BEHOLD THE

MOTHER OF MY
LORD
Towards a Mormon Mariology

Robert S. Boylan

1° Edition.
2017
BOYLAN, Robert S.
The Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon
Mariology/Robert S. Boylan; edited by Ranyane Melo. 1
ed. – Charleston, SC, USA: Printed by CreateSpace, An
Amazon.com Company, 2017.

Copyright © 2017 Robert S. Boylan

All rights reserved.
ISBN: 7944187
ISBN-13: 978-1982039523
ROBERT S. BOYLAN

4
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Towards a Mormon Mariology..7

Chapter 2: The Immaculate Conception: Does
the Bible Teach it?.........................................35
Chapter 3: The Immaculate Conception: Is it
found in early Christianity?...........................66
Chapter 4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary.83
Chapter 5: The Bodily Assumption of
Mary…………………………………….139
Chapter 6: Devotions and Apparitions…157
Appendix 1: Latter-day Saints and Religious
Images…………………………………..176
Appendix 2: The Virginal Conception in
Latter-day Saint Theology…………….....184
Appendix 3: Virgin or Young Lady? An
Examination of Isaiah 7:14 and 2 Nephi
17:14…………………………………….208
Selected Bibliography on Mariology……..213
ROBERT S. BOYLAN

6
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER 1

Towards a Mormon
Mariology
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is rarely spoken of
by Latter-day Saints. There are many reasons
for this unfortunate fact, including:

 Scripture speaks very little of her.

 Many man-made and false doctrines, dogmas,
and practices have developed about and
around Mary.
 Latter-day Saints and many others within the
broad Christian spectrum tend to think that
speaking about Mary, let alone highly of her,
is very “Catholic.”

Notwithstanding, there is a need, at least

in the opinion of the author, for a Latter-
day Saint Mariology. “Mariology” is simply
the term denoting the theology about the
person of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

There are many themes in Scripture one can

gleam from the few scriptural references to
Mary, including:

 Mary as a model disciple—while she was

errant, she was also a faithful believer and her
“walk with God” can be faith promoting.
 She was the mother of Jesus, a unique role
and privilege (“favour” [Luke 1:30]) no one
else will ever have.
 Scripture promises that she will be blessed
among women (Luke 1:42)--we should give
thanks for her role in the life and ministry of
Jesus (albeit, without exalting her unduly)
 She is, of course, to be respected as a sister in
the faith.

Let us briefly consider some of these themes

one finds in the Scriptures:

Mary: Redeemed by, and a believer, in God the Father

And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and

my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has
8
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.

Surely, from now on, all generations will call me
blessed; for the Mighty One has done great thing
for me, and holy is his name. (Luke 1:46-50,
NRSV).

Mary’s Errancy

Like all of us (cf. the Apostle Peter in

Matthew 16), Mary was often errant
about the Gospel (again, like Peter). This
should actually comfort us knowing that
everyone, no matter how great they are,
can, and have, fallen short of the mark.

After three days, they [Mary and Joseph] found

him in the temple, sitting among the teachers,
listening to them and asking them questions.
When his parents saw him, they were astonished;
and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you
treated us like this? Look, your father and I have
been searching for you in great anxiety.” He said
to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did
you not know that I must be in my Father’s
house?” But they [Mary and Joseph] did not
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

understand what he said to them (Luke 2:46-50,

NRSV, square brackets added).

Commenting on verse 50, Alfred Plummer noted:

50. οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα. Ergo non ex illis hoc

didicerat (Beng.). There is nothing inconsistent
in this. They learnt only gradually what His
Messiahship involved, and this is one stage in
the process. From the point of view of her
subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that
at this stage she and Joseph had not
understood (Alfred Plummer, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to S. Luke [London: T&T Clark
International, 1896], 78)

Mary: “The Mother of My Lord”

When Mary's cousin Elizabeth greets here, she

recognises the important role Mary plays in the life
and mission of the Messiah. In Luke 1:43 we read:

10
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

And why has this happened to me, that the

mother of my Lord (ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου)
comes to me? (NRSV)

Elizabeth is referencing a Messianic text: Psa 110:1

(LXX: 109:1) which reads:

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my

right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool.

The second lord (Hebrew: adoni: Greek: τῷ κυρίῳ

μου) was understood to be a Messianic figure.
Commenting on the use of this verse in the New
Testament, and how it sheds light on the theology
behind Elizabeth’s statement to Mary, Martin
Miguens notes:

The passage of Mk 12:36f (Lk 20:41) is

evidence in New Testament times the
statement “Yahweh said to my lord” (etc., Ps
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

110:1) was understood in a messianic sense:

the entire sentence describes the royal
enthronement of the Messiah king. The whole
atmosphere refers us to the conceptual world
of the Old Testament where the king himself
is often addressed as “my lord” (1 Kings 1:13-
47); the title applies also to all persons of
some distinction. On the other hand, if it was
believed that David called the Messiah “my
lord” (Ps 110:1), everybody else in the
Israelite community could follow his example.
In other words, in Elisabeth’s praise the term
“my lord” is a respectful and courtly
description of the Messiah; it is, in practical
terms, a messianic title related to the royal
dignity of “the son of David” title related to
the royal dignity of “the son of David” to
whom the “throne” of Davidic given, who will
“be king over the house of Jacob,” and whose
“kingdom” will have no end—this is in fact
“the fruit of Mary’s womb” according to the
terms of the narrative coming just before
Elisabeth’s salutation (Lk 1:32). Mary, “the
mother of my lord,” is, therefore, the mother
of the Messiah, namely, of the most glorious
and honourable king of biblical history and,
above all, of “the horn of salvation raised in

12
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

the house of David, as God had spoken

through the prophets of old” (1:69ff): the king
who is in the fulfilment of biblical hope and
expectation. In this perspective, of an
evidently royal projection of the Messiah, the
definition of Mary as “the mother of my lord”
has a genuinely biblical flavour and sinks its
roots into the purest religious and historical
traditions of the Old Testament. (Martin
Miguens, Mary, "The Servant of the Lord": An
Ecumenical Proposal [Boston: Daughters of St.
Paul, 1978], 61-62)

Mary’s Faithfulness

Then Mary said: “Here am I, the servant of the

Lord; let it be with me according to you word.”
(Luke 1:38, NRSV).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Such words of faith and assent to the plan

of God were uttered even after Mary’s
perplexity about how she, a then-virgin,
would conceive (Luke 1:34 [we will
examine the claim that this verse teaches
Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity in
ch. 2]).

Mary: Faithful to the End

The last (undisputed) reference to Mary

appears in the Acts of the Apostles where
she is with the rest of the faithful after
the ascension of Christ.

All these were constantly devoting themselves to

prayer, together with certain women, including
Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.
(Acts 1:14 [in ch. 4, we will examine the claim that
Mary is the “woman” in Rev 12:1]).

14
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

A “High” view of Mary is actually very “Mormon”

Interestingly, a “high” view of the mother

of Jesus is found in the Book of Mormon;
indeed, while she is rarely mentioned,
Mary, when she does appear in the Book
of Mormon, is spoken highly of:

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the

great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I
beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of
Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was
exceedingly fair and white . . . And I said unto him:
A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other
virgins. (1 Nephi 11:13, 15).

. . She being a virgin, a precious and chosen

vessel . . . (Alma 7:10).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Bruce McConkie and the Mother of Jesus

Bruce McConkie (1915-1985), apart from

having been an apostle and an author of
numerous works, was also a vocal
opponent of Roman Catholicism and its
dogmas about Mary. Notwithstanding, he
did speak highly of the mother of Jesus.
This is important and something other
Latter-day Saints should follow: being
able to differentiate the false dogmas and
doctrines about Mary from the person of
Mary.

Consider the following passages from

some of his publications where, even in
passing, he speaks highly of Mary:

Would it be amiss to here interject a pleasing

historical fact: There were here assembled, as it
were, the first Christians of Jesus’ day, and they
were holding their first meeting. Mary and
Elisabeth, both true believers, were present, and
they preached the sermons. John, in the flesh in
his mother’s womb, also a believer, let his witness
be heard. We suppose Zacharias was there and
that he could feel the spirit of the meeting,

16
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

though for the moment and until John was born,

his lips were sealed and his ears were stopped.
Those who travelled with Mary—probably
unbelievers and non-Christians, as it were—may
also have witnessed the scene and felt the spirit
of the participants. Needless to say, the account
preserved for us by Luke—and his source must
have been the blessed Virgin herself—is
abbreviated and does not tell all that was spoken
between the two cousins, whose sons were to
change the history of the world. (The Mortal
Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, vol. 1).

We must not leave this part of our discussion

without recording that, without question, there
were many unmentioned [post-resurrection]
appearances. We know He was with them, from
time to time, for forty days; and it is unthinkable
to assume that he did not appear to the Blessed
Virgin whose Son he was. (The Mortal Messiah:
From Bethlehem to Calvary, vol. 4 [square
brackets added]).

Our Lord’s mother, Mary, like Christ, was chosen

and foreordained in pre-existence for the part she
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

was destined to play in the great plan of salvation.

Hers was the commission to provide a temporal
body for the Lord Omnipotent, to nurture and
cherish him in infancy and youth, and to aid him
in preparing for that great mission which he alone
could perform. Certainly she was one of the
noblest and greatest of all the spirit offspring of
the Father. (Mormon Doctrine [2d ed], S.V.
“Mary”).

Jesus denounced any over-exaltation of His Mother

While this will be a theme discussed in

more details later in this volume, it should
be noted that Jesus explicitly denounced
any attempt to exalt his mother unduly.
As we read in the Gospel of Luke:

While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd

raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the
womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed
you!” But he said, “Blessed rather (μενουν
menoun) are those who hear the word of God and
obey it!” (Luke 11:27-28).

18
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Then his mother and his brothers came to him,

but they could not reach him because of the
crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your
brothers are standing outside, wanting to see
you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my
brothers are those who hear the word of God and
do it.” (Luke 8:19-21).

Indeed, one should understand that, for

Jesus, what was primary was not
biological relationships but spiritual
relationships. Indeed, in John 2:4 and
Matt 12:46-50, Jesus establishes what
scholars call “an eschatological family”—a
family/community linked together by
shared spiritual beliefs and concerns and
not based on biological ties.

Commenting on John 2:3-5, particular the phrase τί

ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι (“what between me and you,
woman” in v. 4, Marianne Meye Thompson noted:
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Commentators have long struggled with the

sharpness of Jesus’ reply to his mother and
have sought to soften it: addressing her a
“Woman,” Jesus essentially tells her to leave
him alone What does that have to do with
me” or “This is no concern of mine” translates
a Greek phrase that reads, lit., “What to you
and to me?” For the phrase, see LXX: Jud
11:12; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chr 35:21; 1
Esd 1:24 [1:26 ET]; and Mark 1:24), since his
hour has not come. But Jesus’ reply follows a
pattern, typical of John, demonstrating that
Jesus acts not at the instigation of others, but
at his own initiative; implicitly, he acts in
keeping with the Father’s will (5:19). When
Jesus’ mother informs hi that the hosts of the
wedding have run out of wine, he initially
deflects her request, even as he later deflects
the petition of the royal official (4:47-48),
rebuffs his brothers when they urge him to go
up to Judea (7:3-8), and deliberately stays
away from Bethany upon hearing of Lazarus’s
illness (11:5-6). In each account, Jesus does
act eventually, but having distanced himself
from the original request, he shows that he is
not acting under pressure of others’ agenda
for him (cf. 6:14-15; 7:6-10). In this light,
Jesus’ statement, “My hour has not yet
come,” may simply mean he will act only
when he has judged that his time to do so has
come.(Elsewhere, Jesus’ hour refers to the

20
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

hour of his death [7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1;

17:1] and glorification [12:23, 27-28; 17:1].
Possibly there is a foreshadowing here of the
fact that the manifestation of Jesus’ glory in
his signs [2:11] will eventually also bring about
his death, a destiny that Jesus chooses
willingly and that cannot be forced on him).

Jesus thus distances himself from his natural

family—here from his mother and later from
his brothers—even as he does in the other
Gospels (cf. Mat 12:48-50; Mark 3:33-35; Luke
2:49; 8:19-21). Later the dying Jesus entrusts
the case of his mother to the “beloved
disciple,” rather than to his natural brothers,
further redefining the contours of his kin
(John 19:26-27). After his resurrection, he
refers to his disciples as his “brothers” and to
God as “my Father and your Father” (20:17-
18), showing that the Son (huios) has now
brought “his own” (hoi idioi) into the larger
family of the children of God (tekna tou
theou), a family whose identity is not drawn
along natural lines of descent and blood
relationships (1:10-13; 3:3-5; 11:52).
(Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A
Commentary [The New Testament Library;
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press,
2015], 60-61).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

As for μενουν, scholarly lexicons support

that it means “rather” (some Catholic
apologists try to argue it means “yes and
also”):

BDAG (Greek-English Lexicon of the Greek

New Testament)
:
4814 μενοῦν
• μενοῦν (also μὲν οὖν) Lk 11:28 (for
negative s. οὐ μὲν οὖν).
and μενοῦνγε (also μενοῦν γε), particles used
esp. in answers, to emphasize or correct (B-D-F §450, 4;
Rob. 1151f), even—contrary to earlier Gk. usage—at
the beginning of a clause (Phryn. 342 Lob. [322
R.]) rather, on the contrary (Soph., Aj. 1363;
Pla., Crito 44b; X., Cyr. 8, 3, 37) Lk 11:28 v.l. Indeed Ro
10:18. ἀλλὰμενοῦνγε more than that Phil
3:8. μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ … ; on the contrary, who
are you … ? (or, who in the world are you to [take issue
with God]?) Ro 9:20.—M-M.

Louw-Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the

New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains:

89.128 μενοῦν ; μενοῦνγε: relatively emphatic

markers of contrast - ‘but, on the contrary, on the other
hand.’ μενοῦν: μενοῦν μακάριοι
22
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον

τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες ‘on the contrary,
those who hear the word of God and keep it are happy’
or ‘... fortunate’ Lk 11.28.

Why the controversy about Mary?

In Roman Catholicism, there are various

dogmas and doctrines about Mary that
are among the main “dividing lines”
between Catholics and other faiths,
including Latter-day Saints.

One should make a differentiation

between a dogma and a doctrine. In
school, one is taught that “all squares are
rectangles, but not all rectangles are not
squares.” Similarly, all dogmas are
doctrines, but not all doctrines are
dogmas. A “dogma” is a belief that has
been elevated, either by an infallible
papal statement or an ecumenical
council, that is to be believed, de fide (as
an article of faith).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

A doctrine that has not been elevated to

the status of a dogma is something that is
considered a proper belief and is taught
by the Church, but one can freely reject it
and remain a faithful Catholic up until the
very point of its dogmatic definition (e.g.,
up until 1870, one could be a faithful
Catholic and call into question papal
infallibility, but once it was defined at
Vatican I, one must accept it as being true
and definitional of the faith or they would
be under threat of the anathema).

In Roman Catholicism, there are four

Marian Dogmas, the latter three we will
be discussing in some detail in this book:

 Mary as the “Mother of God” (theotokos [lit.

“God bearer”]);
 The Perpetual Virginity of Mary;
 The Immaculate Conception;
 The Bodily Assumption.

24
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The Fifth Marian Doctrine

There is also “The Fifth Marian Doctrine”

which teaches that Mary is co-redemptrix
and co-mediatrix with Christ. There is
currently a movement, spearheaded by
Mark Miravalle, a leading Catholic
Mariologist, to petition the papacy to
define this doctrine as a dogma. As
sections 967-970 of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, while discussing this
doctrine, states:

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s

will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every
prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is
the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she
is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member
of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary
realization” (typus) of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all

humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular
way she cooperated by her obedience, faith,
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of

restoring supernatural life to souls. For this
reason she is a mother to us in the order of
grace.”

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of

grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent
which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and
which she sustained without wavering beneath
the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the
elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside
this saving office but by her manifold intercession
continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation
. . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the
Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper,
Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

970 “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way

obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of
Christ, but rather shows its power. But the
Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . .
flows forth from the superabundance of the
merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends
entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.”
“No creature could ever be counted along with
26
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the

priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways
both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the
one goodness of God is radiated in different ways
among his creatures, so also the unique
mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but
rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which
is but a sharing in this one source.”

In chapter 6, we will discuss how Fatima and Our Lady of All

Nations (Amsterdam), approved apparitions, explicitly teach this
doctrine in the purported revelations from Mary. Now, we will
address one question some may be asking: “Where in the Bible
does one find support for this?” One popular text is that of Luke
2:35 which records the prophecy of Simeon to Mary, the mother
of Jesus. The KJV renders the verse as follows:

(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,)

that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Many modern Catholic apologists and theologians (e.g., Mark

Miravalle; Tim Staples) take this as biblical evidence of Mary
being co-redemptrix with Jesus. Consider the Vatican II
document, Lumen Gentium:

57. This union of the Mother with the Son in the work
of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s
virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all
when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is
greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the
promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

in the womb of his mother. This union is manifest also

at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His
mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it, when the
Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the
shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the
Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she
heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son
would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword
would pierce the mother’s soul, that out of many
hearts thoughts might be revealed. When the Child
Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His
parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the
things that were His Father’s business; and they did not
understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed
kept these things to be pondered over in her heart.
58. In the public life of Jesus, Mary makes significant
appearances. This is so even at the very beginning,
when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity,
she brought about by her intercession the beginning of
miracles of Jesus the Messiah. In the course of her
Son’s preaching she received the words whereby in
extolling a kingdom beyond the calculations and bonds
of flesh and blood, He declared blessed those who
heard and kept the word of God, as she was faithfully
doing. After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in
her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her
union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in
keeping with the divine plan, grieving exceedingly with
her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal
heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the
immolation of this Victim which she herself had
brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ
Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with
these words: “Woman, behold thy son”.

This fanciful eisegesis notwithstanding, more responsible

Catholic commentators understand this verse, not as being

28
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

focused on Mariology, but a verse making a Christological point.

As John McHugh, who himself was a staunch defender of
Catholic Mariology, wrote:

In Is 49:2 the servant of Yahweh says: ‘he has made my

mouth like a sharp sword.’ The Septuagint here
translates μαχαρια, not ρομφαια (the word used in Lk
2:35a), but the difference is not significant, for the
image from Second Isaiah is taken up in the Apocalypse
with the word ρομφαια. Thus ‘a sharp two-edged word’
comes from the mouth of the Son of Man (Apoc 1:16).
John is ordered to write to the angel of the church at
Pergamum a letter beginning: ‘Thus says he who wields
the sharp two-edged sword’ (2:12), and ending:
‘Repent, then, or else I shall come quickly and make
war on them with the sword of my mouth’ (2:16).
Again, at the end of the book, a Horseman rides out
from heaven to execute the final judgement, with a
sharp sword issuing from his mouth: his name is ‘the
Word of God’ (19:11, 13, 15, 21). In all these texts from
the Apocalypse the sword is a symbol for the word of
revelation which comes from the Son of Man, and this
sword becomes, by reason of men’s reactions to it, an
instrument of God’s judgement. One may add that in
Eph 6:17 the word of God is called ‘a spiritual word’
(μαχαρια), and that in Heb 4:12 it is called ‘a sharp two-
edged sword’ (again, μαχαρια) which penetrates into
the furthest depths of the human soul, bringing to light
the sentiments and the thoughts of the character which
is there. In the New Testament, then, the sword can be
a metaphor or divine revelation as an instrument of
judgment, whereby God compels men to
reveal their true characters.

The preaching of Jesus is such a two-edged sword. His

preaching allowed no one to be neutral: ‘Whoever is
not with me is against me, and whoever does not
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

gather with me is scattering things around’ (Luke

11:23). It stirred up strife within the family: ‘Do you
think I came to bring peace in the country? No, I tell
you—only strife! There shall be strife between father
and son . . . between mother and daughter . . . (Luke
12:51-3). The parallel text in Matthew reads: ‘I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword’ (Mt 10:34).

The meaning of Simeon’s prophecy, therefore, is that

the word of revelation brought by Jesus will pass
through Israel like a sword, and will compel men to
reveal their secret thoughts. Thus, just as Jesus will fulfil
the prophecy of Is 49:6 by being ‘a light bringing
revelation to the Gentiles’ (Lk 2:32), so he will fulfil the
role assigned to the Servant of Yahweh in Is 49:2, or his
message will be felt as a sharp sword. (John
McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New
Testament [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1975], 108-9, emphasis in original).

Is this theology taken seriously?

The answer is “yes”; such theology is

taken very seriously within Roman
Catholicism. To illustrate, consider the
following from the papal bull issued by
Pius XII that defined the Bodily
Assumption of Mary, Munificentissimus
Deus (1 November, 1950).

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth

prayers of supplication again and again to God,
and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth,
30
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his

special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the
honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages
and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase
of the glory of that same august Mother, and for
the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority,
we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a
divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate
Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having
completed the course of her earthly life, was
assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. 45.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare
willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we
have defined, let him know that he has fallen away
completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. . . .
47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our
declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by
rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man
should presume to make such an attempt, let him
know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God
and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Furthermore, while we will discuss some

Marian prayers in chapter 6, do note the
words of this popular prayer to Mary, one
that, until recently, carried with it a
promise of a plenary indulgence:

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the

dispenser of every grace that God grants us in our
misery; it is for this cause that He hath made thee
so powerful, so rich, so kind, that thou mightest
assist us in our miseries. Thou art the advocate of
the most wretched and abandoned sinners, if
they but come unto thee; come once more to my
assistance, for I commend myself to thee. In thy
hands I place my eternal salvation; to thee I
entrust my soul. Enrol me among thy most faithful
servants; take me under thy protection and it is
enough for me: yes, for if thou protect me, I shall
fear nothing; not my sins, for thou wilt obtain for
me their pardon and remission; not the evil
spirits, for thou art mightier than all the powers of
hell; not even Jesus, my Judge, for He is appeased
by a single prayer from thee. I fear only that
through my own negligence I may forget to
recommend myself to thee and so I shall be lost.
My dear Lady, obtain for me the forgiveness of
my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance and the
32
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

grace to have recourse to thee at all times, O

Mother of Perpetual Help.

And finally, consider Pope Francis’ New

Year message on his twitter account for 1
January 2017 which highlights the central
role of Mary and Marian devotion in
Catholicism:
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

This brings us to the ultimate reason why

I am writing this book. I am a former
Roman Catholic and perhaps one of, if not
the, most informed Latter-day Saint
apologist on the issue of Mariology. I am
writing this book to (1) help Latter-day
Saints make sense of Mary and for there
to be a development of a
theologically/scripturally sound Mariology
in LDS circles; (2) to equip Latter-day
Saints with the necessary information to
discuss Mary with Roman Catholics and
(3) for Roman Catholic readers to know
the truth about the mother of Jesus Christ
and the false dogmas and doctrines their
Church teaches about her.

34
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER 2

The Immaculate
Conception: Does the Bible
Teach it?
The most important Marian dogma is that
of the Immaculate Conception. In this
chapter and chapter 3, we will discuss the
purported biblical and patristic evidence
supporting this dogma.

On December 8th 1854, Pius IX defined

the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
in the papal bull, Ineffabilis Deus, which
reads, in part:

… To the honour of the Holy and Undivided

Trinity, to the glory and adornment of the Virgin
Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic
Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by
the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own,

We declare, pronounce, and define that the
doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin
Mary at the first instant of her conception, by a
singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in
virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of
the human race, was preserved immaculate from
all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God,
and on this account must be firmly and constantly
believed by all the faithful. Wherefore, if any
should presume to think in their hearts otherwise
than as it has been defined by Us, which God
avert, let them know and understand that they
are condemned by their own judgment; that they
have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and
have revolted from the unity of the Church; and
what is more, that by their own act they subject
themselves to the penalties established by law, if,
what they think in their heart, they should dare to
signify by word or writing or any other external
means. (DS: 2803-2804).

36
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Luke 1:28: Is Mary “ Full of

Grace” ?

