cov. 88:13). (Rulon S. Wells, Conference Report, April 1931, p. 94)
The coming of the children of God to this earth was fundamental, for it was to bring to pass their immortality and eternal life that this world was created, that God sent his Only Begotten Son. From the very beginning we see the purpose in the course of its development. This Son of God was born of the virgin Mary. An angel of the Lord appeared unto her and told her that she was greatly favored among women; that she had found favor with the Lord; that she would conceive and give birth to a son, and should call his name Jesus, and he should be called the Son of God. Said Mary unto this angel, "How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man ?" And the angel replied, "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." (Rulon S. Wells, Conference Report, April 1932, p. 67)
Finally, as the holy prophets had predicted, in the Meridian of Time Jesus Christ came into this world. Latter-day Saints accept the doctrine that he was actually and literally the Son, heir in the flesh, of God the Eternal Father. He was born of the Virgin Mary. He was the only man in this life who was born into mortality of the Eternal Father. (Milton R. Hunter, Conference Report, October 1949, pp. 71-72)
Mormonism declares that Jesus Christ lived upon the earth, that he mingled with men, that he preached his powerful Sermon on the Mount to a small group of friends and associates who gathered on a mountainside, that he performed mighty miracles, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, that he was put to death on the cross by his enemies, that he arose from the grave on the third day after his crucifixion, and finally, that he is the Son of God. Mormonism also declares that he chose twelve apostles, that he commissioned them to preach the gospel of salvation which he had taught them, and that like him they performed many miracles in his name and established his Church upon the earth. (Alma Sonne, Conference Report, April 1958, p. 53)
Members of the true Church are aware that Jesus Christ is the Creator of heaven and earth and is the way to peace on earth and goodwill to men. They marvel at the beauty of his creations, and they accept his divine leadership and agree with Paul the Apostle that Jesus is also the author of the plan of life and salvation. "Mormonism" declares to all the world that Jesus Christ lived upon the earth in the meridian of time; that he preached the Sermon on the Mount to a small group of friends and followers who had gathered on a mountainside to hear him; that he performed many mighty miracles, that he was born of the virgin Mary, that he was crucified on the cross by his enemies who were inspired by disgruntled religious leaders of his day, that he arose the third day from a borrowed grave where he was buried, and finally that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, about whom the prophets of Israel spoke. (Alma Sonne, Conference Report, October 1965, p. 36)
It was he then who came to this earth, in the meridian of time, born of the virgin Mary. He was the literal Son of God the Father, "the Only Begotten Son." (Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1968, p. 43)
Even our great Redeemer, whose death and sufferings we are this afternoon celebrating, was born up in yonder world before he was born of the Virgin Mary. (Orson Pratt, November 12, 1876; JOD 18:290)
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Scriptures tell us; and she bare record of it, and there were many witnesses of this fact, and the record teaches us that he was begotten by the power of God, and not of man, and that she had no intercourse with mortal man in the flesh until after she gave birth to the Savior, who is called the Son of God. I will also say that Adam was called the Son of God. (Erastus Snow, March 4, 1878; JOD 19:271)
With respect to the quotations often used to support the anti-Mormon claim, such were ably dealt with and explained soundly by Barry R. Bickmore in his review of When Mormons Call and Inside Mormonism by Isaiah Bennett:
Virgin Birth
When nonauthoritative statements of LDS leaders do not deliver the desired "punch," anti-Mormon authors will often expand the authoritative to include their own dubious interpretations of LDS doctrine. This is especially true with regard to the LDS doctrine of the virgin birth. Bennett quotes a number of nonauthoritative statements by LDS leaders saying that Jesus is the "only begotten after the flesh," that Jesus was begotten "in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," that Mary "must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father," and the like (IM, pp. 292, 293; WMC, p. 93). He takes these statements to mean that members of the Church of Jesus Christ "do not believe that [Mary] was a virgin when [Jesus] was conceived or afterward because they believe conception occurred in the ordinary, natural way" (IM, p. 292) and that "God the Father begot Jesus in the flesh through copulation with the Virgin Mary" (WMC, p. 92). Since the LDS have an anthropomorphic concept of deity, it is certainly possible to interpret these statements in the way Bennett indicates. However, this is not the only interpretation possible, and Bennett leaves out important statements from our prophets and scriptures that lead to much more modest conclusions.
