Touchy subject about God.

[JohnOF123]

Around Christmas last year one of my Mia Maids came up to me and asked, "So like if Jesus is the only begotten son does that mean...well what does that REALLY mean?" I defined for begotten but she kept saying "but what does that really mean?"

To be honest I had no idea how to answer the question so I politely told her to ask her parents.

Mainstream Christianity would define that as Jesus being the only Son. The original word is "monogenes", mono meaning only and genes meaning begotten.

LDS may try to say that genes just means unique? I'm not sure about that one.

Another example is that a Jehova Witness would say begotten means created, so the only hope we have is to read the whole Bible and fit everything into context. I personally think if it meant He was unique, then they probably could have dropped the "mono-".

Good find though!

Edited February 20, 2010 by JohnOF123

[marts1]

All that I have learned about God through the LDS church makes good common sense to me. It seems to me the good things I see around me are very closely related to the way heaven is, just on a much grandeur scale.

[heatwaveo8]

My father told me something recently that I thought was just hear say. Out west he said there are people who are paid to be seminary teachers in schools. He said this particular person was also the teacher of his class in church. This person told him that Christ was conceived in the same manner in which everyone else is made. In other words God the Father and Marry made Christ the same way everyone else does. He said that is why he is called his only begotten son. I asked my brother about this and he said he had never heard that in the church and he didn't believe it. Has anyone else heard this or do you know if it is true or just hear say? If it is true can you provide a reference?

Any eternal doctrine or principle that the Church teaches is designed to help man obtain the attributes of God and become like Him. All we really know about this is that Jesus was conceived of God through the power of the Holy Ghost.

"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." - Matthew 1:20

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." - Alma 7:10

Since there is no further doctrine regarding how the birth happened, any further details would be irrelevant and would hinder, rather than help, our process in becoming like our Heavenly Father.

[marts1]

To me the knowledge of something like this has nothing to do with salvation.

[JohnOF123]

Since there is no further doctrine regarding how the birth happened, any further details would be irrelevant and would hinder, rather than help, our process in becoming like our Heavenly Father.

I'm not sure Nikkie85 was wondering how the birth happened.

I think what she was mostly referring to is that Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God".

So the emphasis is probably on how we can also be called the sons of God (since it seems to say Jesus is the only), rather than what some would call us being the "adopted children of God".

I also believe there are additional scriptures for both "how He was born" and "who He is".

[heatwaveo8]

I was actually replying to the first post of the forum, by Mute.

Marts, the reason why the Church would teach this is to be another witness that Christ was the Son of God. Through Him being the Son of God and performing the Atonement, we are able to repent (or "change") and become better people through our increased efforts to obey the commandments. And as we become better, we become more worthy for salvation. So yes, it doesn't tie in directly with salvation, but it explains through whom salvation is possible.

[JohnOF123]

I was actually replying to the first post of the forum, by Mute.

Marts, the reason why the Church would teach this is to be another witness that Christ was the Son of God. Through Him being the Son of God and performing the Atonement, we are able to repent (or "change") and become better people through our increased efforts to obey the commandments. And as we become better, we become more worthy for salvation. So yes, it doesn't tie in directly with salvation, but it explains through whom salvation is possible.

Oh yep, sorry about that, you are correct. My mistake. Foot in mouth.

[marts1]

Oh yep, sorry about that, you are correct. My mistake. Foot in mouth.

Wait till you see how it feels to have both feet in da mouth...very uncomfortable.:)

[Nikkie85]

I'm not sure Nikkie85 was wondering how the birth happened.

I think what she was mostly referring to is that Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God".

So the emphasis is probably on how we can also be called the sons of God (since it seems to say Jesus is the only), rather than what some would call us being the "adopted children of God".

I also believe there are additional scriptures for both "how He was born" and "who He is".

My young women wanted me to tell her basically how Christ was made...through intercourse or another way. I honesty never had thought about it and did not know what to say. That is why I encouraged her to ask her parents. I personally could care less on how Christ was "made". I am just glad that he was.