Catholic theologians and apologists are

fond of pointing to Luke 1:28 as evidence,
whether implicit or explicit, of Mary being
free from both original sin and personal
sin. The text reads in the Greek as follows:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· χαῖρε,

κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ

I would translate it as follows:

And he [Gabriel] came to her [Mary] and said,

“Greetings, favoured one, the Lord is with you.”

The pro-Catholic bias of the Douay-

Rheims translation comes out when it
renders it:
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail,
full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

The DR is dependent upon the Vulgate

which renders κεχαριτωενη as plena
gratia, which means “full of grace.”

The Greek term κεχαριτωμενη is often

pointed out as evidence for Mary being
immaculately conceived. Catholic
theologian, Ludwig Ott in his book, The
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma offers
the following comments on this verse on
page 203 of his book:

Mary’s sinlessness may be deduced from the text:

Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace!”, since personal
moral defects are irreconcilable with fullness of
grace.

Let us examine this Greek term.

38
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Κεχαριτωμενη is the feminine, vocative

present-passive participle form of the
verb χαριτοω which means “to bestow
grace/favour upon.” It has the Greek root-
word χαρις “grace” contained in it.
Because of its relationship to χαρις and it
being in the present-passive form,
Catholic apologists point to its
morphological form as evidence (if not
proof, as Karl Keating does in his book,
Catholicism and Fundamentalism [Ignatius
Press, 1988]) of the Immaculate
Conception. However, there are many
exegetical problems with this argument.

Firstly, the Greek text of Luke explains

why Mary is “favoured” (or “graced” if
one prefers), viz. that she was chosen by
God to be the mother of the Messiah. In
Luke 1:30-32, we read:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary, for
thou has found favour (χαρις) with God. And,
behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He
shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the
throne of his father David.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Any meaningful exegesis of Gabriel’s

words in 1:28 will incorporate the text’s
own explanation as to why Mary was
“graced/favoured”—her being the
mother of the promised Messiah and
eschatological Davidic King. Nothing is
said about her personal sinlessness,
something that is without biblical
warrant.

Furthermore, the same morphological

form of χαριτοω is used in Sirach 18:17
(LXX), a volume accepted as being
canonical in Catholic dogma (cf. the
Council of Trent’s 1546 definition of the
canon). The Greek of Sirach 18:17 reads:

οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν καὶ

ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ κεχαριτωμένῳ

The NRSV translates it as:

Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift?

Both are to be found in a gracious person.

40
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

κεχαριτωμένῳ is the present-passive

participle form of χαριτοω; the only
difference between this and
κεχαριτωμενη is that the former is in the
masculine dative form, but there is no
significant difference. There is nothing in
the context, or in the meaning of
κεχαριτωμένῳ that hints that this man
spoken about was free from all sin
(whether person or original). By only
engaging in both eisegesis and question-
begging can one claim that Luke 1:28
teaches Mary’s sinlessness and Sirach
18:17 does not.

Luke 1:28 and “ The Lord is With

You”

Some Catholic apologists appeal to the

phrase “the Lord is with you” as evidence
of her personal sinlessness.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

However, the phrase, “The Lord is with

you” (ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ) is a rather
common locution in the LXX and never
once hints at the concept of being free
from sin, whether original or personal.
Consider the following examples (in the
following examples from the LXX, the
Greek term κυριος are instances where
the underlining Hebrew is Yahweh):

And they said, We saw certainly that the Lord was

with thee [Isaac]: and we said, Let there be now
an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and
let us make a covenant with thee. (Gen 26:28).

And he said unto them, Let the Lord be with you,

as I will let you go, and your little ones; look to it,
for evil is before you. (Exo 10:10).

And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and

said unto him, “The Lord is with thee [Gideon],
thou mighty man of valour. (Judg 6:12).

42
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and

said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you, And
they answered him, The Lord bless thee. (Ruth
2:4).

David said moreover, The Lord that delivered me

out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of
the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this
Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the
Lord be with thee. (1 Sam 17:37).

The Lord do so and much more to Jonathan: but if

it please my father to do thee evil, then I will
shew it thee, and send thee away, that thou
mayest go in peace: and the Lord be with thee, as
he hath been with my father. (1 Sam 20:13).

And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in

thine heart; for the Lord is with thee. (2 Sam 7:3).

And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him,

Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; The
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye

seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake
him, he will forsake you. (2 Chron 15:2).

Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set

yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of
the Lord with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear
not, nor be dismayed; tomorrow go out against
them, for the Lord will be with you. (2 Chron
20:17).

What we can conclude from this is that

(1) the locution, ο κυριος μετα σου and
similar locutions is not evidence of being
free from the stain of sin and (2) simply
means that the Lord is “with” the person
in the sense of protecting and/or guiding
prophetically and individual or a group. In
the case of Luke 1:28 and Mary, God was
“with” her in that she would,
miraculously, be the mother of the
Messiah (Luke 1:35). To read into this
evidence of the Immaculate Conception,
as defined in 1854, is nothing sort of
eisegesis.

44
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Luke 1:42, 48-49 and Mary being

"blessed"

In Luke 1:42, recording the words of

Elizabeth to her cousin Mary, we read:

And she spake out with a loud voice, and said,

Blessed art though among women, and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

In her Magnificat, Mary is recorded to

have said the following:

For he hath regarded the low estate of his

handmaiden, for, behold, from henceforth all
generations shall call me blessed. For he that
is mighty hath done to me great things; and
holy is his name. (Luke 1:48-49).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

The “blessedness” of Mary is not her

being free from sin. Instead, her being
blessed refers to her having received
favours/blessings from God as a result of
her being the mother of the long-
promised Messiah (cf. Luke 1:30). As
Martin Miguens, himself a Roman
Catholic and defender of his Church’s
Mariology, wrote:

The evangelist understands that the reason

why Mary is to be “called blessed” is her
maternity. Only Mary’s maternity is
contemplated. Such is certainly the case with
Elisabeth, who declares Mary blessed among
women at the same time that she declares in
the same sentence (kai) the “fruit of her
womb” blessed also; the surprise of Elisabeth
is that “the mother of My Lord” should pay a
visit to her; Mary is “blessed” because she
believed in the realisation of what the Lord
“has said to her,” which is nothing but the
preceding message of her calling.

46
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The case is not different with Luke and his

community. Whatever the syntactic relation
between v. 48 and 49, the logical connection
is obvious: all generations will call Mary
blessed “because the Powerful one has done
great things to me.” The context does not
suggest any concept with which to link the
great things or wonders of God done “to my”
except Mary’s maternity, in which God
showed himself to be “the powerful one” who
intervened through “the power of the Most
High” (1:35). The point is relevant because it
proves that the real foundation of Mary’s
“blessedness” in the eyes of Luke and his
community (and of Elisabeth) is her maternity:
she begins to be declared blessed “from now
one,” from the very first moment that her
maternity because known to others.” (Michael
Miguens, Mary, "The Servant of the Lord": An
Ecumenical Proposal [Boston: Daughters of St.
Paul, 1978], 58).

Lest anyone be tempted to read into

Mary being said to be blessed among
women, one should note that something
similar is said of Jael in Judg 5:24:
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of

Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be
above women in the tent.

Finally, in Mary’s Magnificat, there is

evidence against her being free from sin.
In Luke 1:47, we read:

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Now, it is true that in Catholic theology,

God was the Saviour to Mary, albeit in an
unique manner. As Inefabilis Deus put it,
Mary was preserved from original sin, and
kept from personal sin, "by a singular
grace and privilege of Almighty God, in
virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the
Savior of the human race." As Ludwig Ott
put explained:

c) Mary’s freedom from original sin was an

unmerited gift of God (gratia), and an
exception from the law (privilegium) which
was vouchsafed to her only (singulare).

48
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

d) The efficient cause (causa efficiens) of the

Immaculate Conception of Mary was Almighty
God.

e) The meritorious cause (causa meritoria)

was the Redemption by Jesus Christ. It follows
from this that even Mary was in need of
redemption, and was in fact redeemed. By
reason of her natural origin, she, like all other
children of Adam, was subject to the necessity
of contracting original sin (debitum
contrahendi peccatum originale), but by a
special intervention of God, she was
preserved from stain of original sin; debuit
contrahere peccatum, sed non contraxit. Thus
Mary also was redeemed “by the grace of
Christ” but in a more perfect manner than
other human beings. While these are freed
from original sin present in their souls
(redemptio reparativa), Mary the Mother of
the Redeemer, was preserved from the
contagion of original sin (redemptio
praeservativa or praeredemptio). Thus the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary
in no way contradicts the dogma that all
children of Adam are subject to Original Sin
and need redemption. (Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 199).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

However, the typical Roman Catholic

apologists’ responses to Luke 1:47 are not
convincing. For instance, Patrick Madrid
in his article, "Mary, Ark of the New
Covenant: A Biblical look at the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin Mary" (This Rock, December 1991),
Patrick Madrid responds to Luke 1:47
thusly:

Medieval theologians developed an analogy to

explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as
her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along
a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few
paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong
into the pit and is immersed in the mud
(original sin) it contains. He cries out for help,
and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope
down to him and hauls him back up to safety.
The man says to his rescuer, "Thank you for
saving me," recalling the words of the
psalmist: The Lord "stooped toward me and
heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of
destruction, out of the mud of a swamp; he
set my feet upon a crag" (Psalm 40:2-4).

50
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit,

but as she began to fall into the pit her
rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling
in. She cries out, "Thank you for saving me"
(Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no
less "saved" than any other human being has
been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily,
before contracting original sin. Each of us is
permitted to become dirtied with original sin,
but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a
far better way.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

The problem with this is that Madrid et al.

expects us to believe, as being
exegetically and historically tenable, the
idea that when Mary uttered Luke 1:47,
she understood the theology of the
Immaculate Conception which would not
be developed for several centuries, and
cognizant of analogies similar to those of
Medieval theologians to explain Mary’s
freedom from original sin. Ask yourself
this: outside one having their conscience
bound to Rome’s allegedly infallible
authority to proclaim dogmas (especially
dogmas utterly unknown in the early
Church, which, as this volume documents,
the Immaculate Conception is), would you
actually accept this rather contrived
explanation? Exegetically speaking, it is a
prime example of putting one’s
theological cart in front of the horse.

Sensing the difficulty with this standard

"response," one Catholic apologist wrote
the following:

52
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Although the Catholic would more or less be

forced to offer such an explanation of Luke
1:47 when pressed by the Protestant, the
Catholic would then suggest that the issue of
a "Savior" in Luke 1:47 does not directly relate
to the matter of Mary's need to be saved from
sin. Rather, as the remaining context shows,
Mary's reference to the "Savior" is merely the
echoing of all the promises God, as Israel's
proclaimed "Savior," that Mary finds fulfilled
in Jesus. . . . Mary represents Israel, who at
the time of Jesus is under oppression from the
Romans . . . In verse 55, Mary speaks of God
fulfilling the promises to Abraham given in
Genesis 12-22. (Robert A. Sungenis, Bible
Studies for Catholics [State Line, Pa.: Catholic
Apologetics International Publishing, Inc.],
401-402).

In other words, some Catholic apologists

are now opting for interpreting σωτηρ in
a more non-soteriological sense when
used in Luke 1:47; instead, it refers to the
eschatological fulfilment of various Old
Testament promises, chief among them is
the Messiah, and Jesus being the national
saviour in such a context.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Old Testament Marian Typology?

According to many Catholic apologists

(e.g., John McHugh; John Salza; Patrick
Madrid) there are various types in the Old
Testament (e.g, the Ark of the Covenant)
and that Mary is their New Testament
fulfilment (antitype). They argue that, as
the Ark of the Covenant, for example, was
the holiest object on earth, and if Mary is
the New Testament fulfilment of the Ark
of the Covenant, ipso facto, Mary, to be a
greater fulfilment of the Old Testament
type, must have been free from all sin. As
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, wrote:

The Church understands Mary to be the

fulfillment of three Old Testament types: the
cosmos, Eve, and the ark of the covenant . . . The
third and most compelling type of Mary’s
Immaculate Conception is the ark of the
covenant. In Exodus 20 Moses is given the Ten
Commandments. In chapters 25 through 30 the
Lord gives Moses a detailed plan for the
construction of the ark, the special container
which would carry the Commandments. The

54
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

surprising thing is that five chapters later, staring

in chapter 35 and continuing to chapter 40,
Moses repeats word for word each of the details
of the ark’s construction.

Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it

was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met
(Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as
perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so
it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the
written Word of God. How much more so would
God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to
be perfect and unblemished since she would carry
within her womb the Word of God in flesh.
(Patrick Madrid, “Ark of the New Covenant” This
Rock, December 1991).

While read Madrid’s article, one cannot

help but agree with the following from
two Protestant critics thereof:

One Catholic apologist calls this the “most

compelling type of Mary’s Immaculate
Conception” (see Madrid, “Ark of the New
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Covenant,” p. 12). It is only compelling if one

makes the unbiblical and unjustified assumption
that it is a valid analogy. One can note certain
similarities between many things that prove
nothing (e.g., there are many strong similarities
between good counterfeit currency and genuine
bills). Thus, even proponents of this view have to
admit that none of this “proves” the immaculate
conception (ibid.). The ineptness of these kinds of
analogies surface in Madrid’s question: “If you
could have created your own mother [as God did
in Mary], wouldn’t you have made her the most
beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible?”
(ibid.). Sure, I would have done a lot of things
differently than God did. If I were God and could
have created the most beautiful place for my Son
to be born it would not have been a stinky, dirty
animal stable! God, however, chose otherwise.
(Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman
Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and
Differences [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995],
314 n. 55).

56
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The problem with this and other

purported types (e.g., Mary as the
“New/Second Eve”) is that they often
break down when examined carefully. For
instance, some Catholics (e.g., John Henry
Cardinal Newman; Tim Staples) claim that
Mary is the New/Second Eve, appealing to
Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian who
made the Mary/Eve parallel in their
writings. As Eve was created in a state of
original innocence, Mary, to be better
than the type, must have been free of sin
all throughout her life. However, when
one reads the totality of these and other
authors, they accused Mary of personal
sin, showing that they did not believe that
Mary, to be typified by Eve, to have been
sinless, one of the building blocks of the
Immaculate Conception which would be
proclaimed as a dogma in 1854 by Pius IX.

Furthermore, Eric Svendsen, in his excellent book on New

Testament Mariology, wrote the following in response to John
McHugh’s attempt to appeal to alleged Ark of the Covenant
imagery in the Gospel of Luke:

Many of McHugh’s points made in support of viewing

Mark as Ark/Tabernacle are badly in need of nuance.
The word επισκιασειν (along with its
variants σκιαζειν and συσκιαζειν, “overshadow”) is
used in many other OT contexts beside the one
McHugh selectively cites. It I used, for instance, of
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Mount Zion (Isa 4:50; cf. Wis 19:7), of the Israelites

(Num 10:34[36]), of God’s chosen ones (Deut 33:12; Ps
91[90]:4; 140[139]:7), and even of the plant that grew
over Jonah’s head (Jonah 4:6). Moreover, the
parallelism demanded by this view is inconsistent. We
are told sometimes that Mary is paralleled with David
(both “arise” and “set out”), while other times that
Mary is paralleled with the Ark. Moreover, the
statement of David in 2 Sam 6:9, “How can the ark of
the Lord ever come to me?,” changes the parallelism
from Mary/David to David/Elizabeth.
Yet even if we were to allow for this inconsistency,
there are still other incongruities. First, the Ark did
not immediately come to David (as Mary does to
Elizabeth) but was taken to the house of Obed-Edom
for three months. Second, David’s words are said in
frustration, whereas in the case of Elizabeth, the words
are stated in humility. Third, Mary did stay with
Elizabeth for three months, as opposed to David who
complains that the Ark can never come to him—again
changing the parallelism, this time from Elizabeth/David
to Elizabeth/Obed-Edom. There is a difference not only
in the intent of the saying, but also in just where the
“Ark” stayed in relation to the speaker. The fluctuation
of the parallelism from Mary/Ark to Mary/David to
David/Elizabeth to Elizabeth/Obed-Edom seems too
capricious to be valid, and is for that reason alone
rightly rejected by most scholars. Mary’s three-month
stay with Elizabeth is more naturally explained on the
basis that Elizabeth is six months pregnant when Mary
arrives. After the baby is born (three months later),
Mary would naturally return home to take care of her
own advancing pregnancy.

At the end of the day, if McHugh’s parallel between

Mary and the Ark is to be maintained (“like the Ark of
the Covenant, [Mary] became the Dwelling-place of the

58
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Most High”), then it must be nuanced—the value of the

Ark law in its Dweller and not in the Ark itself which,
apart from the Dweller, had no intrinsic value of its
own. If Mary is to be seen as the Ark, it must have been
a temporary status lasting only the duration of her
pregnancy. Once the dweller leaves, so also the value
of the Ark diminishes. (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], 167-68).

Indeed, so flimsy is the purported

typological “proofs” that some Catholics
have appealed to, many have called this
interpretive framework into question.
Robert Sungenis, in answering a question
posed by another Catholic apologist, John
Salza, wrote the following:1

R. Sungenis: John, in general, I think we have to be

very careful when we attempt to use analogies
and allegories to prove Catholic dogma. A
tendency to use proof-texting, for example, is
often utilized when attempts are made to prove
Catholic doctrines about Mary from the Old
Testament. Some are tempted to mold the
allegory so that it will fit the doctrine, and since

1 URL: http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/2009/11/07/question-
194-is-the-last-supper-commemorative-of-a-seder-meal/
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

allegories are somewhat fluid, one can usually cut

and paste them until he finds an impressive
connection, after which we are prompted to
marvel how the Old Testament teaches Mary’s
Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity or
Assumption. In actuality, the Old Testament
doesn’t provide any factual evidence supporting
these three Marian doctrines, and the New
Testament can only vouch for one, perhaps two,
at best. In fact, some Old Testament allegories
could be fashioned in such a way to deny some
Marian doctrines. Marian doctrines are supported
mainly by Catholic magisterial pronouncements,
and the factual evidence regarding those
doctrines comes mainly from Tradition, not
Scripture.

To illustrate how utterly fallacious the

appeal to such “typological parallels” truly
is by paralleling Joseph of Egypt with
Joseph, the adopted Father of Jesus
“proving” that St. Joseph was sinless(!):

Both had a father called Jacob

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:2

St. Joseph: Matt 1:15

60
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Both had prophetic dreams

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:5-9

St. Joseph: Matt 1:20-24; 2:13

Of course, there is a difference, as Joseph was rather arrogant in

his high position as favourite son of Jacob, as well as the then-
future veneration he would receive from his brothers. This can
be explained away as St. Joseph was the sinless, due to (1) it
being “fitting” that the adopted Father of the second person of
the Trinity would be raised by a sinless person just like his
mother and (2) St. Joseph being called “righteous” (δικαιος) in
Matt 1:19.

Both left their homes and went to Egypt

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 37:28

St. Joseph: Matt 2:13

While some may argue that this typological parallel breaks down
as Joseph of Egypt was sold into slavery while St. Joseph was
warned in a dream (see above) to flee to Egypt, this can be easily
understood as St. Joseph, the antitype, being greater that
Joseph of Egypt, the mere Old Testament type—the latter was
sent by sinners, showing his being a sharer of sinful flesh, while
the latter fled to protect the Holy One of Israel, the second
person of the divine Trinity, showing that he was a partaker of
the sinlessness thereof.

Both were known for their sexual purity and chastity

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 39:7-15

St. Joseph: As with the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, too, was
a perpetual virgin. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Quamquam
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Pluries,2 mandated devotion to St. Joseph on the basis of his

worthy, virginal state:

We judge it of deep utility for the Christian people,

continually to invoke with great piety and trust,
together with the Virgin-Mother of God,
her chaste Spouse, the Blessed Joseph; and We regard
it as most certain that this will be most pleasing to the
Virgin herself . . .In truth, the dignity of the Mother of
God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it.
But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by
the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he
approached nearer than any [by means of his chastity]
to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God
surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is
the most intimate of all unions which from its essence
imparts a community of gifts between those that by it
are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed
Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her
life’s companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the
protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the
conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity . . .
Fathers of families find in Joseph the best
personification of paternal solicitude and vigilance;
spouses a perfect example of love, of peace, and of
conjugal fidelity; virgins at the same time find in him the
model and protector of virginal integrity.”

Both saved people from famine

Joseph of Egypt: Gen 41:14f; 47:13f

2 URL: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-
xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_lxiii_enc_15081889_quamquam
-pluries.html

62
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

St. Joseph: Joseph was the adopted father of Jesus, whose

Eucharistic flesh is the true Manna from Heaven (John 6:31-33,
41, 50, 51, 58), which is not perishable, unlike manna (John
6:27), but produces eternal life to the one who eats the flesh of
the Son of Man (John 6:53f), again showing that, just as Mary is
a secondary mediator of grace won by her son on the cross, St.
Joseph is a secondary mediator of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the
protection from spiritual hunger and famine, of course, being an
antitype of protection from physical hunger and famine, the Old
Testament type.

So we see that there is no meaningful

biblical warrant for the Immaculate
Conception. This will bring us into the
next chapter addressing whether the
earliest Christians affirmed belief in the
Immaculate Conception of Mary. .
However, one cannot help but note that
the true humanity of Mary and Trinitarian
Christology (a Christology Catholicism
holds to dogmatically) are both
undermined by this dogma! How so? As
Protestants Kenneth J. Collins and Jerry L.
Walls observed:
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

[T]he elevation of Mary, declaring that she

was conceived without a carnal nature, does
indeed detract from the uniqueness and the
dignity of Jesus Christ as the Savior of all
humanity; nevertheless we also see
something here that is far more basic and that
therefore constitutes a direct affront to any
sound Christology. That is, if Mary lacked
original sin and therefore lacked a carnal
nature, then she was like no other human
being who has ever lived. In such a theological
configuration, Mary is unlike Jesus because
she was not divine, yet she is unlike the rest of
humanity because she lacked original sin, a
carnal nature. Thus she is not connected to
Adam either as her federal head or as her
origin. She is therefore unlike all the rest of
humanity, in a class all her own.

64
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

What is being eclipsed here, in a roundabout

sort of way, is the true humanity of Mary, and
long with it nothing less than the true
humanity of Christ as well. Once the latter is
undermined, so is the unique status of Jesus
as the God/Human. Since Mariological
doctrines do indeed have christological
consequences, the affirmation of the
immaculate conception in effect denies that
Jesus was truly human simply because he was
not born of a woman who herself was really
human, like the rest of humanity. (Kenneth J.
Collins and Jerry L. Walls, Roman But Not
Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years
after the Reformation [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2017], 305-6)

The proponent of Catholic theology is in

the unenviable position of having to
defend dogmas which undermine one
another, viz., the Hypostatic Union which
affirms the true and full humanity of
Jesus, and the Immaculate Conception.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

CHAPTER 3

The Immaculate
Conception: Is it found in
early Christianity?
Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples wrote the following in
response to James R. White’s Mary: Another Redeemer? on the
issue of patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception:

White quotes Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic

Dogma out of context, omitting crucial information that
sheds light on Ott’s true meaning.
Ott does say, as White quotes, that some Greek Fathers
taught that Mary “suffered from venial personal faults.”
But personal faults are not sins, and the word sins is
nowhere to be found. White then fails to mention Ott’s
next words:
The Latin Patristic authors unanimously teach the
doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. St. Augustine
teaches that every personal sin must be excluded from
the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of
God (propter honorem Domini) [De natura et gratia, 36,
42], St. Ephrem the Syrian puts Mary, in her
immaculateness, on the same plane as Christ.
According to the teaching of St. Thomas the fullness of
grace which Mary received in the active conception
(according to modern theology, in the passive

66
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

conception) implied confirmation in grace and

therefore sinlessness [Summa III, q. 27, art. 5 res. 2]
(Tim Staples, Behold your Mother: A Biblical and
Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines [El Cajon:
Catholic Answers, 2014], 343)

Firstly, it should be noted that the Immaculate Conception does

not just teach that Mary was free from personal sin, but all sin,
including original sin. Note the following from Pope Pius IX in the
Bull, “Ineffabilis Deus” (December 8, 1854) that dogmatised the
teaching in Roman Catholic theology:

[DS 2803] … To the honor of the Holy and Undivided

Trinity, to the glory and adornment of the Virgin
Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic Faith
and the increase of the Christian religion, by the
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed
Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own, We declare,
pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds
that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instant of
her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of
Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the
Savior of the human race, was preserved immaculate
from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God,
and on this account must be firmly and constantly
believed by all the faithful. [DS 2804] Wherefore, if any
should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than
as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them
know and understand that they are condemned by
their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck
in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of
the Church; and what is more, that by their own act
they subject themselves to the penalties established by
law, if, what they think in their heart, they should dare
to signify by word or writing or any other external
means. (Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (pp.