Certainly the prophets have clarified that the virgin birth was a case of sexual reproduction.[97] That is, Jesus had both a father and a mother in the flesh,and his flesh obtained its genetic blueprint from both. Similarly, they have made clear that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was told, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35). To us this indicates that Mary had to be transfigured by the power of the Holy Spirit to withstand the presence of God (see Moses 1:11). On the other hand, it is equally clear that our scriptures and prophets have affirmed that "His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.)"[98] That is, whatever the particular mode of conception, Mary came out of the experience still a virgin. Consider the following statement by President Harold B. Lee:
You asked about . . . the birth of the Savior. Never 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 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall 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 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 would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.[99]
Bennett even resorts to a highly interpretive paraphrase of a statement by Bruce R. McConkie to obscure this point. "McConkie resorted to redefining the term: A virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a mortal man. The Heavenly Father is a resurrected, immortal man. Therefore, Mary did not lose her virginity" (IM, p. 294; cf. WMC, p. 93; citing The Mortal Messiah 1:314). Nothing of the kind is on the page or even in the book Bennett cites. (I will discuss below his tendency to lift quotations from other anti-Mormon authors without attribution and without checking sources.) However, his paraphrase is vaguely similar to the wording in McConkie's article, "Virgin Birth," in Mormon Doctrine. McConkie writes, "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to avirgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." But how did the conception take place? He goes on to say that "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." Finally, McConkie claims, "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false."[100] All this seems quite a bit more vague than Bennett would have us believe.
Regarding McConkie's supposed statement, Bennett opines, "Of course, this is ridiculous. Sex is sex, whether it is with an immortal manor a mortal man" (WMC, p. 93). Is it really so obvious? We do not know what the mechanics of reproduction are when celestial beings are involved. As James E. Talmage explains, Jesus was begotten "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof."[101] That is, it was a miracle.[102] What is the "higher manifestation" of natural law that occurred here? Talmage never says.
Indeed, one of Bennett's prime witnesses is Orson Pratt, who said that the Father and Mary "must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife" (IM, p. 294), but if Bennett had read just a few more lines, he would have found that Pratt also said the Father "overshadow[ed] the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband." Surely, Pratt meant that God acted in the capacity of a husband by begetting a child with Mary; but as for the mechanics of conception, Pratt only ventured to apply the scriptural language that God "overshadowed" her.
Consider this analogy. Jesus has a resurrected, celestial body. At one point he transported this undeniably physical body right through a solid wall, and the wall remained intact (see Luke 24:36-40). Christians of all stripes affirm that this event really occurred. It did not happen spiritually or figuratively—a solid body was literally transported through a solid wall and nothing happened to the wall! How did Jesus do it? Here, most Christians will stop short and look puzzled. It was a miracle, after all, and it seems a little silly to ask how Jesus did it. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out why many Latter-day Saints stop short and look puzzled when anti-Mormons tell us how we must believe the miracle of Jesus' conception and the virgin birth were accomplished. No matter what they may have personally speculated,the modern prophets have never explicitly, and certainly never authoritatively, stated what Isaiah Bennett says they have.
Endnotes for the Above
[97] I thank Russell McGregor for this exceptionally clear explanation.
[98] The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 7.
[99] The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996),14.
[100] McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 822. I find it significant that Bennett uses quotations rather than paraphrases in every other instance in this section of Inside Mormonism. Did he know that McConkie's words did not quite go as far as he would have liked?
[101] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 77.
[102] Talmage defined miracles in these words: "Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. . . . The operation of a higher law in any particular case does not destroy the actuality of an inferior one." James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 200. See Paul C. Hedengren, "Miracles," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:908: Miracles are "a beneficial event brought about through divine power that mortals do not understand and of themselves cannot duplicate."
With respect to the letter from Harold B. Lee, here it is, where president Lee explicitly affirms the virginal conception (though he makes the common mistake of calling it the "Immaculate Conception," a completely different doctrine):
Another anti-Mormon argument, when examined carefully, fails miserably.