[john doe]

I personally could care less on how Christ was "made".

Not to repeat Mahone, but just how much less could you care? Or did you mean you couldn't care less?

[Clary]

I agree with a lot of what has been said. I'm not aware of any official church statement made by any apostle or prophet to the affect that Christ was conceived by intercourse between the Father and Mary. This is indeed a sensitive topic, and obviously very sacred.

One thing that I think we can all agree on is that Christ was literally born as the Son of God the Father, and as the Son of a mortal mother: Mary. How that took place has not been revealed as far as I know other than that He was conceived by the "power of the Holy Ghost." I think a lot of members of the church like to suppose this could only be done in one way. If it was done in this way, then obviously it was right because God saw fit to do it in that way. But I don't think we should make false assumptions, especially when there is no official statement.

Today's miracles of modern science show that there are other ways of causing pregnancy besides the sacred act of intercourse. If it would be inappropriate for God the Father to have intimate relation with Mary, certainly He has intelligence and power enough to pass His genes on to Christ literally through Mary in some other way. I don't say this to suggest how it was done, and I don't mean to make light of sacred things, but I do feel that we limit ourselves to suggest that the only way God could be the literal Father of Christ in the flesh is by intercourse. I don't pretend to have any answers, but hopefully some of these thoughts might be helpful.

[JohnOF123]

How that took place has not been revealed as far as I know other than that He was conceived by the "power of the Holy Ghost." I think a lot of members of the church like to suppose this could only be done in one way. If it was done in this way, then obviously it was right because God saw fit to do it in that way. But I don't think we should make false assumptions, especially when there is no official statement.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you are wondering about the conception of Jesus in Mary through the Holy Ghost, but here is kind of a neat prophecy I posted. I believe it to be the very first prophecy of hundreds found in the Bible.

Genesis 3:15 mentions that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpents head. The seed of the woman would destroy Satan.

But the woman does not have the seed. The seed is in the man. But there was one woman in human history who had a seed within her body apart from a man depositing that seed there and that was the virgin Mary. And it was she who produced the Son that crushed the head of Satan.

There you go, the first prophecy of the Bible and it is fulfilled specifically in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ through a virgin; a virgin born man.

I will agree that this is all mysterious to us.

[Nikkie85]

Not to repeat Mahone, but just how much less could you care? Or did you mean you couldn't care less?

No I meant what I said...I could care less!

[john doe]

How much less?

[JohnOF123]

My young women wanted me to tell her basically how Christ was made...through intercourse or another way. I honesty never had thought about it and did not know what to say. That is why I encouraged her to ask her parents. I personally could care less on how Christ was "made". I am just glad that he was.

I would probably just tell them that Mary was a virgin and she supernaturally conceived Christ by power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. It's a tough question to be asked really.

Edited February 21, 2010 by john doe
deleted repeated quote

[Nikkie85]

How much less?

very very less:p

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you are wondering about the conception of Jesus in Mary through the Holy Ghost, but here is kind of a neat prophecy I posted. I believe it to be the very first prophecy of hundreds found in the Bible.

Genesis 3:15 mentions that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpents head. The seed of the woman would destroy Satan.

But the woman does not have the seed. The seed is in the man. But there was one woman in human history who had a seed within her body apart from a man depositing that seed there and that was the virgin Mary. And it was she who produced the Son that crushed the head of Satan.

There you go, the first prophecy of the Bible and it is fulfilled specifically in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ through a virgin; a virgin born man.

I will agree that this is all mysterious to us.

What do you mean "but the woman does not have the seed. The seed is in the man."?

[Wingnut]

What do you mean "but the woman does not have the seed. The seed is in the man."?

"Seed" refers to sperm.

[Blackmarch]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you are wondering about the conception of Jesus in Mary through the Holy Ghost, but here is kind of a neat prophecy I posted. I believe it to be the very first prophecy of hundreds found in the Bible.

Genesis 3:15 mentions that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpents head. The seed of the woman would destroy Satan.