413–414). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.).

The issue of original sin and Mary will be discussed later in this
chapter.
The relevant section of Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma that James White quotes from and Staples is disputing is:

While individual Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St.

John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria) taught that
Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as
ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the
Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross. (Ott, L.
(1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 203). St.
Louis: B. Herder Book Company).

Staples is simply wrong when he claims that Origen et al. did not
accuse Mary of sin—even in Catholic theology, ambition, vanity,
doubting a divinely-sanctioned message from a messenger of
God and lack of faith about Christ (“under the cross”) are all
venial sins in Catholic moral theology and Ott himself held to this
view (“venial personal faults”). Those familiar with Catholic
hamartiology (theology of sin) will know that Staples greatly
erred on this very basic fact of his Church’s own theology.
My friend and expert on the patristic literature, Errol Vincent
Amey (an Anabaptist) shared with me on the issue of the early
Christians and the sinlessness of Mary:

Not only is there not a single witness to the supposedly

immaculate conception among the pre-Nicene
Christians, but many of their statements regarding
sinfulness necessarily encompass Mary and attribute
the sinless nature exclusively to Jesus. Here is an
example from Origen:

“’For all have sinned,’ [Romans 3:23] as it is written;

and again, as Scripture says: ‘There is no just man upon

68
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

earth that hath done good and hath not sinned;’

[Ecclesiastes 7:20] and again: ‘No one is free of
uncleanness, not even if his life be of but one day.’ [Cf.
Job 14:4] Therefore Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
alone is He ‘who did no sin’ [cf. 1 Peter 2:22, citing
Isaiah 53:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21]”.

(Origen, ca. 240, ‘Commentary on The Song of Songs’

3:13, in ‘Ancient Christian Writers’ 26:237).

The patristic evidence for Mary being

sinless is also wanting in texts, both pre-
and post-dating Origen. Irenaeus of Lyons
is often cited as evidence for early Church
fathers holding to Mary being sinless due
to his identification of her as the
new/second Eve (Against Heresies
(3.22.4). However, if one reads this text,
Irenaeus only parallels Eve and Mary due
to the former’s disobedience (eating the
fruit) resulting in sin coming into the
earth and the latter’s act of obedience
leading to the birth of the Messiah and
the destruction of sin. Further, Irenaeus,
based on John 2:4, explicitly stated that
Mary was guilty of sin in the very same
work he draws this parallel between Mary
and Eve (Against Heresies 3.16.7):

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due

season, just as with the Father there is nothing
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

incongruous. For all these things were foreknown

by the Father; but the Son works them out at the
proper time in perfect order and sequence. This
was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him]
on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the
wine, and was desirous before the time to
partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the
Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, “Woman,
what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet
come”—waiting for that hour which was
foreknown by the Father.

John Chrysostom in his Homilies on the

Gospel of St. John, XXI also accused Mary
of personal sin. Speaking of John 2:4, he
writes the following:

To prove that He greatly respected His

mother, hear Luke relate how He was “subject to”
His parents (Luke ii. 51), and our own Evangelist
declare how He had forethought for her at the
very season of the Crucifixion. For where parents
cause no impediment or hindrance in things
belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give
way to them, and there is great danger in not
doing so; but when they require anything
70
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any

spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And
therefore He answered thus in this place, and
again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who
are My brethren?” ( Matt. xii. 48 ), because they
did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because
she had borne Him, claimed, according to the
custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all
things, when she ought to have reverenced and
worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He
answered as He did on that occasion. For consider
what a thing it was, that when all the people high
and low were standing round Him, when the
multitude was intent on hearing Him, and His
doctrine had begun to be set forth, she should
come into the midst and take Him away from the
work of exhortation, and converse with Him
apart, and not even endure to come within, but
draw Him outside merely to herself. This is why
He said, “Who is My mother and My brethren?”
Not to insult her who had borne Him, (away with
the thought!) but to procure her the greatest
benefit, and not to let her think meanly of Him.
For if He cared for others, and used every means
to implant in them a becoming opinion of Himself,
much more would He do so in the case of His
mother. And since it was probable that if these
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

words had been addressed to her by her Son, she

would not readily have chosen even then to be
convinced, but would in all cases have claimed the
superiority as being His mother, therefore He
replied as He did to them who spake to Him;
otherwise He could not have led up her thoughts
from His present lowliness to His future
exaltation, had she expected that she should
always be honored by Him as by a son, and not
that He should come as her Master.

[3.] It was then from this motive that He said

in this place, “Woman, what have I to do with
thee?” and also for another reason not less
pressing. What was that? It was, that His miracles
might not be suspected. The request ought to
have come from those who needed, not from His
mother. And why so? Because what is done at the
request of one’s friends, great though it be, often
causes offense to the spectators; but when they
make the request who have the need, the miracle
is free from suspicion, the praise unmixed, the
benefit great. So if some excellent physician
should enter a house where there were many
sick, and be spoken to by none of the patients or
their relations, but be directed only by his own
mother, he would be suspected 1 and disliked by
the sufferers, nor would any of the patients or
72
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

their attendants deem him able to exhibit

anything great or remarkable. And so this was a
reason why He rebuked her on that occasion,
saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”
instructing her for the future not to do the like;
because, though He was careful to honor His
mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation
of her soul, and for the doing good to the many,
for which He took upon Him the flesh.

Many Catholic theologians will readily admit that some early

Christian authors did accuse Mary of committing venial sins. For
instance:

It is true that certain situations and actions involving

Mary in the gospels (e.g., her need to fulfil the law of
purification for women giving birth; her lack of
understanding on finding the child Jesus in the Temple;
her apparent boldness and reproof at Cana; her need
for support at the foot of the Cross) were incorrectly
explained by some eastern Fathers as imperfections, as
lack of perfect faith, as a kind of doubt, in a word, as
venial sins. (Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, F.I. “The
Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her
Immaculate Conception,” in Mariology: A Guide for
Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated
Persons, ed. Mark I. Miravalle [Goleta, Calif.: Queenship
Publishing, 2007], pp. 213-76, here, p. 237).

This same source also stated that, for Origen, “[he] imputed to
[Mary] a venial sin of doubt at the foot of the Cross!” (Ibid., p.
237 n. 44):
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Commenting on Origen’s Mariology, particularly his view that

she was not sinless, let alone immaculately conceived, the
Roman Catholic Mariologist, Fr. Luigi Gambero wrote the
following:

According to Origen’s dynamic concept of Christian

perfection, understood as a journey or continual
progress toward higher forms of the spiritual life, Mary
could not have been totally holy from the beginning of
his journey. For this reason, he readily admits the
presence of some imperfections or defects in her. For
example, he asserts that the sword foretold by Simeon
was none other than the doubt and scandal that arose
in her during her Son’s Passion:
What ought we to think? That while the apostles were
scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from
scandal? If she had not experienced scandal during the
Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if “all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and if all
“are justified and saved by his grace” (Rom 3:23), then
Mary, too, was scandalized in that moment. That is
what Simeon is prophesying about: . . . Your soul will be
pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded
by the sword point of doubt. (Homily on Luke 17, 6-7;
PG 13, 13, 1843; SC 87, 256-58).

From this text also emerges the intention to support

such a conclusion by restoring to a dogmatic reason:
the universal value of the redemption accomplished by
Christ.

But usually, Origen, faithful to the more ancient

Alexandrian tradition, tends to emphasize the Virgin’s
holiness and virtues, always in the context of her
condition as one still making progress. (Luigi
Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The

74
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [trans. Thomas

Buffer; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 77-78).

On Tertullian, Luigi Gambero admitted, under a section of his

book entitled, “Tertullian’s Severity toward Mary”:

It does not seem that our author is directly concerned

about, or sympathetic toward, the Virgin as a person.
To the contrary, one must acknowledge that it was
characteristic of him to render one of the most severe
and rash judgements of the holy Virgin known to
patristic literature. He poorly interpreted the Gospel
passages that mention the brothers of Jesus (cf. Mt
12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21). According to him,
the Lord was reproving his Mother together with his
brothers. It is known that the word “brother” is used in
the Gospels to indicate relatives in general, but
Tertullian, as we shall see, understands it to mean sons
of the same parents. The text that interests us is the
following:

[Jesus] was justly indignant that persons so close to him

should stand outside while strangers were in the house
with him, hanging on his every word. He was indignant
above all because they were seeking to take him away
from his solemn task. He did not ignore them, but
disavowed them. Therefore, in response to the
question, “Who is my mother, and who are my
brothers?” he responded, “No one except those who
hear my words and put them into practice.” He
transferred the terms indicating blood relationship to
others whom he considered closer to him because of
their faith. (Adversus Marcionem 4, 19, 11; PL 2, 435).

In this text also, Tertullian not only shows himself to be

confident and peremptory in his judgements but reveals his lack
of a sense of proportion. In order to emphasize and exalt the
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

person of Jesus, he does not hesitate to criticize his close

relatives when necessary. (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers, 62-
63).

As with other early Christian denials of Mary’s sinlessness, there

was no outcry from the masses against Tertullian. The reason?
Simply put—there was no “apostolic tradition” or biblical
warrant for the Immaculate Conception. It was a much later
development.
On the topic of Mary being conceived without original sin (an
integral part of the dogma), and putting on the shelf the
doctrine of original sin itself (we will just accept it as being true
for the sake of the discussion), once the doctrine was
developed, did early Christian authors believe Mary was
conceived with it? The answer is a resounding no, even from
those who exempted Mary from personal sin. For instance,
Gambero writes the following about Augustine:

There seems no doubt that Augustine considered

Mary’s exemption from sin to be a great grace. But
what sins did he mean? Undoubtedly he excludes any
personal sin from Mary. It is possible to hypothesize
that Augustine also intended to exclude original sin?
Some scholars think so and make him a forerunner to
the Immaculate Conception. A full treatment of the
question would call for al lengthy discussion. To us it
seems safer to adopt the contrary position, which is held
by many experts and appears more in accord with
numerous Augustinian texts. (Ibid., 226; emphasis
added).

Following Augustine, later Medieval theologians (some of whom

are canonised saints in Catholicism) denied Mary’s exemption
from original sin:

With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the

fifth century, conditions favorable to the consistent

76
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

development of speculative theology so deteriorated

that the question of the Immaculate Conception of
Mary was not often mentioned in the West until the
end of the eleventh century with St. Anselm. One or
another writer such as Paschasius Radbert asserted it;
but others, such as St. Anselm clearly denied it on the
basis of the transmission of original sin via intercourse
infected by concupiscence. On the other hand, Anselm
clearly asserted a purity of Mary greater than which
none can be conceived under God. (Fehlner, “The
Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her
Immaculate Conception,” p. 249).

Interestingly enough, on the previous page, Fehlner further

refutes the thesis Augustine held to the Immaculate Conception:

“[Augustine’s] reply to the specific point does not say

that Mary is stainless at conception; rather he leaves
the door open to a ‘liberative sanctification’ in the
womb. He wrote: ‘We do not deliver Mary to the Devil
by the condition of her birth; for this reason, that her
very condition finds a solution in the grace of rebirth”
(Ibid., p. 248; square brackets added for clarification).

It was surprising to see Tim Staples appeal to Thomas Aquinas as

evidence of his position as it is well established that, in
the Summa Theologica, Aquinas held that Mary was conceived
with original sin, although she was later purified from such in her
mother’s womb, as did many other theologians contemporary
with Aquinas. Catholic systematic theologian, Fr. Reginald
Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P. wrote the following that further refutes
Staples’ abuse of sources:

It must be admitted that in the 12th and 13th centuries

certain greater doctors, as, for example, St Bernard
(Epist. Ad canonicos Lugdunenses), St Anselm
(De conceptione virginali), Peter Lombard (In III
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Sent., dist. 3), Hugh of St Victor (Super Missus est.) St

Albert the Great (Item Super Missus est.), St.
Bonaventure (In III Sent., dist. 3, q. 27) and St Thomas
Aquinas appear to have been disinclined to admit the
[IC]. But this was because they did not consider the
precise instant of Mary’s animation, or of the creation
of her soul, and also because they did not distinguish,
with the help of the idea of preservative redemption,
between the debt to contract the hereditary stain and
its actual contraction. In other words, they did not
always distinguish sufficiently between
‘debebat contrahere’ and ‘contraxit peccatum’.
(Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, The Mother of the
Saviour and our interior life [Rockford, Illin.: Tan Books,
1993], 55; comment in square bracket added for
clarification)

Commenting on the time when Aquinas wrote the Summa

Theologica, Garrigou-LaGrange writes:

St. Thomas, seeing better the difficulties in the

question—for the theologians of his time held that
Mary was immaculate independently of Christ’s
merits—hesitated, and refused to commit himself. He,
of course, held that all men without exception are
redeemed by one Saviour (Rom. iii, 23; v, 12, 19; Gal. iii,
22; II Cor. V, 14; 1 Tim. ii, 6). Hence we find him
proposing the question thus in IIIa, q. 27, a.2: Was the
Blessed Virgin sanctified in the conception of her body
before its animation? For according to him and many
other theologians, the conception of the boy was to be
distinguished from the animation, or creation of the
soul. This latter (called today the consummated passive
conception) was thought to be about a month later in
time than the initial conception. The holy doctor
mentions certain arguments at the beginning of the
article which favour the Immaculate Conception—even

78
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

taking conception to be that which precedes animation.

He then answers them as follows: ‘There are two
reasons why the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin
cannot have taken place before her animation: 1st—the
sanctification in question is cleaning from original sin .
. .but the guilt of sin can be removed only by grace
(which has as object the soul itself) . . . 2nd—if the
Blessed Virgin had been sanctified before animation
she would have incurred the stain of original sin and
would therefore never have stood in need of
redemption by Christ . . . But this may not be admitted
since Christ is Head of all men (1 Tim. ii, 6).’ (Ibid., pp.
59-60).

It is common for some Catholics to cite Ephrem the Syrian as an

early witness to the Immaculate Conception. As Ludwig Ott
wrote:

St. Ephrem says: “Thou and thy mother are the only
ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in
thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no
stain” (Carm. Nisib. 27). (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of
Catholic Dogma, 201).

However, again, when one examines the facts, we find that the
Catholic Church’s claims are to be found wanting at the bar of
history. Catholic scholar and priest, Michael O’Carroll, CSSp,
wrote the following on the Immaculate Conception:

The first apparently explicit testimony is in the Nisibene

hymns of St Ephraem, a fourth century Syrian writer:
“Certainly you are alone and your other are from every
aspect completely beautiful, for there is no blemish in
you, my Lord, and no stain in your mother.” But there
are other texts in the same author’s writings which, to
put it mildly, call for subtle interpretation to maintain
the doctrine—he spoke for example of Mary’s baptism.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

The opinion of St Ambrose is also controverted; he did

first establish the complete personal sinlessness of
Mary. St Augustine held this latter doctrine; his opinion,
on the Immaculate Conception is endlessly debated. His
much quoted text “except the holy Virgin Mary, about
whom, for the hour of the Lord, I want there to be no
question” is offset by some enigmatic words which he
used to counter the taunt of Julian of Eclanum, a
Pelagian who said to him “you deliver Mary herself to
the devil through the condition of her birth.”
Unfortunately, in another way, Augustine’s negative
influence on the development of the doctrine was for
centuries decisive. He thought that original sin was
transmitted by conjugal intercourse through inherent
concupiscence. Christ was immune because he was
conceived virginally—the conclusion was drawn that
Mary was not. (Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, “The
Immaculate Conception and Assumption of our Lady in
Today’s Thinking” in Mary in the Church [ed. John
Hyland; Dublin: Veritas, 1989], 44-56, here, p. 45).

Catholic Mariologist, Luigi Gambero, wrote the following on

Ephrem the Syrian:

Ephrem’s insistence on Mary’s spiritual beauty and

holiness, and her freedom from any stain of sin, has led
some scholars to hold that he was aware of the
privilege of the Immaculate Conception and to point to
him as a witness to the dogma. Yet it does not appear
that our author was familiar with the problem, at least
not in the terms in which it was made clear by later
tradition and the dogmatic declaration of 1854. In one
passage he even used the term “baptized” to indicate
her Son’s saving intervention in her regard:

Handmaid and daughter

80
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

of blood and water [am I] whom You redeemed and

baptized. (Hymns on the Nativity 16, 10)
(Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 110).

While much more could be said on this topic, it is clear that

Staples (as well as other Catholic apologists) is dead-wrong in his
understanding of early Christian Mariology as well as the
development of the Immaculate Conception as a whole.
Furthermore, this chapter proves that the Immaculate
Conception cannot be considered, by any stretch of the
imagination, an “apostolic tradition”; instead, as with the Korban
rule that was condemned by the Lord Jesus in Matt 15/Mark 7, it
is a “tradition of men” and one that falls under the anathema of
Gal 1:6-9. It is simply false to claim, as Pius IX did in 1854, that:

[T]his doctrine always existed in the Church as a

doctrine that has been received from our ancestors,
and that has been stamped with the character of
revealed doctrine.

Indeed, one cannot help but agree with Philip Schaff, author of
the 8-volume History of the Christian Church, who correctly
noted:

After the middle of the fourth century it [the Church]

overstepped the wholesome biblical limit, and
transformed “the mother of the Lord” into the mother
of God, the humble “handmaiden of the Lord” into a
queen of heaven, the “highly favored” into a dispenser
of favors, the “blessed among women” into an
intercessor above all women, nay, we may almost say,
the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is
nowhere in Holy Scripture excepted from the universal
sinfulness, into a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. (History of
the Christian Church, 3:410, square bracket added for
clarification).
ROBERT S. BOYLAN

82
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER 4:

The Perpetual Virginity of

Mary

Part 1: Examining “ Physical”

Virginity

Ludwig Ott, on pp. 203-4 of Fundamentals

of Catholic Dogma, offered the following
summary of Catholic teachings on this
dogma:

§ 5. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the

Birth of Jesus Christ.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under

Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of
Mary’s virginity teaching of the “blessed ever-
virginal and immaculate Mary” that: “she
conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost,
generated without injury (to her virginity), and
her virginity continued unimpaired after the
birth” (D 256). Pope Paul IV declared (1555):
Beatissimam Virginem Mariam … perstitisse
semper in virginitatis integritate, ante partum
scilicet, in partu et perpetuo post partum. D 993.

Mary’s virginity includes virginitas mentis, that

is, a constant virginal disposition, virginitas
sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions
of sexual desire, and virginitas corporis, that is,
physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers
primarily to Her bodily integrity.

In other words, in Catholic theology, Mary was a perpetual

virgin, not only in the sense of never having engaged in sexual
intercourse, but also physically (i.e., her hymen remained intact
perpetually). Elsewhere, Ott (p. 205) writes:

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal

integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general
promulgation of doctrine.)

84
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance

of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more
closely how this is to be physiologically explained.
In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it
as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that
Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening
of the womb and injury to the hymen, and
consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2).

Section 499 of the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church reads

as follows (emphasis added):

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led

the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual
virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God
made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his
mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” and so the
liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos,
the “Ever-virgin.”

Kyle Roberts, in a volume on the virginal conception of Jesus,

wrote about this understanding of the perpetual virginity and
how it is very docetic in nature:

THE HOLY HYMEN

Consider, for example, the early church father Ambrose

(337-397 CE) who links the “gate of the sanctuary” of
the temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 44:1-2) to Mary’s
hymen: “Holy Mary is the gate of which it is written:
‘The Lord will pass through it, and it will be shut,’ after
birth, for a s a virgin she conceived and gave birth.”
Ambrose elaborates that no man “shall pass through”
that gate (Mary’s hymen) except for God. In another
text, he insists that Jesus “preserved the fence of her
chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity.”
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Or his student Augustine (354-430 CE) who argues that

because the resurrected Jesus could walk through
walls, it’s no stretch (no pun intended) to believe that
the baby Jesus could pass through the “closed doors”
of Mary’s vagina without disturbing the hymen. The
laws of physics and of biology do not apply to the birth
of the Son of God. Augustine ends this segment with a
dramatic portrayal of the delivery of baby Jesus: “As an
infant He came forth, a spouse from His bride-chamber,
that is, from the virginal womb, leaving His Mother’s
integrity inviolate” . . . For Ambrose, the painless,
bloodless virginal birth reversed this curse. Mary, the
“new Eve,” experienced no pain while birthing Jesus,
and this illustrated that salvation had arrived . . . The
assumption that Mary’s hymen was undisturbed by the
birth of Jesus didn’t originate with the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, both of which are sparse in deliver-
room detail, but from texts dating to the middle of the
first and second centuries (CE). (Kyle Roberts, A
Complicated Pregnancy: Whether Mary was a Virgin
and Why it Matters [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017],
6-7, 8).

While discussing The Protoevangelium of James, Roberts writes:

Mary was informed by an angel that she would

conceive. Her pregnancy caused a stir among the
religious power brokers: the priests who learned of her
apparent indiscretion and Joseph’s illicit behaviour
were enraged at the betrothed couple’s impropriety
and disobedience. Both Mary and Joseph were proven
innocent through a ritual resembling a witch-trial.
When God apparently protected them from harm, the
priests were finally convinced of their innocence.

Mary gave birth to Jesus in a cave underneath a

“luminous cloud.” A blinding light covered her. When it

86
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

dissipated, the newly born Jesus was revealed and he

immediately latched onto the breast of his mother. The
midwife, who played no effective role in the delivery,
proclaimed to another midwife, Salome: “I have a
strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought
forth—a thing which her nature admits not of.” Then
said Salome: “As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust
in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that
a virgin has brought forth.”

Salome, this story’s version of a doubting Thomas,

investigated Mary’s vagina to prove that this miracle
had really occurred; sure enough, Mary was still a
virgin. Her doubts were met by a burning sensation in
her hands, as she exclaimed: “My hand is dropping off
as if burned with fire.”

This story formed the basis of subsequent assumptions

about Mary’s virginity; her sexual purity had been
preserved and her feminine body protected through
the miraculous cloud-covered birth of Jesus. This
influence was unfortunate, however, because it
allowed docetic tendencies to creep in to the way
theologians read the two Gospel accounts of Jesus’s
birth. If we take the incarnation seriously, we should
embrace the biological realities of birth, not deny them,
(Ibid. 11-12).

Indeed, this aspect of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to

be explicitly contradicted by the testimony of Scripture. 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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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 Odes of Solomon: Evidence of the Antiquity of Mary’s

Perpetual Virginity?

Some Catholic apologists have appealed to a pseudepigraphical

text called the Odes of Solomon, dating from the late first/early
second century as evidence for the antiquity of the perpetual
virginity of Mary. For instance, Gerry Matatics, who was once a
traditionalist mainstream Catholic (now a Sedevacantist) has
appealed to Ode 19 as evidence that the perpetual virginity is
taught in this text, evidencing both its antiquity and apostolicity
within early Christianity.

88
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

While not a Gnostic text3 they do provide evidence of being

tinged with Gnosticism, such as the Protoevangelium of James
and similar works such Gnosticism and other heretical concepts
(even from Roman Catholicism’s perspective), and this comes
out in Ode 19 itself:4

A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the

sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup,
and the Father is he who was milked; and the Holy Spirit
is she who milked him; because his breasts are full, and
it was undesirable that his milk should be released
without purpose. The Holy Spirit opened her bosom, and
mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. Then
she gave the mixture to the generation without their
knowing and those who have received it are in the
perfection of the right hand. The womb of the Virgin
took it, and she received conception and gave birth.
So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies, and
she laboured and bore the Son but without pain,
because it did not occur without purpose. And she did
not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life.
She bore as a strong man with desire, and she bore
according to the manifestation and possessed with
great power.
And she loved with all salvation, and guarded with
kindness, and declared with greatness.

Hallelujah.

Notice a few things—

3See the discussion in J.H. Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” in The Old

Testament Pseudepigrpha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985),
ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2:725

4 Ibid., 752-53.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Firstly, Ode 19 presents the Holy Spirit as a woman, which is

antithetical to Catholic theology.

Secondly, the Ode presents God the Father as having breasts

which the Holy Spirit milked.

Thirdly, with respect to the Virgin Mary, it is not said that she
remained a perpetual virgin, but that she did not experience
labour pains during the birth of Jesus, which is very docetic in its
Christology.5

The more careful Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologist for

the perpetual virginity of Mary should avoid using this text as
evidence in favour of this particular teaching of their Mariology.
Furthermore, Latter-day Saints and others are in the unenviable
position of privileging the biblical texts over later traditions and
letting the plain meaning of the pertinent texts and the
underlying Greek speak for themselves (e.g., Matt 1:18-25;
12:46-48; 13:55-56; John 7:1-5).

5 At best, one could argue that this text shows that Mary’s
hymen remained in tact post partum which is part of the
Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Of course, such
screams of Docetic tendencies which the biblical authors would
reject (cf. 1 John 4:1-3).

90
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Part 2: Examining “ Sexual”

Virginity

Luke 1:34: Did Mary take a Vow of

Perpetual Virginity?

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be,
seeing I know not a man? (Luke 1:34).

Since the time of Augustine (Of Holy

Virginity, 3), many have interpreted this
verse as evidence that Mary, prior to the
Annunciation, took a vow of perpetual
virginity. Some commentators ask, why
would Mary ask a question like this, using
the present tense, if she planned on
having normal sexual activity upon
marrying Joseph, to whom she was
espoused? However, this is reading too
much into the use of the present tense of
Luke 1:34.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

On pages 532-33 of his book, Greek

Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996).
Daniel Wallace provides a discussion of
the “Perfective Present,” wherein the
present tense may be used to emphasise
the results of a past action that are still
continuing; in Luke 1:34, this would refer
to Mary being at the time of the
Annunciation, a virgin; there is no
grammatical justification to read into this
verse a vow of life-long virginity
(especially in light of texts that speak of
“brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus which
will be discussed later in this chapter).

As we read in on p. 532 of Wallace’s

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:

There are two types: one lexical, the other

contextual. The lexical type involves certain words
(most notably ηχω, which almost always has a
perfective force to it). The other type is
contextual. This use of the present is especially
frequent with λεγει as an introduction to and OT
quotation. Its usual force seems to be that

92
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

although the statement was spoken in the past, it

still speaks today and is binding on the hearers.

Other instances of this “perfective

present” in the Greek New Testament
include:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel, for Esaias
saith (λεγει), Lord, who hath believed our report?
(Rom 10:16).

Wherefore he saith (λεγει), When he ascended up

on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts
unto men. (Eph 4:8).

For the scripture saith (λεγει), Thou shalt not

muzzle the ox that treateth out the corn. And, The
labourer is worthy of his reward. (1 Tim 5:18).

And we know that the Son of God is come (ηχει) .

. . (1 John 5:20).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

In this light, all that Luke 1:34 says is, at

the time of the visitation of Gabriel, Mary
was a virgin; there is no exegetical
warrant to read into her words as
evidence of a previous vow of perptual
virginity; instead, it simply reflects Mary
thinking Gabriel meant that she would get
pregnant, prior to “coming together” with
Joseph (cf. Matt 1:18, 25, exegeted
below) at the time of the angelic
announcement.

John 19:25

To support their contention that the

terms αδελφος and αδελφη (brother/sist
er) can have a broad semantic force for
family members, even during the time of
the New Testament, some Catholic
apologists and scholars (e.g., Tim Staples;
Brant Pitre) appeal to John 19:25:

94
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his

mother’s sister (αδελφη), Mary the wife of
Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. (New Jerusalem
Bible).

According to these apologists, as it is a

stretch to claim that Mary (the mother of
Jesus) had a biological sister also called
“Mary,” the designation αδελφη can
mean something much broader than a
uterine sibling, and, as a result, the same
must hold true for the “brothers”
(αδελφοι) of Jesus who are mentioned in
the Gospels and elsewhere.

The fatal flaw of this interpretation is that

the Catholic assumes a priori that “his
mother’s sister” is numerically identical to
“Mary the wife of Clopas” [Greek: Μαρία
ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ [lit. Mary of Clopas,
indicating she could be a near-relative of
Clopas, not just a wife]). This is falsified
for a number of reasons.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Firstly, early Christian interpreters

understood that “[Christ’s] mother’s
sister” and “Mary of Clopas” to be
different people. The Peshitta adds a
conjunction between these two figures,
treating them as separate, not identical,
people. Etheridge, in his 1849 translation
of the Peshitta, rendered the verse thusly:

But there stood by the cross of Jeshu his mother,

and the sister of his mother, and Mariam, she
who was (the wife) of Clopha, and Marian
Magdalitha.

Some may ask, “If the brothers “James

and Joseph” (Matt 13:55) are in fact the
children of Jesus’ mother, then why does
Matthew refer to “James and Joseph” as
the sons of “the other Mary” (ἡ ἄλλη
Μαρία) (Matt 27:56)?” However, this is a
rather weak argument . Commenting on
Matt 27:55-56, D.A. Carson wrote:

Comparison of the lists of names in Matthew,

Mark, and John (19:25) produces these results:

96
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Matthew Mark John

Mary Mary Jesus’
Magdalene Magdalene Mother
Mary, the Mary the Jesus’
mother of mother of mother’s
James and James the sister
Joses younger and
Joses
Mother of Salome Mary wife of
Zebedee’s sons Clopas
Mary of
Magdala

If we make two assumptions—(1) that John’s

second entry is distinguished from his third (i.e.,
they were not in apposition) and (2) that John’s
list of four includes the list of three in Matthew
and Mark—then certain things become probable.
First, the mother of Zebedee’s sons was called
Salome, unless a different woman is here
introduced. Second, if Mary, the mother of James
and Joseph (or Joses) is Jesus’ mother (cf. 13:55),
then Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene (or
Magdala) appear on all three lists. That would
make Salome Jesus’ mother’s sister—his aunt on
his mother’s side. Others suppose that Mary the
wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joses,
who are not Jesus’ half-brothers. Yet the result
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

still equates Salome and Jesus’ aunt on his

mother’s side. Although none of this is certain, it
would help explain 20:20. (D.A. Carson,
“Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [vol. 8: Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984], 583).

In a later commentary on the Gospel of

John, Carson wrote on John 19:25 the
following:

The primary reason why these identifications

[Mary of Clopas being the sister of the mother of
Jesus and this Mary of Clopas being the mother of
James and Joses] cannot be certain is that Mark
tells us, ‘Many other women who had come up
with him to Jerusalem were also there’ (Mk.
15:41), and therefore the lists should not
necessarily be mapped onto each other. In favour
of the traditional interpretation, however, are two
details: (1) assuming that John is the believed
disciple (cf. vv. 26-27) who stands behind the
Fourth Gospel, it is remarkable that he alone of
the Evangelists mentions neither his own name
nor the name of his brother—which makes it
unsurprising that his mother, the sister of Mary
98
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

the mother of Jesus, is also unnamed; (b) Jesus’

assignation of a connection between his other
and the beloved disciple (vv.26-27) becomes
somewhat easier on the assumption that John is
his cousin on his mother’s side, his mother’s
nephew. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel of John [The
Pillar New Testament Commentary; Nottingham,
England: Apollos, 1990], 616).

Carson (Ibid., 616-17), while addressing

another proof-text that Jesus was Mary’s
only son (John 19:26-27), wrote:

The words Jesus uses, here is your son . . . Here is your

mother, are reminiscent of legal adoption formulae, but
such formulae would have been cast in the second
person (e.g. ‘You are my son’). If Jesus was the
breadwinner of the family before he embarked on his
public ministry, and if every mention of Mary during
Jesus’ years of ministry involves Jesus in a quiet self-
distancing from the constraints of a merely human
family, and this not least for his mother’s good . . . it is
wonderful to remember that even as he hung dying on
a Roman cross, suffering as the Lamb of God, he took
thought of and made provision for his mother. Some
have found it surprising that Jesus’ brothers did not
take over this responsibility. But quite apart from the
fact that they were at this point quite unsympathetic to
their older brother (7:5), they may not even have been
in Jerusalem: their home was in Capernaum . . . Barrett
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

(p. 552) objects that their lack of faith (7:5) ‘could not
annul their legal claim’. True enough, but this is not a
legal scene. Jesus displays his care for his mother as
both she and the beloved disciple are passing through
their darkest hour, on their way to full Christian
faith[1]. From that time (hora, ‘hour’) on, from the
‘hour’ of Jesus’ death/exaltation . . . this disciple took
her into his home.[2].

Notes for the Above

[1] That both Mary and Jesus’ brothers are found with
the apostles and the rest of the one hundred and
twenty in the period between the ascension and
Pentecost (Acts 1:14), even though the brothers, at
least, were thoroughly sceptical a few months earlier
(7:5) and even Mary may have had her doubts (cf. Mk
3:20-35), is best account for by the information Paul
provides after his resurrection Jesus appeared to James
(1 Cor 15:7).

[2] The last phrase, ‘into his home’, renders eis ta idia,
lit. ‘into his own [things]’, an expression also found in
1:11. It is difficult to imagine that there is any direct
allusion, however, not only because the contexts of
each occurrence are so different but also because
the sae phrase occurs in 16:32 without any possibility
of an allusion to the Prologue. On the possibility that
John the son of Zebedee had a place of his own in
Jerusalem.

100
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The “ Brothers” and “ Sisters” of

Jesus

Historically, there have been three approaches to answering the

question, “Who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus?” One view
is the Hieronymian view, which is the predominate Roman
Catholic view, named after Jerome, one which holds that the
brothers and sisters were not uterine siblings of Jesus, but were
near-relatives, such as cousins. There are many problems with
this approach, not the least is that there is no single example of
the terms αδελφος (brother) and αδελφη (sister) ever being
used, in biological/familial contexts, denoting anything other
than an uterine brother or sister in either the Greek New
Testament or the documents of the New Testament era. Some
apologists for this perspective, including Jerome in his work,
“Against Helvidius,” point to the LXX, where αδελφος is used to
denote non-sibling relationships, such as that of Lot and Abram
(Gen 14:14). This notwithstanding, the argument is a failure on
exegetical and linguistic grounds. Firstly, the LXX would often
woodenly follow the underlying Hebrew, translating the Hebrew
term (which, at the time, had a wider semantic meaning that
uterine sibling) ‫ חָ א‬as αδελφος. Moreover, the relationship
between Lot and Abram is qualified in verse 12, “And they took
Lot, Abraham’s brother’s son . . .” Such qualifications vis-à-vis
the relationship between Jesus and his brothers/sisters are
absent in the biblical texts. Additionally, to foist the semantic
meaning of αδελφος from the LXX era into the Greek New
Testament is to commit an interpretive fallacy called “semantic
obsolescence,” where one reads into a term a meaning it used
to have in a previous age but no longer does (see the discussion
of this in D.A. Carson’s book, Exegetical Fallacies or James
Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language for instance). This is
common in diachronic approaches to words and phrases, but
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

more responsible Greek and Hebrew exegetes realise the

weakness of this approach, and embrace a more synchronic
approach to the semantic force of terms and phrases these days
(it is one of the “downsides” of Kittel’s 10-volume Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, as good a resource it is).
Furthermore, Koine Greek has a number of terms that denote a
near-kinsman, a cousin, and other relationships, such as such as
συγγενις and ανεψιος, terms that are used in the Greek New
Testament (Luke 1:36 and Col 4:10). One must charge the New
Testament authors with sloppiness if Mary was a perpetual
virgin and such as teaching is a dogma of the faith, as Roman
Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

Another view is that of the Epiphanian view, named after

Epiphanius of Salamis, author of works such as the Panarion.
This perspective holds that the brothers/sisters of Jesus were
children of Joseph from a previous marriage, and that they were
the step-brothers and sisters of Jesus. This perspective appears
rather early. The first attestation I can find would be the
Protoevangelium of James, where Joseph is presented as an
aged man and promises to be the protector of Mary (in this text,
Mary was a temple virgin who, after entering maturity, could no
longer dwell in the temple). Their marriage was arranged by
Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. Interestingly, this text
provides the purported names of Mary’s parents, Anne and
Joachim, both canonised saints in Catholicism. This is a minority
position today, though it is held by a leading New Testament
scholar, Richard Bauckham (though I should point out,
Bauckham does not hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity). One of
the key “proof-texts” of this view is John 19:26-27, which has
already been exegeted above and found wanting.

The third view, which is, functionally, the Latter-day Saint

perspective (I say “functionally” as, notwithstanding there being
no official declaration on this issue from the Church, I am
unaware of any Latter-day Saint, with only one exception
[Jeffrey Chadwick], who doesn’t hold to this view) is the
102
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Helvidian view, named after Helvidius, an early opponent of

Mary’s perpetual virginity (a teaching that is tied heavily into the
origins of these theories regarding the identity of Jesus’
brothers/sisters). The main strength of this position is that it
allows for a more natural, exegetically sound meaning of, not
just the terms αδελφος and αδελφη in the New Testament texts,
but also makes more exegetical sense of texts that
clearly chow that Mary being a perpetual virgin (Matt 1:18-25).
Furthermore, it allows for prima facie (and even secunda facie)
reading of the pertinent texts and does not require one to
engage in special pleading by foisting an unnatural meaning of
key terms onto the biblical data.

Let us now engage in some of the biblical data itself.

The Gospel of Matthew makes explicit reference to the

“brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus in two key texts:

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother

and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with
him. Then one said unto him, behold, thy mother and
thy brethren stand without desiring to speak with thee.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who
is my mother? And who are my brethren? And he
stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said,
behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever
shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the
same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matt
12:46-50).

And when he was come into his own country, he taught

them in their synagogue, insomuch as they were
astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this
wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the
carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his
brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath
this man all these things? (Matt 13:54-56).

It is the former pericope, Matt 13:46-50, that I will focus upon

here. In this pericope, Jesus establishes what is called an
“eschatological family,” one that is not based on biological ties
one has with another, but on spiritual ties. If the Hieronymian
view is correct, and we are to interpret “brothers” and “sisters”
as cousins/near-relatives, it makes nonsense of Christ’s
comments. When we enter a salvific covenant with the Lord, we
become the brothers and sisters of Jesus, not his near-kinsmen,
spiritually. The biological meaning of brothers/sisters must have
a one-to-one correspondence to the spiritual brothers/sisters
for this pericope to be internally consistent and also to make
exegetical and theological sense.

Some may object to this and raise Mark 6:3 where

Jesus is called "the Son of Mary" (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας).
The argument is that, as Jesus is the only child said to
be "the son of Mary," it follows that Jesus was the
only child of Mary. However, such ignores the fact
that Jesus was (falsely) accused of being illegitimate
(e.g., John 8:41). As the note for Mark 6:3 in the NET
correctly observes:

The reference to Jesus as the carpenter is probably

derogatory, indicating that they knew Jesus only as a
common laborer like themselves. The reference to him
as the son of Mary (even though Jesus' father was
probably dead by this point) appears to be somewhat
derogatory, for a man was not regarded as his mother's
son in Jewish usage unless an insult was intended (cf.
Jdg 11:1-2; Joh 6:42; Joh 8:41; Joh 9:29).

104
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Another problem with the Catholic view

about the meaning of αδελφος and
αδελφη is that they are used in verses
where words meaning “kinsman” are also
used, differentiating the two terms with
respect to their meaning. Consider the
following:

Then said he also to him that bade him, When

thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy
friends, not thy brethren (αδελφος), neither thy
kinsmen (συγγενις), nor thy rich neighbours: lets
they also bid thee again, and a recompence be
made thee. (Luke 14:12).

You will be betrayed even by parents, and

brethren (αδελφος), and kinsfolks (συγγενις), and
friends; and some of you shall they cause to be
put to death. (Luke 21:16).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Roman Catholic apologist, Tim Staples,

while addressing arguments forwarded by
Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen in his
book, Evangelical Answers, wrote the
following in defense of the Catholic
position:

On the surface, these texts [Matt 12:46-50 and

13:55-56a] do seem troubling for the Catholic
position. After all, our Protestant friends insist,
would not Jesus’ having “brothers” indicate that
Mary had other children? Eric Svendsen plainly
states: “The New Testament mentions several
times that Jesus had biological brothers and
sisters” (Evangelical Answers, 137) . . . if Svendsen
and those who agree with him were consistent,
they would also have to conclude that Joseph was
Jesus “biological” father. This is something no
Christian would ever or could ever hold to be true
Yet John 6:42 records “the Jews” saying of Jesus:
“If not this Jesus, the son of Joseph whose father
and mother we know How does he now say, ‘I
have come down from heaven’?” Luke refers to
Joseph as Jesus’ “father” in Luke 2:33, and even
Mary does, in Luke 2:48, without any clarification
. . . [critics of the perpetual virginity of Mary] begs
the question by answering that adelphos could
106
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

not be used for cousin in the first century

because adelphos could not be used for cousin in
the first century. (Tim Staples, Behold your
Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the
Marian Doctrines [El Cajon: Catholic Answers,
2014], 172, 177).

There are many problems with this

apologetic.

Firstly, with respect to John 6:42, this is a

quote of the words of the Jewish
opponents of Jesus. It is highly unlikely
they knew of, let alone accepted, the
virginal conception of Jesus, so would
have functioned with the assumption that
Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Secondly, on the issue of Luke 2:33, 48, it

is true that the best manuscripts do not
read, as the KJV does, “And Joseph and
his mother” in v. 33 (instead, the correct
reading is “and the child’s father and
mother [καὶ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ
μήτηρ]). However, the virginal conception
of Jesus is explicated by the very same
author in Luke 1:35, so readers would
know that Luke’s use of πατηρ does not
mean a biological father, but adopted
father. There is no such qualification with
αδελφος and its feminine equivalent,
αδελφη.

As for the claim that αδελφος could not

mean “cousin” in the first century, this is
a proven fact. Eric Svendsen, in ch. 3 of
his book, 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),
showing there is no instance of the terms,
outside a sociological sense, having any
other meaning but uterine sibling.

Staples is guilty of further special pleading and question-begging

when he writes: When we get to the Greek of the New
Testament, our Protestant friends will turn up the heat in the
discussion. Svendsen provides an example:

108
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

There are two other words that were in use by the New
Testament writers when they wanted to convey the
meaning “cousin” or “relative.” One of these
words, anepsios, occurs in Col. 4:10 to refer to Mark,
the “cousin” of Barnabas. The other, sungenis, occurs in
Luke 1:36 and is used to refer to Elizabeth, the “cousin”
of Mary . . . That they knew of the distinction between
these words and adelphos is evident from Luke 21:16
which uses both adelphos and sungenis, but in
reference to different groups (“You will be betrayed
even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends”).
(Svendsen, Evangelical Answers, 138-39) (Ibid., 175).

In response to this cogent argument from Svendsen, Staples

responds as follows:

What do we make of these arguments? First of all, Luke

21:16 only proves that adelphos can be used in the
context of uterine brothers—an undisputed point. It
also proves that sungenis can be used for extended
relatives—another undisputed point. But what it
doesn’t prove is that adelphos cannot be used with a
wider semantic range in other contexts. (Ibid.)

This is nothing short of question-begging, but when it comes to

defending the Marian dogmas, Roman Catholic apologists are
forced to engage in such special pleading.

On p. 182, Staples appeals to Hegesippus as a witness of the

perpetual virginity:

The second-century historical Hegesippus report

reported that Clopas was actually the brother of Joseph
and that his son was Simon, the brother of the Lord,
adding enormous weight to the contention that the
brothers of the Lord were relatives or cousins.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

This is just evidence of a very selective reading of the patristic

literature:

The notion that the brothers of Jesus were in fact

something other than true siblings developed over time
in the post-apostolic church . . . The second-century
writer, Hegesippus [mentioned] James “the brother
[αδελφος] of the Lord,” (Ecclesiastical History, 2.23)
and Jude “who is said to have been the Lord’s brother
[αδελφος] according to the flesh,”(Ibid., 3.22) as well as
Simeon the son of Clopas whom Hegesippus calls “the
cousin [ανεψιος] of the Lord.”(Ibid., 4.22) The fact that
Hegesippus knows a distinction between these two
relationships indicates that when he uses αδελφος he
does with biological siblings in mind. (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], 99).

This is just further evidence of the abuse of the Bible, patristics,

and basic logic Staples engages in to defend the Mariology of
Roman Catholicism.

Here is the entries of αδελφος and αδελφη from BDAG; notice

how, according to these experts in lexiography, the
“brothers”and “sisters” of Jesus were uterine siblings of Jesus.

110 ἀδελφός

• ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ (Hom. [ἀδελφεός]+; accord. to B-D-F

§13; Schwyzer I 555; Mlt-H. II 58; PKatz, TLZ 83, ’58,
315f vocative ἄδελφε should be accented on the
antepenult in Ac 9:17; 21:20 contrary to the practice of
the editions; also GPt 2:5.).
1. a male from the same womb as the reference
pers., brother, Mt 1:2, 11; 4:18, 21 al.; τὸν ἀ. τ. ἴδιον J

110
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

1:41 (s. Jos., Ant. 11, 300). Of Jesus’ brothers (passages

like Gen 13:8; 14:14; 24:48; 29:12; Lev 10:4; 1 Ch 9:6
do not establish the mng. ‘cousin’ for ἀ.; they only
show that in rendering the Hebr. ‫ חָ א‬ἀ. is used loosely
in isolated cases to designate masc. relatives of various
degrees. The case of ἀδελφή [q.v. 1] is similar Gen
24:59f; Tob 8:4, 7 [cp. 7:15]; Jos., Ant. 1, 211
[ἀδελφή = ἀδελφοῦ παῖς]. Sim. M. Ant., who [1, 14, 1]
uses ἀ. for his brother-in-law Severus; the same use is
found occas. in the pap: JCollins, TS 5, ’44, 484-94; s.
VTscherikover HTR ’42, 25-44) Mt 12:46f; 13:55; Mk
3:31f; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14; 1 Cor
9:5. James ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Gal 1:19. The pl. can
also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El. 536; Andoc. 1,
47 ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐκείνου κ. ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς ἀδελφοί;
Anton. Diog. 3 [Erot. Gr. I 233, 23; 26 Hercher]; POxy
713, 21f [97
AD] ἀδελφοῖς μου Διοδώρῳ κ. Θαΐδι; schol. on
Nicander, Ther. 11 [p. 5,
9] δύο ἐγένοντο ἀδελφοί, Φάλαγξ μὲν ἄρσην, θήλεια δ
ὲ Ἀράχνη τοὔνομα. The θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί, a married couple
consisting of brother and sister on the throne of the
Ptolemies: OGI 50, 2 [III BC] and pap [Mitt-Wilck. I/1,
99; I/2, 103-7, III BC]). In all these cases
only one brother and one sister are involved. Yet there
are also passages in which ἀδελφοί means brothers and
sisters, and in whatever sequence the writer chooses
(Polyb. 10, 18,
15 ποιήσεσθαι πρόνοιαν ὡς ἰδίων ἀδελφῶν καὶ τέκνων;
Epict. 1, 12, 20 ἀδ. beside γονεῖς, τέκνα, γείτονες; 1,
22, 10; 4, 1, 111; Artem. 3, 31; Ptolem., Apotel. 3,
6; Diog. L. 7, 108; 120; 10, 18. In PMich 214, 12 [296
AD] οἱ ἀδελφοί σου seems to be even more
general=‘your relatives’). Hence there is no doubt that
in Lk 21:16 ἀδελφοί=brothers and sisters, but there is
some room for uncertainty in the case of
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

the ἀδελφοί of Jesus in Mt 12:46f; Mk 3:31; J

2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14.

2. a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close

affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate fig.
ext. of 1.
a. one who shares beliefs (for an associated duality, s.
Did., Gen. 127,
6 ἀ. ἐστι τοῦ φαινομένου ἔξω ἀνθρώπου ὁ κρυπτὸς καὶ
ἐν διανοίᾳ ἄνθρωπος=brother to the man as he
appears from without is the man who is hidden in
thought): Jesus calls everyone who is devoted to
him brother Mt 12:50; Mk 3:35, esp. his disciples Mt
28:10; J 20:17. Hence gener. for those in such spiritual
communion Mt 25:40; Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23), 17 al. Of a
relationship w. a woman other than that of husband Hs
9, 11, 3 al.; 2 Cl 12:5.—Of the members of a relig.
community (PParis 20 [II BC] al. of the hermits at the
Serapeum in Memphis; UPZ 162 I, 20 [117
BC] ἀδελφοὶ οἱ τὰς λειτουργίας ἐν ταῖς νεκρίαις παρεχό
μενοι; IG XIV, 956 B, 11f. ἀ.=member of
the ἱερὰ ξυστικὴ σύνοδος; IPontEux II,
449f εἰσποιητοὶ ἀ. σεβόμενοι θεὸν Ὕψιστον [Ltzm. ZWT
55, 1913, 121]. Mystery pap [III AD]: APF 13, ’39, 212.
Essenes in Jos., Bell. 2, 122. Vett. Val. 172, 31;
Cleopatra ln. 94. See GMilligan 1908 on 1 Th 1:4; Ltzm.
Hdb. on Ro 1:13 [lit.]; Dssm. B 82f, 140 [BS 87f, 142];
Nägeli 38; Cumont3 276). Hence used by Christians in
their relations w. each other Ro 8:29, 1 Cor 5:11; Eph
6:23; 1 Ti 6:2; Ac 6:3; 9:30; 10:23; Rv
1:9; 12:10; IEph 10:3; ISm 12:1 al. So esp. w. proper
names (for ἀδ. in a figurative sense used with a name,
cp. the address of a letter PMich 162 verso [II
AD] ἀπὸ Ἀπλωναρίου ἀδελφοῦ) to indicate
membership in the Christian community Ro 16:23; 1
Cor 1:1; 16:12; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; 1 Th
3:2; Phlm 1; 1 Pt 5:12; 2 Pt 3:15; AcPl Ha 1, 30 al.

112
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Completely ἀδελφὸς ἐν κυρίῳ Phil 1:14. Oft. in direct

address 1 Cl 1:1 (cod. A); 4:7; 13:1; 33:1; 2 Cl 20:2 al.; B
2:10; 3:6 al.; IRo 6:2; Hv 2, 4, 1; 3, 1, 1; 4; AcPl Ha 7, 4;
8, 21; AcPlCor 1:16. ἀδελφοί μου B 4:14; 5:5;
6:15; IEph 16:1; ἄνδρες ἀ. Ac 1:16 (rabb. par.
in EStauffer, TLZ 77, ’52, 202); 15:7, 13; 1 Cl 14:1; 37:1;
43:4; 62:1. To interpret ἀ. in Ac 15:23 as ‘colleague’
(e.g. PGaechter, Petrus u. seine Zeit, ’58, 141f) is
speculative; and the interpretation of ἀ. in 3J
5 and 10 as itinerant preachers (AKragerud, D.
Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium, ’59, 105) is
based entirely on the context.
b. a compatriot (cp. Pla., Menex.
239a ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι, μιᾶς μητρὸς πάντες ἀδε
λφοὶ φύντες; Lev 10:4; Dt 15:3, 12; 17:15 al.; Philo,
Spec. Leg. 2, 79f ‘ἀ.’ τὸν ὁμόφυλον εἶπεν he termed a
compatriot ‘brother’; Jos., Ant. 10, 201; 7, 371 after 1
Ch 28:2) Ac 2:29; 3:17, 22 (Dt 18:15); 7:2, 23 (Ex
2:11), 25f al.; Ro 9:3.
c. without ref. to a common nationality or
faith neighbor (of an intimate friend X., An. 7, 2, 25; 38.
Specif. in the sense ‘neighbor’ Gen 9:5; Lev 19:17
al.) Mt 5:22ff; 7:3ff; 18:15, 21, 35; Lk 6:41f; 17:3; B 19:4;
Hm 2:2 al.
d. Form of address used by a king to persons in very
high position (OGI 138, 3; 168, 26; 36 [both II BC]; Jos.,
Ant. 13, 45; 126) Herod says ἀδελφὲ Πιλᾶτε GPt 2:5.—
JO’Callaghan, El vocativo sing. de ἀδελφός, Biblica 52,
’71, 217-25.—B. 107. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

108 ἀδελφή

• ἀδελφή, ῆς, ἡ (Aeschyl.+)

1.a female who comes from the same womb as the
reference pers., sister lit. Mt 19:29; Mk 10:29f; Lk
10:39f; 14:26; J 11:1, 3, 5, 28, 39; 19:25; Ro 16:15; 1 Ti
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

5:2. Of Jesus’ sisters (s. on ἀδελφός 1) Mt 13:56; Mk

3:32; 6:3. Paul’s sister Ac 23:16.

2. a pers. or thing viewed as a sister in relation to

another entity, sister metaph.
a. of a female who shares beliefs of the reference
person or of others in a community of faith, sister. Used
by Jesus of a spiritual, rather than a natural
relationship Mt 12:50; Mk 3:35. Sim. ἀγαπᾶν ὡς ἀ. Hv 1,
1, 1; ἐντρέπεσθαι ὡς ἀ. v 1, 1, 7. Of relationship
in community: sister in the faith )as Hebr. ‫;חָ אָא‬
sister=countrywoman Num 25:18; s. ἀδελφός 2 and cp.
PGM 4, 1135-
37 χαίρετε, οἷς τὸ χαίρειν ἐν εὐλογίᾳ δίδοται, ἀδελφοῖς
καὶ ἀδελφαῖς, ὁσίοις καὶ ὁσίαις) Ro 16:1; 1 Cor
7:15; 9:5; Phlm 2; Js 2:15; IPol 5:1; 2 Cl 12:5; Hv 2, 2, 3;
2, 3, 1; Ox 3525, 15. In address w. ἀδελφοί 2 Cl 19:1;
20:2.
b. of a close relationship of similar communities (OGI
536, 5) 2J 13 (s. κυρία). Hm 9:9 v.l. (for θυγάτηρ).
c. of a condition or circumstance,
grief: ἀδελφή ἐστιν τῆς διψυχίας is a sister of doubt Hm
10, 1, 1f (Alcaeus 142 Diehl [364 L.-P.]: poverty and
helplessness as sisters; Paroem. Gr. Append. 3,
12 ἡ μωρία ἀ. πονηρίας; Pla., Rep. 3, 404b; Cebes 16,
2 ἐγκράτεια and καρτερία as ἀδελφαί; Herm. Wr. 9,
1c ἡ νόησις ἀ. τοῦ λόγου).—DELG s.v. ἀδελφός. M-M.
TW.

114
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Refuting the “ Aramaic has no word

for cousin’ ” Argument

Some who hold to the Hieronymian view argue

that the phrase “brothers of the Lord” has its
roots in the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christian
community, and that the woodenly literal phrase
in Aramaic (which had no precise word for
“cousins,” and so used the Hebraism) was handed
down to the subsequent Greek-speaking
community in the form of hoi adelphoi tou kyriou,
which then made its way into the NT. However,
Meier has shown that Josephus, when referring to
James, designates
him ho adelphos tou kyriou (The Jewish
Antiquities [20.9.1 § 200], cited in John P. Meier,
“Jesus in Josephus: A Modest
Proposal,” CBQ [1990]: 76-103). This is significant,
for not only did Josephus write independently of
the NT writers or other Christian influences, but it
is clear that Josephus knew of the distinction
between αδελφος and ανεψιος (he uses the latter
for “cousin” twelve times in his works; see Meier,
Brothers,” 19. N. 33), even clarifying the Hebrew
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

of Gen 29:12 (where the Hebrew has ‫ חָ א‬and the

LXX has αδελφος) with a more precise
paraphrase: “For Rebekah my mother is the sister
of Laban, your father. They had the same father
and mother, and so we, you, and I, are cousins
[ανεψιοι]” (cited in Meier, “Brothers,” 19). Hence,
“when Josephus calls James ‘the brother of Jesus,’
there is no reason to think he means anything but
brother,” ibid. (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],
294 n. 31).

Roman Catholic New Testament scholar,

John McHugh, himself a leading defender
of Catholic Mariology, wrote the following
against the position of Jerome and most
modern Catholic apologists and
theologians which mirrors the comments
of Svendsen above:

St. J-erome’s theory as expounded in the Adversus

Helvidium cannot stand. Its presentation of the
relationships within the Lords’ family has been
demolished by Lightfoot, and in any case Jerome
himself abandoned this theory in the end. But even the
second strand of his theory (namely, that in the Bible
the word ‘brothers’ means ‘cousins’) is to be rejected.
It is often said, in support of this theory, that neither

116
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Hebrew nor Aramaic has a special word to denote a

‘first cousin’; but they do have a word for ‘uncle’ (dodh:
Lev 10:4; Num 34:11 etc.) and for ‘aunt’ (dodhah; Ex
6:20; Lev 20:20), so that a word for ‘cousin’ is not
needed, for it is always possible to talk about ‘my
uncle’s son’ or ‘the daughter of my aunt’. Moreover,
the gospels were written not in Hebrew or Aramaic, but
in Hellenistic Greek, which has the very precise
word ανεψιος (in the New Testament, only in Col 4:10)
and the three rather general words συγγενεια,
συγγενης, and συγγενις. It was not for lack of a wider
vocabulary that the evangelists wrote about the
‘brothers’ of Jesus.

In the New Testament, the term ‘brothers’ does not

mean ‘cousins’. It means ‘brothers’. (John McHugh, The
Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975], 253-54, italics
in original)

Acts 1:14-15 and the meaning of

α δ ε λ φο ς
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

In a brief article defending the perpetual

virginity of Mary, Catholic apologist John
Martignoni wrote the following in an
attempt to “prove” that αδελφος and
αδελφη has a wider range of meaning in
NT times than simply “[biological]
brother/sister”:6

[O]ne other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15,

“[The Apostles] with one accord devoted
themselves to prayer, together with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His
brothers...the company of persons was in all
about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120
persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the
women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see
there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother
makes 12. The women, probably the same three
women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it
was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s
sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that
leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80
or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children?

6 “The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but
the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual
virgin...how can you reconcile those seemingly different
positions?” URL:
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#13

118
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

There is no dispute that αδελφος can be

used in a sociological sense, such as
“brother in Christ” and other like-
concepts, though to treat sociological
uses of this term as having the same
meaning of the term in familial contexts
such as Matt 13:55-56 is an exegetical
(and linguistic) fallacy. That this is the
case for Acts 1:14-15 is admitted by
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, a Jesuit priest and
leading Roman Catholic biblical scholar:

Adelphoi is often used for fellow Christians

throughout Acts (1:16; 9:30; 10:23b; 11:1, 12, 29;
12:17; 14:2; 15:3, 22, 32, 33, 40; 17:6, 10, 14;
18:18, 27; 21:7, 17, 20; 28:14, 15; perhaps also in
15:7, 13, 23, where it may refer, however, solely
to those assembled at the “Council”). In these
instances, it has nothing to do with blood
relationship or kinship; it connotes rather the
closeness experienced by those bonded together
as followers of the risen Christ. In Acts 2:29; 3:17
Peter addresses Jews assembled in Jerusalem
with the same title (also Stephen in 7:2, 26; Paul
in Pisidian Antioch in 13:26, 38; in Jerusalem in
23:1, 5, 6; in Rome in 28:17), thus showing that
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

early Jewish Christians took over such a

designation from their former coreligionists,
among whom it was also commonly used.
Josephus describes Essenes enjoying a single
patrimony “like brothers” (J.W. 2.8.3 § 122).
Hebrew ‘ah, “brother,” is also used in 1Qs 6:22;
1QSa 1:18; 2:13(?). Cf. Acts 7:23. (Joseph A.
Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles [AB 31; Garden
City: Doubleday, 1998], 222).

That this is the case is further

strengthened by the use of the phrase in
v. 14: τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ “his brothers.”
One Lutheran exegete wrote the
following on this issue:

A separate preposition adds “his brothers” and

does this after mentioning the women. This
makes it certain that none of these brothers of
Jesus were apostles. In John 7:3–5 they are not
even believers. It is generally thought that the
resurrection of Jesus brought them to faith so
that we now find them here. Who were they? As
far as the writer is able to see, the problem is not
solved. The answers given are: sons of Joseph by a
former marriage; cousins of Jesus, sons of a half-
120
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

sister of Mary; and the modern answer, sons born

to Joseph and Mary after Jesus. Strong objections
may be lodged against each one of these views.
When the latter is stressed on the strength of the
word ἀδελφοί, “brothers,” the passage before us
raises gravest doubts. Right after “Mary, the
mother of Jesus,” we read not “her other sons”
but “his brothers.” Why is their relation to Jesus
instead of their relation to their own mother
mentioned if she was their natural mother?
Nobody has as yet been able to answer. Mary is
under John’s care; yet here are her own natural
sons, even more than one, and why is she not in
their care? We are still waiting for a satisfactory
answer. We, therefore, leave the problem where
it is and note only that the objections to making
them sons of Joseph and Mary are very strong.
(R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of
the Apostles [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1961], 42).
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Gal 1:19: James, the Brother of the

Lord

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the

Lord’s brother (Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου) (Gal
1:19).

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (1800-1873), in his commentary

on the New Testament, wrote the following about Gal 1:19 and
how αδελφος, in this verse, supports the Helvidian perspective
of the brothers/sisters of Jesus (often Eastern Orthodox appeal
to this verse in support of their position):7

James the brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to

the church at Jerusalem as its president),—a fact which
conscientiously he will not leave unmentioned.
On the point that James the brother of the
Lord was not James the son of Alphaeus,—as, following
Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius,
Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars,
and among the expositors of the epistle Matthies,
Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hofmann,
Reithmayr, maintain,—but a real brother of
Jesus (Matthew 13:35; Mark 6:3), the son of Mary,
called James the Just (Heges. in Eus. ii. 23), who, having
been a Nazarite from his birth, and having become a
believer after the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians
15:7; Acts 1:14), attained to very high apostolic
reputation among the Jewish Christians (Galatians 2:9),
and was the most influential presbyter of the church at

7 URL: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/1-19.htm

122
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Jerusalem,[37] see on Acts 12:17; 1 Corinthians 9:5;

Huther on Ep. of James, Introd. § 1; Laurent, neutest.
Stud. p. 175 ff. By the more precise designation, τὸν
ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου, he is distinguished not only from
the elder James, the brother of John (Hofmann and
others), but also from James the son of Alphaeus, who
was one of the twelve. Comp. Victorinus, “cum
autem fratrem dixit, apostolum negavit.” The whole
figment of the identity of this James with the son of
Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural (Matthew
1:25; Luke 2:7) although ecclesiastically orthodox
(Form. Conc. p. 767) belief (extending beyond the birth
of Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Comp.
on Matthew 12:46; 1 Corinthians 9:5. We may add that
the statement, that Paul at this time saw only Peter and
James at Jerusalem, is not at variance with the inexact
expression τοὺς ἀποστόλους, Acts 9:27, but is an
authentic historical definition of it, of a more precise
character.

[37] Wieseler also justly recognises here the actual

brother of Jesus, but holds the James, who is named
in Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:12 (and Acts 12:17; Acts
15:13; Acts 15:21; 1 Corinthians 15:7) as the head of
the Jewish Christians, not to be identical with this
brother of the Lord, but to be the apostle James the son
of Alphaeus; affirming that it was the latter also who
was called ὁ δίκαιος. See, however, on Galatians 2:9.
The Gospel of the Hebrews, in Jerome, Vir. ill. 2, puts
James the Just among the apostles who partook of the
last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless represents him
as a brother of the Lord, for it makes him to be
addressed by the Risen One as “frater mi.” Wieseler,
indeed, understands frater mi in a spiritual sense, as
in John 20:17, Matthew 28:10. But, just because the
designation of a James as ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίον is so
solemn, this interpretation appears arbitrary; nor do we
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus addressed the

disciples as brethren.

Brief Exegesis Matt 1:18, 25

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:

When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost . . . And
[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought
forth her son: and he all his name Jesus.8

When examining the biblical teaching on Mary and the question

of whether she was a perpetual virgin, Matt 1:18, 25 are two key
passages, as they show the impossibility of any other
interpretation than the “Helvidian” perspective (viz. Mary and
Joseph, after the birth of Jesus, engaged in sexual activity as
husband and wife, and sired children after Jesus).

The phrase “before they came together” is πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν

αὐτοὺς. The verb translated as “to come together” is
συνερχομαι. While it is correctly noted by some Catholic
scholars and apologists (e.g., John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus

8 I have removed “firstborn” [Greek: πρωτοτοκος] from v.25 as it is a

later interpolation, perhaps based on Luke 2:7.

124
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

in the New Testament [1975]) that this phrase can mean “to
come together [platonically]” or even “to live together,” this is
not the contextual meaning of this verb; indeed, Matthew in
vv.18-25 is defending the concept of the virginal conception and
birth of Jesus, so a sexual/euphemistic meaning of this verb is in
view here. That this is the case can be seen in how leading
scholarly Greek lexicons understand this verb in light of v.18.
For instance, Louw-Nida in their Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2d ed; New York:
United Bible Societies, 1989) at 23.61 offers the following
meaning of the verb in light of γινωσκω in v.25:

συνέρχομαι: πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ

ἔχουσα ‘before they had sexual intercourse, she was
found to be pregnant’ Mt 1.18.

Moulton-Milligan in their Greek lexicon, Vocabulary of the Greek

Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), offer this
definition of the verb in light of the papyri evidence:

The verb is common in connexion with marriage, as in

Mt 118, e.g. BGU IV. 10506 (time of
Augustus) συγχωροῦσιν Ἰσιδώρα καὶ Διονύσιος συνελη
λυθέναι ἀλλήλοις πρὸς γάμο(ν), so ib. 10988 (c. B.C. 20),
11058 (c. B.C. 10), P Tebt II. 3512 (ii/A.D.) οἰκί(ας) .
. δοθείσης αὐτῇ … συνερχο(μένῃ) τῷ ὁμομητ(ρίῳ) ἀδελ
(φῷ), “a house given to her on her marriage with her
brother on the mother’s side,” ib. 3344 (A.D. 200–
1) σ[υ]νῆλθον πρὸς γάμον Ἑρμῇ, “I was united in
marriage to Hermes” (Edd.): cf. also Gnomon 47 (= BGU
V. p. 23) (c. A.D.
150) ἀστὴ συνελθοῦσα Aiv[γ]u[πτίῳ] kατ᾽ ἄγνοιαν ὡς ἀ
στῷ ἀνεύθυνός ἐστιν, and the use of
the subst. συνέλευσις in PSI V. 45010 (ii/iii A.D.), with
which the editor compares P Oxy XII. 14736 (A.D.
201) ἅμα τῇ τοῦ γάμ[ο]υ αὐτῶν προσελεύσει.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

There is no hint that Joseph and Mary’s relationship was one of

an aged protector and an avowed temple virgin, as later (mainly
Eastern) or any other relationship but a genuine husband/wife
relationship. This is further substantiated by vv.16 and 20, where
the terms “her [Mary’s] husband” is used of her relationship
with Joseph (Greek ανηρ) in v.16, and Mary is called Joseph’s
“wife” (Greek: γυνη) in v.20.
The verb “to know” in v.25 is γινωσκω. While, like its Hebrew
equivalent ‫ ידע‬it can mean intellectual knowledge, both terms
carry the euphemistic meaning of “sexual intercourse,” similar
to συνερχομαι in v.18 (e.g., Gen 4:1, 25 in both the Hebrew OT
and LXX). Again, as this whole pericope (vv.18-25) is a polemic
in defense of the miraculous conception of Jesus, the
euphemistic meaning is clearly in view here.

Commenting on the verb συνερχομαι, we

read the following in A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature (BDAG):
3. to unite in an intimate relationship, come
together in a sexual context (X., Mem. 2, 2, 4;
Diod. S. 3, 58, 4; Ps.-Apollod. 1, 3, 3; Philo, Virt.
40; 111; Jos., Ant. 7, 168; 213) ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό σ. 1
Cor 7:5 v.l. In πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς Mt 1:18
domestic and marital relations are combined. (In
marriage contracts in pap πρὸς γάμον τινὶ
συνελθεῖν means ‘marry’. Also without πρὸς
γάμον: BGU 970, 13 [II AD] συνηρχόμην τῷ
προγεγραμμένῳ μου ἀνδρί).—M-M. TW.

126
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Notice how it references Matt 1:18 as one

biblical verse having this euphemistic
meaning.

Jerome, in his work in defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary

from A.D. 383, Against Helvidius, understood the verb to have
such an euphemistic meaning, although he tried to argue for a
continuation of the celibate relationship between Mary and
Joseph post-partum.

It should be noted that, had Matthew wish to convey the idea of

a continuation of the abstinence post-partum between Mary
and Joseph, the term “until” (Greek: εως ου) would not have
been used on its own, as the predominant meaning of this
phrase is “until ‘x’ but not afterwards” (i.e., a cessation of the
main clause [see below on εως ου]) but would have coupled it
with the Greek phrase η απο τοτε (“or after that” [i.e., the birth
of Jesus]); however, he did not, and coupled with the texts in
Matthew that speak of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus
(Matt 12:46-47; 13:55), the defender of Mary’s perpetual
virginity is in a precarious position, exegetically.

Defenders of Mary’s perpetual virginity are in the unenviable

position of having to argue for a position that is totally at odds
with the prima facie reading of the pertinent texts, as well as the
exegetical, grammatical, and lexical evidence supporting the
“Helvidian” perspective.

Excurses: Mary being called “Virgin” after in the post-New

Testament era

An interesting “counter” offered by some Roman Catholic

apologists (e.g., Gerry Matatics; Tim Staples) is that Mary was
often called the “virgin” after the birth of Jesus. They reason
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

that, if one had a bachelor uncle, one would cease to call them a
“bachelor” after they got married, so, analogously, if Mary lost
her virginity after the birth of Jesus, no one would
have predicated the title, “virgin” upon her unless she was a
perpetual virgin.

Apart from being an absolutely desperate argument void of

serious biblical exegesis, it is void of logic, too. Notice, as one
example, that John the Baptist was still called “the Baptist” even
after he was killed by Herod, such as Matt 16:14 17:13. Why?
Obviously, John was not pictured as baptising people in his
posthumous state. The reason why John was called “the Baptist”
post-mortem, and why Mary was called “the virgin” after the
birth of Jesus, was due to the fact that these titles reflected
their functions in the life of Jesus. There is no justification for
reading into the predication of the term, “virgin” of Mary as
evidence of perpetual virginity, especially as the term “ever-
virgin” was not used in the earliest writings of the patristic era—
such was a later development.

Further Note on ε ω ς ο υ in Matt

1:25

Margaret A. Schatkin, a New Testament textual critic, while

herself a Luthern who accepts the perpetual virginity, admits
that εως ου in this verse does support the “Helvidian” view (i.e.,
Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual intercourse and had
children, and these were Jesus [half] biological brothers and
sisters). She herself has to engage in special pleading and
question-begging to the nth degree to propose a conjectural
emendation to the verse to read otherwise (she proposes και
128
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην. Ομου τη ετεκεν υιον και εκαλεσεν το

ονομα αυτου ‘Ιησουν).

Commenting on εως ου in Matt 1:25, she writes:

If και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην were a concessive clause, it

would have to be in the form of a condition introduced
by ει και and the negative would be μη (Smyth, 2371,
2375). Matthew writes a concessive clause another
way, using καν in a future more vivid condition (Mt
21:21, 26:35, Blass-Debrunner 457).

Thus there is no valid reason based on Greek grammar

to reject the normal significance of the temporal
conjunction, εως ου meaning “until.”
The composite εως ου originated in New Ionic as the
analogy of αχρι ου, μεχρι ου, and was used like
εως in later Greek.

In his Gospel Matthew uses εως ου at least five times

including the locus suspectus (Mt 1:25a) and does not
depart from classical syntax. He distinguishes
between εως ου plus the indicative when a definite
past action is involved (Mt 13:33) and εως ου with the
subjunctive without αν, when reference is made
definitely to the future (Mt 14:22, 17:9b, 18:34):
Mt
13:33: ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λ
αβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν
εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον
Mt
14:22: Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι εἰ
ς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν, ἕως οὗ ἀπ
ολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους
Mt
17:9b: μηδενὶ εἴπητε τὸ ὅραμα ἕως οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ
ώπου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθῇ.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Mt
18:34: καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν
τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον

In all these cases, the action of the first (principal)

clause terminates when the action/meaning of the
second clause begins/goes into effect. When the first
clause is affirmative, its action terminates upon the
commencement of the until clause.

In these examples (Mt 13:33, 14:22, 18:34), the action

of the main clause being affirmative, has an
impact/result upon the action specified in the until
clause. There is a cause/effect relationship when the
first (principal) clause is positive though sometimes
there is an ellipse of thought or of some state of action/
When the first (principal) clause is negative, the action
of the first (principal) clause begins when the action of
the subordinate (until) clause has been accomplished.
When the first (principal) clause is in the negative,
there is a withholding of some action which goes into
effect when the until clause is realized (e.g., Mt 17:9b).
As already stated, the controversialist Helvidius in the
fourth century understood the textus receptus of
Matthew 1:25a (in Latin translation) to mean that the
action of “knowing” (sexual intimacy) in the principal
clause commenced when the action of the subordinate
clause (“giving birth”) had been completed. “Post
partum ergo
cognovits, cojus cognitionem ad partum usque distulera
t.” Though attacked by St. Jerome, Helvidius seems to
have been correct in his analysis of the Latin and, by
extension, of the original Greek grammar.

The attempts of the church fathers to interpret this

verse in any other way than that of Helvidius, reveal
that syntactical analysis was not in the front of their

130
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

minds. Their exegesis appears to be more

apologetic defense of the ecclesiastical tradition
regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, than
objective grammatical analysis. This is not
surprising because the textus receptus of Matthew
1:25, when taken literally, clashed with early Christian
sensibility about the virgin Mary. Such a discrepancy
between Scripture and tradition is rare in early
Christianity, as are the efforts of the church fathers to
justify the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25a. (Margaret
A. Schatkin, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and New
Testament Criticism,” in De Maria Numquam Satis: The
Significance of the Catholic Doctrines of the Blessed
Virgin Mary for All People, eds. Judith Marie Gentle and
Robert L. Fastiggi [Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 2009], 37-67, here, pp. 54-55)

Let us examine some attempts by Catholic

apologists to answer the force of εως ου
in Matt 1:25.

Robert Sungenis wrote the following

about a textual variation in one
manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew:

Other factors mitigate against regarding Mt 1:25’s use

of heos hou as terminating the action of the verb. For
example, Mt 1:25 contains a significant textual variant.
One major Greek manuscript, Codex Vaticanus (B),
omits hou (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως
ἔτεκεν; ouk eginosken auten heos eteken).
Even more discrepancies appear in Mt 26:36. Codices B
and 067 contain heos hou, but Codices D, K, L,
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

W, Δ, Θ and 074 contain heos an; while Codex Sinaiticus

(‫)ח‬, and C, 28, 33 contain heos; and Codex Alexandrinus
(A) and P53 have heos hou an. This evidence shows that
the Greek transcribers saw no difference
between heos and heos hou, otherwise they would not
have replaced one with the other. In their minds, all
the heos conjunctive forms were interchangeable, in
the first century and long afterwards. (Robert A.
Sungenis, The Gospel According to St. Matthew [The
Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, volume 1; Goleta,
Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2003], 196).

This is not an impressive argument from Sungenis. To think that,

as one Codex (B) lacks the pronoun ου in Matt 1:25 “proves”
that εως and εως ου were understood to have the same
meaning as one another would mean that, based on the textual
differences between John 1:18, ancient scribes and early
Christians understood υιος (“son”) and θεος (“God”) to have the
one and the same meaning!

As Eric Svendsen wrote in response to this

“argument” by Sungenis:9

Sungenis has suggested here that if we can find

instances of heos hou that act as textual variants where
either heos an or heos alone appears in the NT, we
have thereby established that heos hou is
“interchangeable” in the minds of the scribes who
composed these manuscripts
with heos an or heos alone. Unfortunately, such a
suggestion betrays a misunderstanding of how textual

9Eric Svendsen, Is CAI Qualified to Address Issues of the Greek

Text? A Surrejoinder to Robert Sungenis’ “Heos Who?” URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080401065357/http:/www.ntrmin.or
g:80/sungenis_and_heos_hou_2.htm

132
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

variants and scribal glosses came about. When scribes

were copying a new manuscript from a parent
manuscript, they rarely made intentional changes. In
the majority of cases, the scribes either misheard (in
the case of auditory copying) or misread (in the case of
personal copying) a word or phrase, and wrote the
resulting variant in its place. When they did make
intentional changes, it was because of one of three
reasons: (1) to make contextual sense, (2) to make
grammatical sense, or (3) to make theological sense.
Yet, in each case, the change is made precisely
because the scribe sees a difference in the word or
phrase in the text as opposed to the word or phrase in
the variant he is supplying.

The point is, whether the change was intentional or

unintentional, scribes never made the kind of changes
that Sungenis suggests above; namely, that a
scribe knowingly substituted one word for another
simply because he saw them as interchangeable.
Indeed, if they were really synonyms (hence,
interchangeable), we would expect the scribe to make
no change at all. Scribes were reverent copyists, taking
every precaution to get the original wording right. That
means if heos hou was the original reading, and the
scribe intentionally changed it to heos an or heos alone,
he would do so only on the assumption that there is
a difference in the two constructions—he
would never change it on the assumption that there
is no difference between them, in spite of Sungenis’
odd insistence to the contrary.

Given Sungenis’ explanation above, one wonders

whether he would treat other textual variants the same
way. Is Sungenis willing to argue, for instance,
that monogenes huios (“only
begotten son”) is interchangeable with monogenes the
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

os (“only begotten god”) in John 1:18? As a less

theologically loaded example, does Sungenis wish to
postulate that the reading, “watch yourselves, in order
that you do not lose that which we have accomplished
[eirgasametha]” is interchangeable with the variant
reading, “watch yourselves, in order that you do not
lose that which you have accomplished [eirgasasthe]”
in 2 John 8, and that the copyists “saw no difference in
meaning between” the two statements?

Tim Staples, in two online articles,

attempted to answer the use of εως ου in
Matt 1:25:

The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity10

Mary Worshippers Need not Apply11

To quote Staples in “The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity”:

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that
no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the
evidence proves the contrary.Heos hou and heos are
used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts
25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when
Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the

10 https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-case-for-
marys-perpetual-virginity

11 URL:
https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/mary-
worshippers-tim-staples/

134
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held

until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in

custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according
to the biblical record. He would be held in custody
while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in
Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the
main clause did not cease with heos hou.

In this article, “Mary Worshippers need not apply,” Staples

provides another alleged instance:

Pastor Bob responds by pointing out that the text in

Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for
“until,” whereas the texts you alluded to
use heos alone. “The words heos hou together indicate
the opposite is true after the ‘until’ is fulfilled,” Pastor
Bob declares.

Having heard that one before you quickly quote 2 Peter

1:19: “And we have the prophetic word made more
sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a
lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and
the morning star rises in your hearts.”

“This text uses heos hou for ‘until,’” you say. “Now, I
ask you, what is the prophetic word referring to in this
text?” you ask rhetorically. “Prophecy doesn’t refer
only to future events foretold. It simply means ‘the
mind of God spoken forth.’ Does this text mean there
will come a time when we won’t have to pay attention
to the Word of God? Obviously not!”

Let us examine these two texts.

Acts 25:21
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

The Greek (followed by the NRSV) reads as follows (emphasis

added):

τοῦ δὲ Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς

τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν, ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι
αὐτὸν ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα.

But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for

the decision of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to
be held until I could send him to the emperor.”

Catholic apologists such as Staples, Sungenis, Pacheco, and

Albrecht who appeal to this text miss the point of this passage
completely. Firstly, the Greek does not say that Festus held Paul
in custody. The Greek word used here is simply “kept/held”
(τηρεω) and the verse simply states that Festus “held” Paul until
he could send him to Caesar. The question becomes, “Kept
where or in what way?” The plain meaning in context is that
Festus “held” Paul in Caesarea as opposed to sending him back
to Jerusalem (contrary to the request of the Jews) to stand trial
(vv. 15-20). The point here is not one of “custody,” but location.
Obviously, once Paul had been sent to Caesar (Rome) he was no
longer “kept” in Caesarea. Hence, εως ου in this verse functions
in its normal way, indicating cessation of the action of the main
clause once the “until” has been reached.

2 Peter 1:19

καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ

καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν
αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος
ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν.

So we have the prophetic message more fully

confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to

136
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and

the morning star rises in your hearts.

Staples (and other Catholic apologists) again miss the point of

this verse. Peter is not addressing truth as a category, but
specifically “the word of the prophets” that are
subsequently inscripturated (vv. 20-21). Scripture then is
compared to a “shining light.” The “dark place” is this present
age through which the Scriptures give us safe passage. The
phrase “day dawns and the morning star rises” is doubtless a
reference to the parousia (final coming of Christ), after which it
will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets
as a guide which navigates us through a dark place, since Christ
Himself will supersede any such need. Hence, once the εως ου is
reached at Christ’s coming, we will no longer “see through a
mirror darkly,” or “know in part”; rather we will “see face to
face” and “know fully just as we also have been known” (cf. 1
Cor 13:12). Once again, when we read the passage correctly, we
see that εως ου retains its normal usage.

The Catholic response to the use of εως ου in Matt 1:25 are to

be found wanting, exegetically. Latter-day Saints are on firm
biblical-grounding for rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary
on this issue, as well as others discussed in this chapter.

Finally, we should note that the earliest Christians did not hold
to the perpetual virginity as a dogma; indeed, many rejected it,
such as Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 [though do see the
discussion of Hegesippus above, too, as another patristic witness
against the perpetual virginity of Mary]).

In Against Heresies 3.21.10 we read (emphasis

added):
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

For as by one man's disobedience sin entered,

and death obtained [a place] through sin; so
also by the obedience of one man,
righteousness having been introduced, shall
cause life to fructify in those persons who in
times past were dead. And as the protoplast
himself Adam, had his substance from untilled
and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet
sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"),
and was formed by the hand of God, that is,
by the Word of God, for "all things were made
by Him," and the Lord took dust from the
earth and formed man; so did He who is the
Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly
receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up
Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as
yet a virgin.

The phrases italicised (“as yet [a] virgin”) are clearly

intended by Irenaeus to be taken as parallel to one
another. Just as the soil of the earth was as yet a
virgin (but only until shortly after when it was tilled),
so also Mary was as yet a virgin before giving birth to
Jesus. The direct implication is that she did not
remain a virgin thereafter. While not explicit, it does
show, at the very least, that the perpetual virginity of
Mary was a doctrine unknown to Irenaeus.

138
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER 5:

The Bodily Assumption of

Mary
The dogma of the Bodily Assumption
states that, at the end of Mary’s life
(whether or not she died is an open
question), she was taken up to heaven,
body and soul. The questions we will
examine in this chapter is:
1. Is there any biblical support for this dogma?
2. Is there any patristic support for this dogma?

Is there any biblical support for the

Bodily Assumption?
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman

clothed with the sun, and the moon under her
feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
(Rev 12:1, DR)

It is common for Catholic apologists to

appeal to the woman clothed in glory as
being Mary and her bodily assumption
into heaven. However, the earliest
interpretation of this figure was not Mary,
but a corporate personality (the
Church/New Israel):

By the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant

most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s
word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the
“moon under her feet” he referred to her being
adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the
words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer
to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was
founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries,
travailing in birth, and pained to be
delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear
from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the
unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he
says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;” by
which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth
Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to
be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the
nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto
God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always

140
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even

as David also declared of old when he said, “The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I
make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” “And the dragon,”
he says, “saw and persecuted the woman which
brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were
given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly
into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time,
and times, and half a time, from the face of the
serpent.” That refers to the one thousand two hundred
and threescore days (the half of the week) during which
the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which
flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the
wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no
other defence than the two wings of the great eagle,
that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in
stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree,
unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to
Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a
hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He
speaks thus: “And unto you that fear my name shall
the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His
wings.” (The Extant Works and Fragments of
Hippolytus, 61).

The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the

sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the
moon for her footstool, and being with child, and
travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate
interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by
herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets,
according to the aspect of their subjects, have called
sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes
Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and
Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is
desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to
her: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

the Lord is risen upon thee. (Methodius, The Banquet

of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity, Chapter V).

Furthermore, the vast majority (both Catholic and non-Catholic)

interpreters of the book of Revelation rejects the Marian
interpretation of this verse. Consider the following
representative examples:

Woman. In Revelation “woman” or “women” occurs

nineteen ties: 12:1, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17:3, 4, 6, 7, 9
f., 18 and elsewhere in 9:8, 14:4, 19:7, 21:9. It might be
said therefore, that the woman symbol is almost as
important as the Lamb. This woman and the new
Jerusalem are the antithesis of the harlot . . . [such is a
symbol] of the faithful community. (J. Massyngberde
Ford, Revelation [AB 38; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1975], 188).

Who is the cosmic woman? Some connect her with

figures in Israel’s or the church’s past or future. Eve, the
mother whose seed would bruise the head of the
dragon/serpent (Gen 3:1-6); Mary, the mother of Jesus;
or the heavenly Jerusalem as bride of the Lamb (19:7-8;
21:9-10). Others suppose a pagan or astrological
connection: a queen of heaven like the Egyptian Isis, or
the constellation Virgo. Still others hypothesize a
corporate representation of God’s people: Israel, who
escapes the dragon/Pharaoh into the wilderness on the
wings of eagles (Exod 19:4; c. Ps 74:12-15); or Zion, the
mother of the persecuted people of God (Isa 66:7-9; 4
Ezra 13.32-38). It is unlikely that John has in mind an
individual woman, historical or otherwise. Mary, the
mother of Jesus, did not give birth to the entire people
of God as this woman will (Rev 12:17). Eve gives birth
to all humans, not specifically the believing community.

142
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Though the “sign” language clearly intends to guide

hearers and readers to look to the heavens in the way
that they seek our constellations, John cannot have had
Virgo exclusively in mind since she is the sixth sign of
the zodiac and this woman (12:1) is connected
integrally with the number “twelve” . . . We can gain a
better sense of what John intends by his “woman”
representation when we look at the way he puts it to
narrative use. He deploys the word gyne (woman)
nineteen times. He is preoccupied with several primary
roles for women in first-century society: wife (19:7),
mother (12:4, 13, 17), and sexual threat (Jezebel’s false
teachings conveyed through symbolism of fornication,
2:20; sexual intimacy that defiles holy warriors, 14:4;
harlotry of Rome, 17:3, 4, 6-7, 9, 18). A more
comprehensive study reveals that John has oriented his
use of gyne around the competing images. Most
notable, though the images do not come into play
directly in chapter 12, is the thematic opposition
between the wife and the harlot. This woman is as
directly associated with her children (12:17) as the
harlot later is with Rome (17:18). The most intriguing
opposition is the one between the competing signs of
the woman in 12:1 and the dragon in v. 3. To be sure,
war breaks out in heaven between Michael the dragon
(v. 7), but that later conflict is based upon
the enmity that already exists between the dragon and
the woman. God’s intentions, as they operate through
the characterization of the woman, are already being
opposed by the dragon, according to vv. 1, 3. It is not
an outright hot war, it is certainly a hypertense cold
one . . . The woman’s attire reveals much about her
identity. He is, first of all, clothed with the sun. Clothing
in Revelation is more than mere outer wear; its type
and color illustrate important qualities or character
traits of the person wearing it. Sackcloth indicates
mourning and judgment. A purple and scarlet dress
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

symbolizes Rome’s harlotry and opposition to God

(17:4; 18:16). Christ’s bloody robe indicates the
slaughter he and his followers have endured for their
witness (19:13). Yet John then declares the followers’
robes are dazzling (19:14); that is precisely because
they have washed them in Lamb’s blood (7:14). The
dazzling robe takes on a quality o particular
significance; it signals a successfully established
eschatological relationship to God. The mighty angel of
10:1 is robed in a dazzling white cloud. Dazzling robes
are worn by those who witness victoriously to the
lordship of Christ (3:5, 18; 4:4; 7:9, 13). The bride’s (i.e.,
the church’s) intimate relationship with the Lamb is
indicated partially through her dazzling attire (19:8).
Even more dazzling would be the brightness of the sun.
Though John uses “sun” most often in reference to the
physical star around which the earth orbits (even if he
did not himself understand it in this way). In two other
places besides 12:1 he connects the quality of the sun’s
color or shining with a character who populates his
prophecy. At 1:16 the child of humanity has a face that
shines like the sun. The face of the mighty angel
clothed in a cloud at 10:1 shines similarly. In both those
cases, their sunshine indicates that they are
representatives of God. According to the psalmist, it is
God who is apparently so adorned (Ps 104:1-2). This
woman’s relationship with God and her identity as a
representative for God are highlighted by the fact that
she, too, is cloaked with the sun. All of her shines like
the sun! Clearly, she must represent something
extremely important about how God expresses God’s
self in the life of God’s people. I have already argued
and will maintain subsequently that she represents
Go’s procreative ability to birth a people of faith.

The “moon under her feet” signals elevated status; as a

cosmic being she stands far above the human followers

144
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

who trace their faith existence through her. But it is

the stephanos (crown) of stars o her head that best
complements that sun-cloak that robes her. Like the
dazzling robe, the crown is an accoutrement awarded
the believer who conquers by witnessing faithfully to
the lordship of Christ (2:10-11; 3:11-12). The twenty-
four heavenly elders whose perpetual worship is
highlighted in the hymnic sections are outfitted with
crowns (4:4, 10), as is the one like a child of humanity
himself (14:14). Interestingly, the child of humanity also
holds a symbolically complete 7 stars in his hand (1:16,
20 2:1; 3:1). This woman’s crown possesses stars in
another symbolically complete number: 12. Though the
number of the stars no doubt operates from the
cosmological understanding that there were 12 stars of
the zodiac, John integrates its use into his narrative as a
number of representing completeness in terms of
rapport with God (7:5-8; 21:12, 14, 16, 21; 22:2). Beale
argues that the number represents both the 12 tribes
(7:4-8) and the 12 apostles, who formed the leadership
of the nascent church. This interpretation gains
strength from the fact that earlier in his prophecy John
equates stars with angels, who in turn represent
churches (1:16, 20). The 12 stars, then, represent the
completeness of the church that finds its foundation
and indeed its genesis in this woman. (Brian K.
Blount, Revelation: A Commentary [New Testament
Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press,
2009], 225, 226-27).

In the Middle Ages devotion to Mary saw the other of

Jesus in Virgo, and from these the picture of the queen
of heaven became a central motif of ecclesiastical
painting and sculpture.

Yet the context rules out this interpretation of a specific

historical future. The heavenly woman, rather, is an
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

image of the end-time salvation community, a symbol

of the church. She is the heir of the promises of the Old
Testament a people of God; pointing to this is the
reference to the twelve stars (cf. Gen. 37:9), which
symbolize the holy twelve tribes in their end-time
fullness and perfection (cf. 7:4-8; 14:1). Against the
possibility that the heavenly woman refers to the
people of God of the old covenant, out of which the
Messiah was born, is both the continuation of the story
(vv. 13-17) and quite generally the fact that nowhere in
Revelation is the question of the relationship of Israel
to the church treated as a theological theme. The
certainty that the church has her roots in Israel and
that ow she has entered into the claims of Israel to the
church treated as a theological theme. The certainty
that the church has her roots in Israel (cf. 7:4-8). Also,
considerations of whether the heavenly woman may be
understood as a heavenly prototype of the church, as a
community of the consummation, find no support in
the text, which clearly speaks in what follows of the
earthly fate of this woman and localizes her place on
earth. That the woman appears “in heaven” does not
indicate a serious contradiction when one recognizes
that here heaven is introduced not as the place of God
and his heavenly assembly but as the firmament on
which an appearance of symbolic significance becomes
visible. That the woman is clothed by the sun and
stands above the moon—no different than the crown
of stars—signifies the promises to the church; to her is
promised the future consummation and triumph over
the powers of darkness. (Jürgen
Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993],
145)

woman: This woman is surely the bride, the heavenly

Jerusalem (19:7–8; 21:9–10), antithesis of the harlot (Rome)
(17:14; 18:16). . . . The woman, though first seen in a setting

146
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

of splendor, is with child and close to delivery. Her birth-

pangs may be those of Eve (Gen 3:16); they are, more
immediately, the birth-pangs of travailing Israel. See Mic
4:10, “Writhe and groan, O daughter of Zion, like a woman
in travail.” In rabbinical literature “the birth-pangs of the
Messiah” is a familiar phrase. Verses 5–6 identify the
woman more closely. Whatever his background, and
whatever the later use of the text (in Mariology), for John
this woman is the heavenly Israel, depicted in terms of the
woman of Gen 3. She is faced by Satan, the ancient serpent
(Gen 3:1); she brings forth in anguish (3:16); her child will
suffer attack by Satan (3:15). She is, all the while, the people
of God who gives birth to the Messiah and the messianic
age.
In stark contrast to the woman stands another sign: a
great red dragon. Much earlier than the Python image is
that of dragon or sea-serpent as a mythic symbol of chaos.
Babylonian and Canaanite texts mention a serpentine
monster with seven heads. In his text, John links the
“dragon” with the “serpent” of Gen 3. Already, in a retelling
of the Genesis story, the nāḥāš (“snake”) had become “the
devil” (Wis 2:24). In his reference to the sweeping down of
“a third of the stars” John seeks to depict the colossal reach
and vast strength of the monster. In Dan 8:10, which he
surely has in mind, the “stars” are angelic representatives of
pagan powers. John’s text has nothing to do with a
legendary “fall” of angels. It is worth observing that a
reading of Gen 6:1–4 in the sense of angelic “fall” is not
biblical. It goes back to 1 Enoch 6–13.
The dragon seeks to destroy the child of the woman.
Her “male child” is the Messiah, explicitly identified as such
by the invocation of Psalm 2. The reference is significant.
The anointed king of the Psalm is addressed by God not at
his birth but at his enthronement: “You are my son, today I
have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). See Acts 13:33, “This he has
fulfilled … by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second
psalm, ‘Thou are my son, today I have begotten thee’ ”; the
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

text is applied to the resurrection (see Rom 1:4). By the

“birth” of the Messiah John does not mean the nativity but
the Cross—the enthronement of Jesus. Interestingly, the
idea behind this passage of Revelation is thoroughly
Johannine: the death of Jesus, which is his glorification, is
also the moment of the assault of Satan and of his defeat.
Precisely by dying on the cross, Jesus defeated the dragon
and was exalted to God’s right hand. The Fourth Gospel has
no temptation story at the beginning of the ministry: Satan
makes his bid at its close. It is he who instigated Judas’
betrayal (John 13:2, 27; see Luke 22:3). In his
final discourse Jesus declared: “I will no longer talk much
with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no
power over me” (John 14:30). Luke, who has many contacts
with the Johannine tradition, reflects the same viewpoint.
After the temptation story he adds, “And when the devil
had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an
opportune time” (Luke 4:13); the moment indicated by the
“opportune time” is the moment of the passion (22:3, 53).

Meanwhile the woman—the people of God of the Old

Testament who, having given Christ to the world, thereby
became the Christian Church—found refuge in the desert
where God cared for her for 1,260 days. This is the
equivalent of forty-two months or three and one-half
years—the earthly duration of the Church. By “desert” John
seems to have in mind more than an unspecified traditional
place of refuge; v. 14 surely has the Exodus in view.
Wilderness suggests the Sinai wandering: the desert was
the place of freedom and safety after Egyptian bondage, the
oppression of the dragon/Pharaoh. Besides, God’s care,
described as sustainment, or nourishing, recalls the manna.
To John the Church appears as a woman, pregnant with
the Messiah, a woman who will become bride of the Lamb.
In the here and now she is protected from the malignant
design of the dragon. Jesus had spoken to Peter of
“my Church,” promising that the “gates of Hades” would

148
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

not prevail against it (Matt 16:18). We share that assurance.

But we must also expect that the Church will ever be
an ecclesia pressa, a Church under fire. The dragon will be
around until the end. (Wilfrid J.
Harrington, Revelation [Sacra Pagina Series vol. 16;
Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2008], 128, 129-31)

Is there any patristic support for the

Bodily Assumption?

Sometimes Catholic apologists make the mistake of conflating

the bodily assumption of Mary with her Dormition (“falling
asleep”). However, they are different concepts, although the
former eventually grew out of the latter. On the Dormition,
Ludwig Ott wrote the following:

In the East, at least since the sixth century, and at

Rome, at any rate, since the end of the seventh century
(Sergius 1, 687–701) the Church celebrated the Feast of
the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio, κοίμησις). The object of
the Feast was originally the death of Mary, but very
soon the thought appeared of the incorruptibility of her
body and of its assumption into Heaven. The original
title Dormitio (Sleeping) was changed into assumptio
(Sacramentarium Gregorianum). In the Liturgical and
Patristic texts of the eighth and ninth centuries, the
idea of the bodily assumption is clearly attested. Under
the influence of Ps.-Hieronymus, there was uncertainty
for a long time as to whether or not the assumption of
the body was signified by the Feast. Since the peak
period of the Middle Ages, the affirmative view has
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

gained precedence, and has now been dominant for a

long time. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 210).

For a scholarly discussion of the origins

and development of these traditions, see
Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Ancient
Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition
and Assumption (Oxford, 2003).

In reality, there is absolutely no patristic testimony affirming the

bodily assumption of Mary in the opening centuries of Christian
history. While some Roman defenders argue Epiphanius
affirmed the bodily assumption, the reality is that he did no such
thing:

This long and profound silence surrounding Mary’s life

first arouses concern only late in the fourth century,
when Epiphanius of Salamis pauses momentarily during
his energetic refutation of the heretics in
the Panarion to reflect on the disquieting fact that he
can find no authorized tradition about how the Virgin’s
life ended. Despite Epiphanius’ close contacts with
Palestine, where the cult of the Virgin’s tomb would
soon develop, he professes a complete ignorance of
the Virgin’s final days. This is not for want of searching,
however: Epiphanius reports that he has carefully
investigated the matter and uncovered several
possibilities, but ultimately he cannot decide which of
these alternatives bears the truth. Epiphanius begins by
addressing the biblical tradition, apologizing that the
Scriptures are silent on this matter ‘because of the
overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into
consternation’. Despite the apology, Epiphanius quickly
turns to the New Testament for clues as to how the

150
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Virgin’s earthly life may have come to a close. He first

considers Symeon’s prophecy that ‘a sword shall pierce
your own soul too’, thinking that this might suggest
Mary’s death as a martyr. Then Epiphanius turns to
chapter 12 of John’s Apocalypse, which describes ‘a
woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her
feet, and on her head a crown of stars’, who gave birth
to a son. When attacked by ‘the dragon’, she was ‘given
the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly
from the serpent into the wilderness, to her place
where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a
time’. His attacks thwarted, the dragon then turns to
persecute her children. This passage, Epiphanius
proposes, may indicate that Mary did not die as other
human beings, but somehow remained immortal,
although he makes clear his own uncertainty and
refrains from advocating this view . . . Ultimately,
Epiphanius cannot himself decide if either of these two
biblical traces is trustworthy, and, hedging his bets, he
concludes: ‘[I] am not saying that she remained
immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died’. This
is in fact the general tenor of his entire discussion of
the matter: throughout he very carefully avoids
endorsing any of the possibilities he raises, merely
noting their existence and some of the evidence in
favour of each position. This does not necessarily mean,
however, that when Epiphanius was completing
his Panarion (c. 377) there were as of yet no developed
traditions about the end of the Virgin’s life in
circulation; it merely reveals that there was no
authoritative or orthodox tradition (in his view) to
which he could turn. Quite the contrary, Epiphanius’
indecisive reflections themselves suggest that some
difference of opinion had already arisen among
Christians as to whether Mary actually died or
remained immortal, a difference which Epiphanius
could not resolve through recourse to either biblical or
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

church tradition. (Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient

Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and
Assumption [New York: Oxford University Press, 2003],
11-12, 13-14).

Let us quote Epiphanius in full:

In section 78 of the Panarion, entitled, “Against the

Antidicomarians” 11:2-6, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote the
following:

If any think <I> am mistaken, moreover, let them

search through the scriptures and neither find Mary’s
death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not
she was buried—even though John
surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does
he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture
simply kept silence because of the overwhelming
wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation.
For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep
silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I
may have found some traces of the holy and blessed
Virgin In one passage Simeon says of her, “And a sword
shall piece through thine own soul also, that the
thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” And
elsewhere the Revelation of John says, “And the dragon
hastened after the woman who had born the man
child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was
taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not
seize her.” Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot
decide for certain, and am not saying that she
remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she
died. For scripture went beyond man’s understanding
and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and
choice vessel, so that no one would suspect
carnal behavior of her. Whether she did, I don’t know,
and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal

152
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

relations, perish the thought! Who will choose, from

self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion
[on her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue,
flap his mouth with evil intent, invent insults instead of
hymns and glory, hurl abuse at the holy Virgin, and
deny honor to the precious Vessel? (The Panarion of
Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide [2d ed.;
trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013], 624-25).

One should note the lack of information about the end of Mary’s
life.

Interestingly, Epiphanius’ Mariology was much “lower” than

dogmatic teachings on Mary in the modern Roman Catholic
Church. Note the following comments based on John 2:4 in 4:6-7
of Book 79, “Against Collyridians”.

Yes, of course Mary’s body was holy, but she was not
God. Yes, the Virgin was indeed a virgin and honored as
such, but she was not given us to worship; she worships
Him who, though born of her flesh, has come from
heaven, from the bosom of the Father. And
the Gospel therefore protects us by telling us so on the
occasion when the Lord himself said, “Woman, what is
between me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”
<For> to make sure that no one would suppose,
because of the words, “What is between me and
thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more [than a
woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy,
because of the schisms and sects that were to appear
on earth. Otherwise some might stumble into the
nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the saint.
(The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III.
De Fide [2d ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
2013], 640-41)

One should compare and contrast Epiphanius’ tentative

 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

approach to the end of Mary’s life (let alone her corporeal

assumption into heaven as queen of heaven[!])
with Munificentissimus Deus, issued by Pope Pius XII November
1, 1950, which elevated the assumption as a dogma of the
Roman Catholic faith (emphasis added):

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth

prayers of supplication again and again to God, and
have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the
glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special
affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her
Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over
sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same
august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the
entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own
authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a
divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of
God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course
of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into
heavenly glory.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare
willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have
defined, let him know that he has fallen away
completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
46. In order that this, our definition of the bodily
Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be
brought to the attention of the universal Church, we
desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for
perpetual remembrance, commanding that written
copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand

154
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person

constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded
by all men the same reception they would give to this
present letter, were it tendered or shown.
47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our
declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash
attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should
presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he
will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul.

Commenting on the dogmatising of the Bodily Assumption,

Roman Catholic Mariologist, Michael O’Carroll wrote:

The dogma was part of a programme planned by Pius

XII, as he confided to Mgr. (later Cardinal) Tardini
shortly after he had become Pope. It came as a climax
to a movement of piety and theology centred on Our
Lady, and prompted continuity and expansion of this
movement. Literature on the subject had increased in
the present century; in the decade prior to the
definition . . . Due largely to Fr. Jugie’s expertise and
influence, the question of Mary’s death was removed
from the scope of the dogma. The idea of tracing a
historical tradition from apostolic times was
abandoned. It was thought better to concentrate on
the whole of divine revelation so as to bring to an
explicit stage what it contained implicitly. (Michael
O’Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the
Blessed Virgin Mary [Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier,
Inc., 1982], 55)
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

As we have seen, there is nothing from

both the Bible and the earliest centuries
of Christianity that supports the Bodily
Assumption of Mary as an apostolic
tradition that is dogmatic/definitional of
the true Christian faith.

156
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

CHAPTER 6:

Devotions and Apparitions

In this chapter, we will briefly look at
some of the devotions and (approved)
apparitions of Catholicism have a
Mariological focus to see the dangerous
effects of official Roman Catholic theology
on Mary.

Examples of Prayers to and through

Mary

Come, Lord Jesus: Redemptorist Mission and

Novena Book

The Redemptorists was founded by Alphonsus Liguori (1696-

1787) who is both canonised saint and, as a result of his moral
theology, a doctor of the Catholic Church. His most famous
volume, however, is not on moral theology, but Mariology, The
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Glories of Mary.12 In a volume entitled Come, Lord Jesus:

Redemptorist Mission and Novena Book, a rather popular
booklet in my native Ireland, there are a number of Catholic
prayers and hymns to Mary, speaking in exalted language about
her and her active role in salvation.

In the “Novena prayer” (pp. 14-15), we read:

Mother of Perpetual Help,

with the greatest confidence
we come before your holy picture
...
We think of you, Mother,
at the foot of the cross
Your heart must have bled
to see your Son in agony
...
Mother of Sorrows,
help us through the trials and
disappointments of life.
Help us not to lose heart.
May we share with you and your Son
the joy of having courageously faced up
to all the challenges of life. Amen

In the “Thanksgiving prayer” (p.15) the following is said in praise

of and to Mary:

Finally, we thank you, loving Father,

for giving us Mary,
the Mother of your Son,
to be our Mother of Perpetual Help.
We are grateful for all the favours

12 One online version can be found at

https://archive.org/details/TheGloriesOfMary1852

158
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

we have received through her intercession.

We pray that those past favours may inspire us
to greater confidence in your loving mercy
and to seek the aid of our Mother of Perpetual Help.
Amen.

In the prayer “Memorare” (p. 16), we read:

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary,

that never was it known
that anyone who fled to your protection,
implored your help,
or sought your intercession,
was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto you,
O Virgin of virgins, my Mother.
To you do I come, before you I stand,
sinful and sorrowful.
O Mother of the Word Incarnate,
despise not my petitions,
But in your mercy hear and answer me. Amen.

Continuing on p. 16, there is a prayer, in Irish, “A

Mhuire na ngrás” (“Mary of Graces”). Here is my translation of
the Irish text:

O Mary of Graces and mother of God,

May I walk in the paths the righteous have trod
And may you save me from every evil
And may you save me in body and soul

And may you save me by land and sea

May you save me from severe pain (alt. torture)
May the guardian angels stay by me
May God be before me and at my side
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Finally, with respect to the prayers to Mary, there is the “Prayer

from the Irish” (pp. 16-17):

Holy virgin Mary, you are the joy of my soul.

You are the dew of heaven to relieve my parching
thirst.
You are the stream of God’s grace, flowing from his
heart into mine.
You are the light of my darkened soul.
You are the healing of my wounds.
You are the strength of my weakness.
You are the consolation of my hardship.
You are the easing of my trouble.
You are the loosing of my chains.
You are the help of my salvation.
Hear me I beg you, O Virgin most faithful.
Take pity on me.
Turn not away from my need.
Let my tears move you.
Let your own compassionate heart move you.
I cry to you, Mother of God and lover of the human
race I
ask from you
O Mary my Mother.

In the section of the booklet reproducing hymns, there are a few

with a strong Marian focus. On p. 35, we read the following from
“As I kneel before you,” which is directed to Mary (italics in
original).

As I kneel before you,

As I bow my head in prayer,
Take this, make it yours,
And fill me with your love.
Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Dominus tecum, benedicta tu.

160
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

All I have I give you,

Ev’ry dream and wish are yours
Mother of Christ, Mother of mine,
Present them to my Lord.

As I kneel before you,

And I see your smiling ace,
Ev’ry thought, ev’ry word
is lost in your embrace.

On p.36, we read the following lyrics of the hymn, “Ave at

evening”:

Ave Maria, shadows are falling;

Star of the evening, hear us now calling:
Lead us to find our peace in God only.
Ave Maria, Ave.

Moon in our darkness, through the night gleaming,

Calm may our rest be, tranquil our dreaming.
Shine for the fearful, shine for the lonely.
Ave Maria, Ave.

Lady of silence, God’s Word revealing,

Lay your hands on us, all our ills healing.
Bless us tonight and in our last sleeping.
Ave Maria, Ave.

Finally, on p. 45, we read the words of “Hail Queen of Heaven”:

Hail, Queen of heav’n, the ocean star,

guide of the wanderer here below;
thrown on life’s surge, we claim thy care;
save us from peril and from woe.
Mother of Christ, star of the sea,
pray for the wanderer, pray for me.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

O gentle, chaste and spotless maid,

we sinners make our prayers through thee;
remind thy son that he has paid
the price of our iniquity.
Virgin most pure, start of the sea,
pray for the sinner, pray for me.

The Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary

The Legion of Mary is an international

association of practicing Roman Catholics
who serve the Catholic Church on a
voluntary basis. It was founded by an Irish
layman, Frank Duff (1889-1980).
Naturally, it has a very strong emphasis
on Marian devotion.

Their official handbook is that of:

The Official Handbook of the Legion of

Mary (Dublin: Concilium Legionis Mariae,
1969):

The very opening page begins with the following dedication to

the Legion from Pope Pius IX dated 16th September, 1933:

We give a very special blessing to this beautiful and

holy work—the Legion of Mary. Its name speaks for
itself. The image of Mary Immaculate on its Standard
portrays high and holy things.

162
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The Blessed Virgin is mother of the Redeemer and of us

all. She co-operates in our Redemption, for it was under
the Cross that she became our mother. This year we
are celebrating the centenary of that co-operation and
of that universal maternity of Mary.

I pray for out that you may exercise still more earnestly
that apostolate of prayer and work to which you have
set your hands. So doing, God will make you, too, co-
operators in the Redemption. This is the best of all
ways in which to show your gratitude to the Redeemer.

The following selected excerpts from the book, as with the

above endorsement from a Roman Pontiff, shows the over-
exalted view of Mary that is part-and-parcel of Catholic
Mariology and Marian devotion:

Mary, Mediatrix Of All Graces

The Legion’s trust in Mary is limitless, knowing that by

the ordinance of God, her power is without limit. All
that He could give to Mary, He has given to her. All that
she was capable of receiving, she has received in
plenitude. For us God has constituted her a special
means of grace. Operating in union with her we
approach Him more effectively, and hence win grace
more freely. Indeed we place ourselves in the very
flood-tide of grace, for she is the spouse of the Holy
Ghost: she is the channel of every grace which Jesus
Christ has won. We receive nothing which we do not
owe to a positive intervention on her part. She does not
content herself with transmitting all: she obtains
all for us. Penetrated with belief in this office of Mary,
the Legion enjoins it as a special devotion and sets in its
Catena, for daily recitation by every member, the
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

proper prayer of the Feast of Mary, Mediatrix of all

Graces, which occurs on the 8th Mary:

“Judge as to the ardent love with which God would

have us honour Mary, seeing that He has set in her the
fullness of all good: in such manner that all we have of
hope, of all grace, all of salvation all—I say and let us
doubt it not—flows to us from her.”—(St. Bernard:
Sermo de Aquaeductu) (p. 10).

Of the Holy Ghost, Mary is commonly called the temple

or sanctuary, but these terms are insufficiently
expressive of the reality, which is that He has so united
her to Himself as to make her the next thing in
dignity to Himself. Mary has been so taken up into the
Holy Ghost, made one with Him, animated by Him, that
He is her very soul. She is no mere instrument or
channel or His activity; she is an intelligent, conscious
co-operator with Him to such degree that when she
acts, it is also He Who acts; and that if her
intervention be not accepted, neither is His.
The Holy Ghost is Love, Beauty, Power, Wisdom, Purity,
and all else that is of God. If He descend in plenitude,
every need can be met, and the most grievous problem
can be brought into conformity with the Divine Will.
The man who thus makes the Holy Ghost his helper (Ps.
77) enters into the tide of omnipotence. If one of the
conditions for so attracting Him is the understanding of
Our Lady’s relation to Him, another vital condition is
that we appreciate the Holy Ghost Himself as a real,
distinct, Divine Person with His appropriate mission in
regard to us. The appreciation of Him will not be
maintained except there be a reasonably frequent
turning of the mind to Him. By including just that glance
in His direction, every devotion to the Blessed Virgin
can be made a wide-open way to the Holy Ghost.
Especially can Legionaries so utilise the Rosary. Not only
164
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

does the Rosary form a prime devotion to the Holy

Ghost by reason of its being the chief prayer to Our
Lady, but, as well, its contents, the Fifteen Mysteries,
celebrate the principal interventions of the Holy Ghost
in the drama of Redemption. (p. 134).

Souls Are Not Approached Except With Mary

Sometimes Mary is kept in the background as to meet

the prejudices of those who make small account of her.
This method of making Catholic doctrine more
acceptable may accord with human reasonings. It does
not reflect the Divine Idea. Those who act in this way
do not realise that they might as well preach
Christianity without Christ as ignore Mary’s part in
Redemption. For God Himself has thought fit to arrange
that no foreshadowing or coming or giving or
manifestation of Jesus should be without Mary.

From the Beginning and before was the World she was
in the mind of God.—God Himself it was Who first
began to tell of her and to sketch out for her a destiny
unquestionably unique. For all that greatness of hers
had a beginning very back. It began
before constitution of the world. From the first, the
idea of Mary was present to the Eternal Father along
with that of the Redeemer, of Whose destiny she
formed part. Thus far back had God answered the
doubter’s saying: “What need has God of Mary’s help?”
God could have dispensed with her altogether, just as
He might have dispensed with Jesus Himself. But the
course which it pleased Him to adopt included Mary. It
placed her by the side of the Redeemer from the very
moment in which the Redeemer was Himself decreed.
It went further; that plan assigned to her no less a part
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

than that of the Mother of the Redeemer and

necessarily, therefore, of those united to Him.

Thus, from all eternity Mary was in a position exalted,

alone among creatures, and utterly outside comparison
even with the sublimest among them, different in the
Divine idea, different in the preparation she received;
and therefore fittingly singled out from all others in the
first prophecy of Redemption, addressed to Satan: “I
will put enmities between thee and the woman, and
thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head” (Gen.
iii, 15). There is the future Redemption summarised by
God Himself. Definitely, Mary is to be in an order of her
own; even before her birth, and ever after, the enemy
of Satan; below the Saviour, but next to Him, and like
unto Him (Gen, ii, 18), and remote from all others. Not
any prophet—even the Baptist—is thus set with Him,
nor king, nor leader, nor apostle nor evangelist—
including Peter and Paul themselves; nor the greatest
among the popes and pastors and doctors; nor any
saint; nor David, nor Solomon, nor Moses, nor
Abraham. Not one of them! Alone, out of all creatures
that will ever be, she is divinely designated as the Co-
worker of Salvation. (pp. 252-53).

The Holy Ghost operates always with her.—Come a little

further to the feast of Pentecost—that tremendous
occasion when the Church was launched upon its
mission. Mary was there. It was by her prayer that the
Holy Spirit descended on the Mystical Body and came
to abide in it with all His “magnificence and power and
glory and victory” (1 Par.xxx, 11). Mary reproduces in
respect of the Mystical Body of Christ every service
which she rendered to His actual Body. This law applies
to Pentecost, which was a sort of new Epiphany. She is
necessary to the one as she had been to the other. And
so of all divine things to the end: if Mary is left out,
166
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

God’s Plan is not conformed to, no matter that one’s

prayers and works and strivings may be. If Mary is not
there, the grace is not given. This is an overpowering
thought. It may provoke the question: “Do those who
ignore or insult Mary receive no graces?” They do,
indeed, receive graces, for failure to acknowledge Mary
may be excused on grounds of utter ignorance. But
what a sorry title to Heaven! and what a way of treating
her who helps one thither! Moreover, the graces which
come in such circumstances are but a fraction of what
should flow, so that one’s life’s work is largely failing.
(p. 257).

Examining Two Approved Marian

Apparitions

The Apparitions at Fatima

 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

In his book, “With Jesus”: The Story of

Mary Co-Redemptrix (Goleta, Calif.:
Queenship Publishing, 2003), Mark
Miravalle provides the reader with a full-
length discussion and defense of Mary as
co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and
Advocate (the Fifth Marian Doctrine), and
includes an entire chapter on the
(approved) apparitions at Fatima,
Portugal (1917) and Mary’s role as co-
redemptrix and co-mediatrix in the
theology thereof.

As Miravalle writes:

In the monumental apparition of July 13, 1917, which

predicts great upcoming trials and persecutions for the
Church and world, and specifically for the Holy
Father. Our Lady of Fatima, again directs the children to
“sacrifice yourselves for sinners” and identifies her
own coredemptive mediation and the consistent praying
of the Holy Rosary as the only true remedy by which to
obtain peace in the world: “ . . . . Continue to pray the
Rosary every day in honor of our Lady of the Rosary, in
order to obtain peace in the world and the ending of
the war, because only she can help you.” It is thereby
most fitting that she would later appear on October 13
during the historic event of the great solar miracle
under the appearance of Our Lady of Sorrows.

Indeed, human coredemption envelops the July 13

Fatima message, with its call for Christian offering of
sacrifice and consecration to the Immaculate Heart of

168
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Mary. In addition, Our Lady of the Rosary predicts an

eventual Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as
the fruit of various levels of human cooperation: “In the
end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
(Miravalle, With Jesus, pp. 235-36, emphasis in bold
added).

Miravalle then discusses the theology of Fatima as enunciated

by Lúcia de Jesus dos Santos (1907-2005), one of the three
Fatima seers:

In her treatment on the devotion of Mary’s Immaculate

Heart, Sr. Lucia acknowledges the unity of the Heart of
Mary Co-redemptrix with the Heart of Christ from the
Annunciation to Calvary:

God began the work of our redemption in the

Heart of Mary, given that it was given that it
was through her “fiat” that the redemption
began to come about: “And Mary
said, ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord;
let it be done to me according to your
word.’ (Lk. 1:38). “And the Word became flesh
and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14). Thus, in the
closest union possible between two human
beings, Christ began, with Mary, the work of
our salvation. The Christ’s heart-beats are
those of the heart of Mary, the prayer of Christ
is the prayer of Mary, the joys of Christ are the
joys of Mary; it was from Mary that Christ
received the Body and Blood that are to be
poured out and offered for the salvation of the
world. Hence, Mary made one with Christ, is
the Co-redemptrix of the human race. With
Christ in her womb, with Jesus Christ in her
arms, with Christ at Nazareth and in his public
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

life; with Christ she climbed the hill of Calvary,

she suffered and agonized with Him, receiving
into her Immaculate Heart the last sufferings of
Christ, his last words, his last agony and the last
drops of his blood in order to offer them to the
Father. (Sr. Lucia, “Calls” from the Message of
Fatima, p. 137) (Miravalle, With Jesus, pp. 237-
38, emphasis in bold added).

Finally, Miravalle offers the following commentary and

quotation of the theology of Fatima:

Sr. Lucia’s commentary on the Presentation describes

the Mother’s knowledge of the eventual fulfillment of
Simeon’s prophecy and her expiatory offering “with
Jesus” as Co-redemptrix of humanity:

Mary knows that this prophecy is to be fulfilled

in the person of her Son; she knows that He
has been sent by God to carry out the work of
our redemption. And far from wanting to save
Him from such pain and suffering, she takes
Him in her pure arms, brings Him to the temple
with her virginal hands and places Him on the
altar so that the priest may offer Him to the
eternal Father as an expiatory victim and
sacrifice of praise.’

Here, Mary does not simply offer her Son, she offers
herself with Christ, because Jesus had received his body
and blood from her; thus she offers herself in and with
Christ to God, Co-redemptrix, with Christ, of humanity.
(Sr. Lucia, “Calls” From the Message of Fatima, p. 279)

The powerful intercession of Mary, Mediatrix of all

graces, in no way violates the scriptural revelation of 1
170
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Timothy 2:5 of Christ, the One Mediator (Cf. Lumen

Gentium, 61, 62). Rather, the Mother’s subordinate
participation in the mediation of Christ leads to the
fulfillment of the redemptive mission of the One
Mediator. Sr. Lucia defends the Mother of God’s
intercessory prayer in virtue of her prior mission as Co-
Redemptrix:

. . . So if the Apostle tells us to pray for one

another, we have much more reason to ask
Mary to pray for us, because her prayer will be
much more pleasing to the Lord in view of her
dignity as Mother of God and her loser union
with Christ, true God and true Man, by reason
of her mission of Co-redemptrix with Christ as
well as of her great sanctity. (Sr. Lucia, “Calls”
From the Message of Fatima, p. 266)
(Miravalle, With Jesus, pp. 238-40, emphasis in
bold added)

The reference to Mary aiding the priest to offer Christ as an

expiatory sacrifice, for those wondering, refers to Mary’s role in
the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, which
in Roman Catholic theology, is the re-presentation of Christ’s
sacrifice on Calvary.13

The Lady of All Nations

13 On the Roman Catholic dogmas about the Mass (e.g.,

Transubstantiation; the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice), see the
listing of my articles at “Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by
Bread Alone (2000/2009)” URL:
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/07/responses-to-
robert-sungenis-not-by.html
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

“The Lady of All Nations” refers to various

visions of Mary to Ida Peerdeman, a
Dutch woman, between 1945 to 1959.
The visions and the teachings of Mary
therein are recorded in the volume The
Messages of The Lady of All Nations (rev
ed.; St. Louis: Our Lady of All Nations
Foundation, 1999). As the preface
correctly notes, “The dogma of
Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate
holds a central place in the messages of
the Lady of All Nations” (p. 17). As with
the Fatima apparitions, these are
approved by the Vatican. Here are
selected portions of these purported
messages of Mary to Peerdeman:

30th Message (April 1, 1951)

Now I will explain something to you again; listen

carefully. Try to understand what this message means. I
am standing before my head, hands and feet as of a
human being: my body as of the Spirit. Why am I like
this? My body has been taken up, like the Son. Now I
am standing in sacrifice before the Cross. For I
suffered with my Son spiritually and, above all, bodily.
This will become a much contested dogma . . . Child,
just as He suffered, so did I suffer as the Mother of the
Son of Man. Repeat this correctly. (p. 95).

31st Message (April 15, 1951)

172
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Once again I say: the Son came into the world as the
Redeemer of humanity. The work of redemption was
the Cross. He was sent by the Father. Now, however,
the Father and the Son wants to send the Lady
throughout the whole world . . . the world needs the
Cross again. The Lady, however, stands as the
Coredemptrix and Advocate before the Cross. (pp. 97-
98).

33rd Message (May 31, 1951)

I stand here and come to tell you that I wish to be

Mary, the Lady of All Nations. Look carefully. I am
standing before the Cross of the Redeemer. My head,
hands, and feet as of a human being, as of the Son of
Man; the body as of the Spirit. I have firmly placed my
feet upon the globe, for in this time the Father and the
Son wants to bring me into this world as Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix, and Advocate. This will be the new and final
Marian dogma. (pp. 101-2).

35th Message (August 15, 1951)

“Humanity is entrusted to the Mother. For the Son said:

‘Woman, behold your son; son, behold your mother’—
therefore Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. Tell
this to your theologians. Say that I wish to be and shall
be the Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.” (p.
106).

41st Message (April 6, 1952)

Tell the following to the theologians: at the sacrifice of

the Cross came ‘the Lady’. The Son said to His Mother,
‘Woman, behold your son.’ Thus the change came
about at the sacrifice of the Cross. The Lord and
Creator chose Miriam, or Mary, from among all women
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

to become the Mother of His Divine Son. At the

sacrifice of the Cross she became ‘the Lady’, the
Coredemptrix and Mediatrix. This was announced by
the Son while He was returning to the Father. This is
why I am bringing these new words in this time, and
saying: I am the Lady of All Nations, who once was
Mary. Tell this to your theologians. This is what these
words mean for the theologians. (p. 121).

42nd Message (June 15, 1952)

At the departure of the Lord Jesus

Christ coredemption first began. It was not until the
departure of the Lord Jesus Christ that she became the
Mediatrix and Advocate. At the departure of the Lord
Jesus Christ He gave the nations the Lady of All Nations.
(p. 123).

47th Message (October 11, 1953)

The Lord is the Redeemer of all nations. Mary, the

Mother, was chosen from the beginning as
Coredemptrix. She became Coredemptrix at the
departure of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Father. She
became Mediatrix and Advocate for all nations . . .
Because Mary was destined as Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix, and Advocate, she comes now in this time as
the Lady of All Nations. Because Mary is given the title
‘Lady of All Nations’, she has come under this title to
different places, to different countries. (p. 138).

49th Message (April 4, 1954)

Because Mary is Coredemptrix, she is also Mediatrix,
she is also Advocate. Not only because she is the
Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, but—and mark this
well—because she is the Immaculate Conception. (p.
142).

174
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The Lady was Chosen. She was also to be present when the Holy
Spirit was received. The Holy Spirit had to come over the
Apostles . . . For this reason, the Lord wanted His Mother to be
present there. His Mother, the Lady of All Nations, at the
departure of her Son became the Lady of All Nations, the
Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate in the presence of one
Apostle, one theologian as witness. Or he had to care or the
Mother. She had to care for her Apostles. (pp. 142-43).

Such are just representative of the theology of this apparitions.

Interestingly, there are some Christological issues, even from a
Roman Catholic perspective, such as the apparitions teaching
Modalism, not Trinitarianism, at times. For instance, in the
51st message, dated May 31, 1955, the Father, Son, and Spirit
are presented as being the same person:

Peoples, do not let yourselves be taken in by the false

prophets; listen only to Him, to God, the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. For the same Father is the
same Son. The same Father and Son is the same Holy
Spirit. (p. 151, emphasis added).

Such devotions, practices, and alleged apparitions all serve to

highlight the importance of having a proper understanding of
Mariology, something one finds within Latter-day Saint theology
but not Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Appendix 1:
Latter-day Saints and
Religious Images

Some Fundamentalist critics of LDS

theology often draw a parallel between
the Roman Catholic (and Eastern
Orthodox) practice of venerating images
and Latter-day Saints having images in
their chapels and temples (e.g., the angel
Moroni statue that adorns most LDS
temples) and charge LDS with breaking
the commandment in Exo 20:4-5 (cf. Deut
5:8-9) which reads thusly:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,

or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow
down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the

176
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the

third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

This pericope is not against the making of images per se, but
their use in religious devotion, such as one bowing down to
them (‫ )אוה‬and serving them (‫)עבד‬. That this is the case can be
seen throughout the Torah itself, such as God commanding
Moses to forge the brazen serpent and His using it as an
instrumental means of saving the Israelites from their ordeal in
the wilderness (Num 21:8-9), which the author of the Gospel of
John uses as a type of Jesus Christ (John 3:14-17). Furthermore,
in the historical books of the Old Testament, we read of how
God commanded Solomon to make statues which would be
within the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6-8). However, such was proper as
they were never the recipients of worship, and when they were,
the “orthodox” response of the time was to destroy them due to
the idolatry attached thereto (in the case of the serpent, it was
destroyed during Hezekiah’s reforms [2 Kgs 18:4]). The LDS
practice is consistent with the biblical witness—the images of
Moroni adorning most LDS temples and the paintings depicting
scenes in the life of Christ one finds in LDS chapels and homes,
for instance, are never given veneration by members of the
Church.

In the New Covenant, there are two “images” that are allowed
explicitly by Jesus, namely the bread and wine (in modern LDS
practice, water) that represent his body and blood as potent
reminders of His atoning sacrifice (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-
24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-27). However, there is no
evidence that that the bread/wine, even after consecration were
the recipients of worship/veneration.

Within early Christianity, there was an allowance for images, but

again, only if they were not given any worship, such as stylised
manuscripts, chalices with carvings, and even paintings. For a
good historical analysis, see the work of Eastern Orthodox
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

scholar, Stephen Bigham, Early Christian Attitudes Towards

Images (Orthodox Research Institute, 2004). To be sure, there
were some early Christian writers who were totally opposed to
any images whatsoever. Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, is
forced to admit that Epiphanius (a father often abused to
“prove” the assumption of Mary was known in the late fourth
century) was, according to modern Catholic theology, heterodox
in his views:

[Epiphanius] was not free from all error . . .[as] revealed

by his fanatical opposition to icons. (Patrick
Madrid, Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine: A
Biblical and Historical Explanation of the Catholic
Doctrine of the Communion of Saints, 114).

Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, stated the following, showing

the late development of Catholic dogma of the veneration of
images (which would become defined at the Second Council of
Nicea in 787):

Owing to the influence of the Old Testament

prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images
developed only after the victory of the Church over
paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still
prohibited figurative representations in the houses of
God (Can. 36). The original purpose of the images was
that of instruction. The veneration of images (by
kissing, bowing down before them, burning of candles,
incensing) chiefly developed in the Greek Church from
the fifth to the seventh centuries. The Iconoclasts of
the eighth and ninth centuries saw in the veneration of
images a relapse into paganism. Against them St. John
Damascene (died 749), the Patriarchs Germanus (died
733) and Nicephorus (died 829) of Constantinople and
the Abbot Theodor of Studium (died 826) defended the
Church practice. They stressed above all the relative
character of the veneration and also pointed out the

178
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

educational value of the images. (Ludwig Ott, The

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 320-21)

The Council of Trent in 1563, emphasising the teachings of

Second Nicea, stated:

The holy Synod commands all bishops and others who

hold the office of teaching and its administration, that
in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and
apostolic Church, received from primeval times of the
Christian religion, and with the consensus of opinion of
the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred Councils,
they above all diligently instruct the faithful on the
intercession and invocation of saints, the veneration of
relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them
that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up
their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and
useful to invoke them suppliantly (DS 984)

Interestingly, Trent (and Second Nicea) are incorrect with

respect to the so-called unanimous consent of the Fathers on
this issue. Note the following quotes which are representative of
the understanding of images by the early Christians (the
following are only representative examples):

Clement, Stromata, Book II, XVIII: “The Law itself

exhibits justice. it teaches wisdom by abstinence from
the visible images and by inviting us to the Maker and
Father of the universe.” Ibid., Book V, V: “[Because God
does not want us] to cling to things of sense . . .For
familiarity with the sense of sight disparages the
reverence of what is divine.”

Origen, Against Celsus, 7.4-5: “The Scythians, the

nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians
agree in this [rejection of images] with the Christians
and Jews. However, they are actuated by very different
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

principles . . .For none of these other group abhor

altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of
degrading the worship of God and reducing it to the
worship of material things.”
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book II, II: “What
madness is it, then, either to form those objects that
they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the
things they have formed? However, they say, ‘We do
not fear the images themselves, but those beings after
whose likeness they were formed and to whose names
they are dedicated.’ No doubt you fear them for this
reason: because you think they are in heaven.” Ibid. “So
why then [since you think they are in heaven], do you
not raise your eyes to heaven? Why do you not invoke
their names and offer sacrifices in the open air? Why
do you look to walls, wood, and stone—rather than to
the place where you believe them to be? What is the
meaning of temples and altars? What, in short, is the
meaning of the images themselves, which are
memorials either of the dead or of the absent?”

Notice that these authors were not just arguing against the use
of images, but also that the veneration one gives to the images
ultimately is given, not to the image, but to the heavenly
prototype,14 which is part-and-parcel of Catholic dogmatic
theology on this issue. The Catholic apologist is in the unenviable
position of having to defend a dogma that is absolutely unknown
to the biblical authors; is condemned as idolatrous by these very
same authors, and furthermore, goes against the writers of the
early Christian authors. Furthermore, it shows that Rome’s
claims to infallibility on this issue, when held to the bar of both
Scripture and history, are found wanting on this issue and so
many other issues (e.g. the entirety of the Marian Dogmas). To

14“Heavenly Prototype” refers to the person in heaven whom the

image/icon represents (e.g., Mary is the “Heavenly Prototype” of
an icon/image/statue depicting her)

180
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

see the Catholic inability to argue for their position from

Scripture and so-called “tradition,” see the exchange between
Robert Sungenis (Catholic) and Eric D. Svendsen (Reformed
Protestant) on the veneration of images.15

It is common for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists to

appeal to Basil, De Spiritu 18.45 as Patristic evidence for the
veneration of images which would later become dogmatised in
787. As Ludwig Ott (ibid, p. 320) writes:

[T]he veneration of the image refers to the prototype

(Basilius, De Spiritu S. 18, 45)

However, when one examines this passage, Basil is not speaking

of images/icons; instead, he is speaking of the relationship
between Jesus and God the Father, the former being the εικων
of the Father (cf. Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Nothing in context is
implied about Christians venerating the physical images of Jesus,
let alone the glorified saints. Here is the section from Basil’s
work:

For we do not count by way of addition, gradually

making increase from unity to multitude, and saying
one, two, and three,--nor yet first, second, and third.
For “I,” God, “am the first, and I am the last.” And
hitherto we have never, even at the present time,
heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God of
God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons,
and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do
not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality,
because one Form, so to say, united in the
invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the

15 In the Image of God: A Dialogue With a Roman Catholic

Apologist on the Veneration of Images URL:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040606044935/http://ntrmin.org/im
ages_sungenis.htm
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in

the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is
the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former,
such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that
according to the distinction of Persons, both are one
and one, and according to the community of Nature,
one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two
Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s
image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven
in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and
authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed
by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to
the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the
one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the
other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art
the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of
the divine and uncompounded nature the union
consists in the communion of the Godhead. One,
moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him
singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the
one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable
and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to
the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the
fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the
creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of
many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son,
so is there one Holy Ghost. He is consequently as far
removed from created Nature as reason requires the
singular to be removed from compound and plural
bodies; and He is in such wise united to the Father and
to the Son as unit has affinity with unit.

Interestingly, Martin Luther, while opposing the Catholic (and

Eastern Orthodox) understanding of images, equally opposed
those who were “image-breakers” (Iconoclasts); see, for
instance, his work against Andreas Karlstadt et al. from 1525,
“Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and

182
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Sacraments(see The Selected Works of Martin Luther, Volume 3:

1523-1526, ed. Theodore G. Tappert, pp. 153-301). I reference
Luther, not because I am an advocate of his theology (I am not),
but because it shows that one can hold a balanced view of
images; not the “all-or-nothing” approach one finds within the
polemics about the propriety or lack thereof of the veneration of
images (i.e. if you don’t venerate images you automatically must
hold to Iconoclasm).

Overall, the Latter-day Saint attitude towards images is

consistent with the witness of both the Bible and earliest
Christian commentators on this particular issue. While not a
teaching unique to either Joseph Smith’s time period or even in
the modern era, it is another (albeit, small) piece of evidence
consistent with the Latter-day Saint claim to be a Restoration of
New Testament Christianity.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Appendix 2:
The Virginal Conception in
Latter-day Saint Theology

It is a rather common claim by critics of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints that many LDS leaders and authors
teach, as does the LDS Church itself, that
God the Father had sexual intercourse
with Mary. One example from the
Internet is the article Mormonism says
God impregnated Mary by sex.16 As this
touches upon Mariology, it is apropos to
refute such a charge (a classical case of
“yellow journalism,” really) in this
appendix.

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:

16 URL: https://beliefmap.org/mormonism/mormonism-teaches-
god-and-mary-sexually-produced-jesus/

184
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

“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.17

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.”

17 URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/08/on-
scope-and-formation-of-latter-day.html
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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,

186
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

“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 ‫ ןֹו ְייָע‬which 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.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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?18 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?

18 URL:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vl8jr8pln3ap4k3/BEGOTTEN.htm

188
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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)

190
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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).

192
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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)
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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

194
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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).

196
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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:19

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

19 Barry R. Bickmore, "A Passion for Faultfinding: The

Deconversion of a Former Catholic Priest" URL:
https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=16

198
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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
200
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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.

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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.
202
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

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
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

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.

204
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

[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):
ROBERT S. BOYLAN

206
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

There is no meaningful force behind such

criticisms against LDS teachings concerning the
virginal conception.
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Appendix 3:
Virgin or Young Lady? An
Examination of Isaiah 7:14
and 2 Nephi 17:14

Richard Packham, an online critic of the

Church, wrote the following criticism
about the virginal conception:20

“virgin” - 2 Nephi 17:14 = Isaiah 7:14

20 Richard Packham, "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on

linguistics problems in Mormonism" URL:
http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm

208
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

The Book of Mormon preserves some

demonstrable mistranslations of the King
James Version of the Bible. One notable
example is Isaiah 7:14, which in the KJV is
translated “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This
is copied word for word into the Book of
Mormon at 2 Nephi 17:14. The problem is
that the Hebrew text has the word ‘almah,’
which does not mean “virgin,” but “young
woman”: the Hebrew word for “virgin” is
‘bethulah,’ and most modern Bible
translations do not use “virgin” to translate
Isaiah 7:14. (Some Christians, including the
author of Matthew 1:22-23, view this passage
as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus from the
virgin Mary, but that ignores the entire
context of that chapter: the purpose of the
prophecy was to answer King Ahaz’ question
about the outcome of his upcoming war with
Syria and Israel.)
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

The error can be traced back to the fact that

the King James translators relied heavily on
the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible by
Jerome, from the 4th century A.D. Jerome, in
turn, relied on the Greek (Septuagint)
translation of the Old Testament. In Greek
there is only one word for both meanings
(“virgin” and “young woman”), making the
Greek translation from Hebrew ambiguous.
But why would Nephi be confused? He was
(supposedly) in possession of the original
Hebrew text, which would have had the word
‘almah,’ not ‘bethulah.’ But he mistranslates
the passage just as Jerome and the King James
translators mistranslated it many centuries
later.

It is true that the Book of Mormon speaks of Mary being a

“virgin,” both in its quotation of Isa 7:14 in 2 Nephi 17:14, as
well as various other texts speaking of the then-future mother of
the Messiah (1 Nephi 11:13, 15, 18, 20; Alma 7:10). However,
there are problems with the argument from Packham.

Firstly, ‫( ןָ ְי ָלה‬young lady) can and is used interchangeably

with ‫( ְהאּויָ ה‬virgin). Notice the description of Rebekah in Gen
24:16, 43 (from the 1985 JPS Tanakh translation):

The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin (‫)האּויָ ה‬

ְ whom
no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled
her jar, and came up . . . As I stand by the spring of
water, let the young woman (‫ )ןָ ְי ָלה‬who comes out to

210
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

draw and to whom I say, "Please, let me drink a little

water from your jar."

Indeed, in most instances, a “young lady” would be expected to

be a “virgin,” to it is essentially an issue of semantics.

Furthermore, we see this interchangeability of the terms in

other Northwest Semitic languages (same language family as
Hebrew).

In an Ugaritic poem recounting the marriage between Nikkal and

the lunar goddess, we find the following:

tld btl[t]
[lk]trt lbnt hll [snnt]
hl lmt tld b[n]

The first and third lines can be translated thusly:

The virgin (bethulah) bears

...
Behold, the young woman ('almah) shall bear a son.

This text is strikingly similar to Isa 7:14.

It should also be noted that The Testament of Joseph, found in

the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pseudepigraphic text
dated from the 2nd to 3rd century B.C. (though some scholars
argue it evidences some later Christian interpolations, so caveat
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

lector), speaking of the then-future Messiah, speaks of his

mother as being a "virgin." 21

At the very least, the contention of Packham that the Book of

Mormon follows a KJV “error” in 2 Nephi 17:14 is not as clear-
cut as they like to make it out to be; indeed, there is good
evidence that Isa 7:14 should be understood as a Messianic text
about a virgin, not just a young lady, giving birth to the Saviour. 22

21See "The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York, Doubleday: 1983-1985), ed. J.H.
Charlesworth, 1:775-828.

22 For a fuller discussion, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope:

Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group,
2010).

212
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Selected Bibliography on
Mariology

Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and

Devotion (2 vols.)

John Redford, Born of a Virgin: Proving the Miracle

from the Gospels

Mariology (3 vols.) ed. Juniper Carol

Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological

Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians,

and Consecrated Persons, ed. Mark Miravalle

Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological

Foundations II: Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumenical,
ed. Mark Miravalle

Mark Miravalle, An Introduction to Mary: The Heart of

Marian Doctrine and Devotion

Idem, "With Jesus": The Story of Mary Co-Redemptrix

 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Idem, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate

Eric Svendsen, Who is my Mother? The Role and

Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament
and Roman Catholicism

John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New

Testament

Martin Miguens, Mary, "The Servant of the Lord": An

Ecumenical Proposal

Kathryn Hughes, Alone of All Her Sex

Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the

Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption

Idem. Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion

Matthew Levering, Mary's Bodily Assumption

Mary in the New Testament, eds. Raymond E. Brown,

Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann

Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to

Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800-1200

Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church:

The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought

214
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

Idem. Mary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin

Mary in the Thought of Medieval Latin Theologies

The Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris

Maunder

Bridget Heal, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Early

Modern Germany: Protestant and Catholic Piety,
1500-1648

Stefano Manelli, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed:

Biblical Mariology

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Mother of our

Saviour and our interior life

Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Mariology (2 vols.)

Edward Sri, Queen Mother: A Biblical Theology of

Mary's Queenship

Margaret Wesley, Son of Mary: The Family of Jesus

and the Community of Faith in the Fourth Gospel

Joseph Duhr, The Glorious Assumption of the Mother

of God

Joseph Ratzinger, Daughter Zion: Meditations on the

Church's Marian Belief
 ROBERT S. BOYLAN

Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Mary:

The Church at the Source

Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, ed.

D.F. Wright

Edward Schillebeeckx, Mary: Mother of Redemption

Mary in the Churches, eds. Hans Küng and Jurgen

Moltmann

Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary: The Roman

Catholic Marian doctrine

De Maria Numquan Satis: The Significance of the

Catholic Doctrines on the Blessed Virgin Mary for All
People, eds. Judith Marie Gentle and Robert L.
Fastiggi

Michael P. Carroll, The Cult of the Virgin Mary:

Psychological Origins

John de Satgé, Mary and the Christian Gospel

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (8 vols.)

traces much of the evolution of Marian doctrine,
especially issues relating to the Immaculate
Conception.

216
BEHOLD THE MOTHER OF MY LORD: TOWARDS A MORMON
MARIOLOGY

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert S. Boylan is a graduate of the Pontifical

University of Ireland and National University of
Ireland, both in Maynooth, in theology and
anthropology, as well as extensive postgraduate work in
biblical Hebrew and Greek, historical theology, and the
history of biblical interpretation. Robert blogs on
Latter-day Saint theology and related issues at his blog:
ScripturalMormonism.blogspot.com. His is the author
of the book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint
Refutation of Sola Scriptura (CreateSpace, 2017).
ROBERT S. BOYLAN

218