But the woman does not have the seed. The seed is in the man. But there was one woman in human history who had a seed within her body apart from a man depositing that seed there and that was the virgin Mary. And it was she who produced the Son that crushed the head of Satan.

There you go, the first prophecy of the Bible and it is fulfilled specifically in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ through a virgin; a virgin born man.

I will agree that this is all mysterious to us.

Interesting... had not looked at it in that way before thank you.

[Traveler]

I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with it, in fact it is a blessing and a wonderful thing ... I know, I have 4 children. However, I don't think it is wise to try to bring God down to our methods when there may be Godly ways that we don't know about. I think assuming that God's 'nature' is the same as our 'nature' is a dangerous assumption because we learn that the natural man is an enemy to God. And, there are many people in this world that justify certain actions because they call it natural or 'God made me this way.' .... "the reason I sleep around is because God made me this way" etc.

There are many things that we do in similitude of the way God does them, but that does not mean that God does it exactly like we do. When Adam or Moses was asked to sacrifice animals in similitude to God's sacrifice, God did not sacrifice an animal. Likewise, when we participate in procreation it doesn't necessarily mean that God does it exactly like we do. We are able to procreate to learn the value of it and have experiences that bind a man and woman together and allow them to take on the associated responsibilities. That is the main reason for sexual reproduction. It is not to learn the mechanics of the act. We don't have to assume that God's nature is our nature because in reality there are very few things that are similar in terms of practical applications, as far as we know. Most things we do here are only in similitude to God's way or simply a way to borrow or participate in his power. I'm sure the loaned version is different than the actual version.

I don't see this as a touchy subject other than the nature of God is always a very opinionated thing. My opinion is that we have to realize we know very little about God's nature. As for me, I would never assume He does things exactly as it is done on a corrupted non-celestial sphere. Even saying that, there is a lot that we can learn from participating in this commandment and responsibility, to multiply. In my mind, the most valuable thing about it isn't the act of sex.

Just to expand the horizon a little ... hopefully not side track too much ... but if Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are truly one in every way there is no need to mix DNA or whatever other kind of information it may be in the form of. Where here, survival in this corrupted world requires genetic diversity. ... it's a different system than God's world.

In general I do not think G-d is a do as I say and not as I do kind of being. I am quite sure that we come to better understand G-d by odedience to his commandments - including his commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. I believe we should look to G-d as the example of all that is good. Especially that what is good in what he commands.

I realize that is possible to corrupt anything G-d does or command - but I also believe that the responsibility and commiement to create human life is something to be held in highest reguard and kept secred. To imply in any way that the covenant of life between a man and a woman is anything but devine is to misunderstand G-d. All of this has a great deal to do with why I support marrage as a covenant between a man and a woman.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

"Seed" refers to sperm.

I was curious what Johnof123 meant by that. ... Then to plug that into Genesis 3:15, you are saying the sperm of the woman shall bruise Satan's heel?

[Blackmarch]

I was curious what Johnof123 meant by that. ... Then to plug that into Genesis 3:15, you are saying the sperm of the woman shall bruise Satan's heel?

basically it's a tactful and quick way of saying that a man is not going to be involved in creating the offspring that comes from the woman, which offspring will bruise the head of the serpent. (IE Christ) What john is pointing out here is that this is virgin birth prophecy right from the start of the bible.

[Seminarysnoozer]

basically it's a tactful and quick way of saying that a man is not going to be involved in creating the offspring that comes from the woman, which offspring will bruise the head of the serpent. (IE Christ) What john is pointing out here is that this is virgin birth prophecy right from the start of the bible.

Lol, I guess as a woman I was taking offense to the statement that women don't have seed (offspring). (me <-- repenting)

[Blackmarch]

Lol, I guess as a woman I was taking offense to the statement that women don't have seed (offspring). (me <-- repenting)

no worries ^.^... just to add it's a pretty smooth one too; I never realised it (it being a virgin birth prophecy in addition to prophecying what Christ will do) until john pointed it out. Edited February 24, 2010 by Blackmarch

[mikbone]

I believe that the seed that was concieved within the virgin was a Blastocyst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia