Clarification on the wording of "only begotten son"

[Bini]

What does God mean when refers to Jesus as his "only begotten son"?

The dictionary defines the word "begotten" as to: procreate, father, produce offspring.. So when I read the above, my understanding is that God is saying that Jesus is his only flesh and blood? Are we not all children of God? For the record, I know that we ARE but I suppose that's what is confusing me about this particular scripture. And so why emphasize the word "only"? Clearly, I'm misunderstanding the context of this scripture. My husband and I were debating it's meaning and came up with this: Jesus is God's only son (procreated, flesh and blood) and that we are "creations" of God (in His image etc) but more like ZAP - you now exist!

[Dravin]

Christ is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. That is to say that while each of us are his Spirit children only Christ holds the distinction where his Father on this Earth was Heavenly Father. I suggest giving this a read: Gospel Principles Chapter 11: The Life of Christ

Edited April 5, 2012 by Dravin

[volgadon]

What does God mean when refers to Jesus as his "only begotten son"?

The dictionary defines the word "begotten" as to: procreate, father, produce offspring.. So when I read the above, my understanding is that God is saying that Jesus is his only flesh and blood? Are we not all children of God? For the record, I know that we ARE but I suppose that's what is confusing me about this particular scripture. And so why emphasize the word "only"? Clearly, I'm misunderstanding the context of this scripture. My husband and I were debating it's meaning and came up with this: Jesus is God's only son (procreated, flesh and blood) and that we are "creations" of God (in His image etc) but more like ZAP - you now exist!

The Greek word monogenes was not used in a literal sense, but meant one of a kind, or dearly beloved.

[mikbone]

I cannot find the phrase "only begotten son of God the Father in the flesh" anywhere in our scriptures.

I see the phrase all the time in church manuals and talks.

Anyone know who or when we (Mormons) started using the the phrase? John 3:16, D&C 93:11, 2 Nephi 25:12 & Moses 6:52 are scriptures that are used to support the phrase but none of the verses actually really do.

[Bini]

I cannot find the phrase "only begotten son of God the Father in the flesh" anywhere in our scriptures.

I see the phrase all the time in church manuals and talks.

Anyone know who or when we (Mormons) started using the the phrase? John 3:16, D&C 93:11, 2 Nephi 25:12 & Moses 6:52 are scriptures that are used to support the phrase but none of the verses actually really do.

The fleshy part is not apart of the quote.

[Bini]

Christ is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh. That is to say that while each of us are his Spirit children only Christ holds the distinction where his Father on this Earth was Heavenly Father. I suggest giving this a read: Gospel Principles Chapter 11: The Life of Christ

Thanks, Dravin. Read that and it was helpful in defining its usage.

[Dravin]

The fleshy part is not apart of the quote.

I think he's commenting on my post.

[mikbone]

I found a 1909 official document with the phrase.

The Origin of Man - Ensign Feb. 2002 - ensign

Edited April 5, 2012 by mikbone

[mnn727]

Are we not all children of God? !

Not in the Begotten sense IMHO.

Since we were all intelligences with the Father in the beginning (D&C 93:29) I believe its more like adoption rather than procreation to become 'spirit children'

[Seminarysnoozer]

What does God mean when refers to Jesus as his "only begotten son"?

The dictionary defines the word "begotten" as to: procreate, father, produce offspring.. So when I read the above, my understanding is that God is saying that Jesus is his only flesh and blood? Are we not all children of God? For the record, I know that we ARE but I suppose that's what is confusing me about this particular scripture. And so why emphasize the word "only"? Clearly, I'm misunderstanding the context of this scripture. My husband and I were debating it's meaning and came up with this: Jesus is God's only son (procreated, flesh and blood) and that we are "creations" of God (in His image etc) but more like ZAP - you now exist!

Change the "ZAP" to a "twinkling of an eye" as in 3 Nephi 28:8, and think about God's ability to make a perfected glorified body in the "twinkling of an eye". Or think about the miracle with Lazarus, a dead body for 4 days turned back into a living mortal body. If the brain of the body sits for 4 days, not alive, the neurons rupture, the decaying process has already set in making it not a human body really any longer. It had to be "re-made", not birthed. But what we are talking about is the body, not the spirit. So, we already existed. We are dual beings here, both spirit and physical body. The "ZAP" part is certainly within God's ability as far as creation of a body goes.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Vort]

Jesus is God's only son (procreated, flesh and blood) and that we are "creations" of God (in His image etc) but more like ZAP - you now exist!

Joseph Smith taught that we are "co-equal" (probably meaning "co-eternal") with God. Intelligence, he taught, cannot be created or made by anyone -- even God. It is self-existent. WE are self-existent. God created us in the sense that he in some sense gave birth to our spirits, but our self-existent intelligence, the seat of our personality and decision-making, is uncreated, just as God himself is uncreated.

Jesus is called the "only begotten" because he was begotten of God in the flesh, as opposed to the rest of us who are begotten by earthly fathers and mothers.

At least, this is my understanding.

[Bensalem]

What does God mean when refers to Jesus as his "only begotten son"?

The dictionary defines the word "begotten" as to: procreate, father, produce offspring.. So when I read the above, my understanding is that God is saying that Jesus is his only flesh and blood? Are we not all children of God? For the record, I know that we ARE but I suppose that's what is confusing me about this particular scripture. And so why emphasize the word "only"? Clearly, I'm misunderstanding the context of this scripture. My husband and I were debating it's meaning and came up with this: Jesus is God's only son (procreated, flesh and blood) and that we are "creations" of God (in His image etc) but more like ZAP - you now exist!

"Begotten", in the sense of fertilization of an egg or placement of a fertilized egg into the womb.

"Only", to signify that the miracle will not be preformed again; no one can claim to be begotten of the seed of God.

We are all the children of God begotten of His Spirit, not of His flesh.

In the resurrection we will be His children in the flesh united in Spirit.

LDS doctrine makes a distinction between our "flesh and blood" form in mortality and our "flesh and bone" form in eternity.

[Seminarysnoozer]

"Begotten", in the sense of fertilization of an egg or placement of a fertilized egg into the womb.

In the resurrection we will be His children in the flesh united in Spirit.

LDS doctrine makes a distinction between our "flesh and blood" form in mortality and our "flesh and bone" form in eternity.

Are you suggesting that our resurrected body has to be birthed by the phrase "children in the flesh"? Where did you get that from? Are there scriptures or other sources for the "children in the flesh" meaning? Other than being his children and we will have flesh, I don't think that we can jump to the conclusion that that means our resurrected body will be birthed or begotten if you want to use that term. The children part of that phrase is satisfied by the fact we are spirit children and the flesh part satisfied by the fact that we will have resurrected bodies with flesh but that says nothing as to the process.

[Bensalem]

Are you suggesting that our resurrected body has to be birthed by the phrase "children in the flesh"? Where did you get that from? Are there scriptures or other sources for the "children in the flesh" meaning? Other than being his children and we will have flesh, I don't think that we can jump to the conclusion that that means our resurrected body will be birthed or begotten if you want to use that term. The children part of that phrase is satisfied by the fact we are spirit children and the flesh part satisfied by the fact that we will have resurrected bodies with flesh but that says nothing as to the process.

No, I am not suggesting any birthing process into the resurrection.

In the resurrection we shall be "children in the flesh" because we shall be the Body of Christ, aka, the Church.

The opening poster questioned the begotten aspect of the "Only Begotten Son of God" vs us being His creation (not begotten). In this life we are begotten of flesh and blood by earthly parents and are spiritually begotten of God. In the resurrection we will be as Christ, made of flesh and bone (and our spirits will be one with Him).

[Vort]

Are you suggesting that our resurrected body has to be birthed by the phrase "children in the flesh"? Where did you get that from?

I don't think he is saying that. However, that belief was held by some LDS-affiliated groups in the 19th century. I believe they called it the "baby resurrection" or something of the sort.

[Seminarysnoozer]

No, I am not suggesting any birthing process into the resurrection.

In the resurrection we will be as Christ, made of flesh and bone (and our spirits will be one with Him).

But this is what I am questioning, you are saying "we will be as Christ, made of flesh and bone" and before that saying Christ was begotten. Are you saying that we will be "as Christ" but not "begotten" in the flesh at resurrection? Or are you saying we will be "as Christ" in that we will have a "begotten" body?

In other words, to be like God do we have to have a "begotten" body? Or can we be like God, in full glory, without a begotten body?

[Bensalem]

But this is what I am questioning, you are saying "we will be as Christ, made of flesh and bone" and before that saying Christ was begotten. Are you saying that we will be "as Christ" but not "begotten" in the flesh at resurrection? Or are you saying we will be "as Christ" in that we will have a "begotten" body?

In other words, to be like God do we have to have a "begotten" body? Or can we be like God, in full glory, without a begotten body?

In all ways (except for the manner of Jesus' conception) our life in the premortal spirit world, the mortal world, and the resurrected afterlife parallels the life of Christ.

In premortality Jesus was our spirit brother. Our spirits were begotten of God, meaning we accepted the Word which described the Fall of Adam and the Plan of Salvation.

In this life Jesus became fully human (begotten flesh and blood); like us he was mortal and suffered the pain of death. But unlike us he had only one earthly biological parent.

In the afterlife all who are resurrected in the glory of Christ will posses a body of flesh and bone. I look at the resurrection as a rebirth from the grave or death, so I say we will be begotten in the flesh (and bone) of the resurrected body of Christ. We will be as Christ is.

I hope that clears up any confusion caused by my presentation.

[Bensalem]

baptism is where we become spiritually begotten children (we're not begotten in heaven - it happens during baptism)

It happened in heaven (premorality; the spirit world) first when we were born of the Word, when God taught us of the Fall and of the Plan of Salvation, when we chose to participate in a life on earth and to be tried that we may be judged righteous in faith and return to our Father in heaven and become glorified in Christ in the resurrection.

Baptism is the rebirth, the reaffirmation, of our prior commitment to the Plan.

Also, after death we can still chose to accept the Word and through the LDS Church receive the required baptism of water via proxy in the temple.

[Seminarysnoozer]

In all ways (except for the manner of Jesus' conception) our life in the premortal spirit world, the mortal world, and the resurrected afterlife parallels the life of Christ.

In premortality Jesus was our spirit brother. Our spirits were begotten of God, meaning we accepted the Word which described the Fall of Adam and the Plan of Salvation.

In this life Jesus became fully human (begotten flesh and blood); like us he was mortal and suffered the pain of death. But unlike us he had only one earthly biological parent.

In the afterlife all who are resurrected in the glory of Christ will posses a body of flesh and bone. I look at the resurrection as a rebirth from the grave or death, so I say we will be begotten in the flesh (and bone) of the resurrected body of Christ. We will be as Christ is.

I hope that clears up any confusion caused by my presentation.

There was no real confusion caused by your presentation but it spawned another, deeper question. The question pertaining to the process in which our immortal body is produced. It doesn't clear up the question I had, but that's okay. I didn't expect you to have any definitive answers, I don't think it has been revealed.

[Tyler90AZ]

It is interesting to think about the fact that he is the only begotten of the flesh, not of the spirit. What is greater flesh or spirit? That really gives me a sense of my worth to Heavenly Father.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm not sure why everyone think HM got pregnant with all of us (or some strange thing like that) Joseph Smith tells us what happened in the KF sermon - Heavenly Father found us, took pity on us, and then instituted a plan whereby we could advance like Him if we chose - this is how we were adopted into His family.

so I believe that Jesus really is the only begotten.

(It appears that getting pregnant is the cursed way of having children - consider the garden of Eden - this was Eve's curse... I don't think HM has children the cursed way, jmo... and we could then get into the symbolism around polygamy, why Mary - a handmaid - was needed... how all of us could be considered handmaids raising up their children... why only fallen being can bear children - I think it is a transgression to bring a child into the world against their will, yes we "chose" to come here, but it was not an informed choice - we did not know what we were getting ourselves into, we had no experience... I think it's a transgression to get someone into something against their fully informed consent, hence the need for the fall... nothing wrong with pregnancy, it's a necessary step - but there is a higher way of having children - that in which the parents and child both choose one another... sorry for the rant! just my opinions of coarse...)

The "if we chose" statement, though, creates a loophole for the possibility of spirits out there, somewhere, that are not Gods children and never were and who are living some other kind of life.

"Fully informed consent" is impossible if one includes experience as part of that consent. If I have a patient sign a consent form to have their appendix removed, they may be "fully informed" but have never experienced it before (we only have one appendix). I believe we were fully informed before this life, learning as much as we could in that setting and fully matured, set-in-our-ways, spirits. The thing we didn't have is experience but realize that this kind of mortal experience isn't necessary for all ... what about the child who is born with anencephaly who can live up to 2 years without ever having the possibility of consciousness, just brainstem reflexes? There was no mortal experience possible but still makes it into the Celestial Kingdom.

If I choose never to smoke in my life, I have never touched it, would I then be considered to not be fully informed about the dangers of smoking? I don't think experience is required to be "fully informed".

[Vort]

"Fully informed consent" is impossible if one includes experience as part of that consent.

In that case, "fully informed consent" is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible by definition.

Which is fine, if you really want to define your terms that way, but it makes the phrase "fully informed consent" meaningless. I prefer to have the phrase mean something. Therefore, I acknowledge the possibility of giving "fully informed consent" even if the consenter lacks the wisdom and/or experience to understand things first-hand. "Fully informed consent" does not mean that a person will never make an irresponsible or stupid choice. As long as the consequences have been thoroughly explained, the consenter is responsible for taking that information to heart or ignoring it. This is the very basis of agency.

Maybe this is exactly what you're driving at. My purpose is not necessarily to disagree, but to extend what you said and give my own take.

[Seminarysnoozer]

it's possible in hindsight - the first time we do anything we do it blind, but the second time we do it, we go forward with our eyes wide open... first birth, then a second birth - the second birth is done after the experience of the first... - I think this is why we only baptize 8yo's, not babies - so that people have enough experience under their belt to better make an informed choice.

I do think experience is needed to be fully informed, not that we need to be fully informed on everything. A smoker with lung cancer will obviously be more informed on what it feels like to have lung cancer than someone who has not experienced it....

if we didn't need the experience, there would be no point in coming to earth in the first place.

for those who live less than 8 years, they still experience what a body is, what pain is, what pleasure is - we are not them, and cannot say what they have experienced, or why so short of a time is needed for some over others - but coming to earth and gaining some little piece of the "flesh joined with spirit" experience is needed.

I think you missed my point, Vort understood it. One cannot be "fully" informed if experience about the thing the individual is consenting about is part of being "fully" informed. You specifically stated that none of us were fully informed because we lacked experience. If you say that then it is impossible to be fully informed about anything if you have never done it before. If a person already has it before they do, then why do it? If we are consenting to a new experience, one that cannot be done without a body and we never had a body then how do you propose that person be "fully" informed if experience is a requisite for being "fully" informed? That is impossible. I would suggest that having experience in that particular thing one is consenting for is not a requisite to be "fully" informed.

You avoided addressing the situation I proposed; a child born with Anencephaly (please, look it up if you don't know what that is) that lives more than a year does not experience anything (at least anything more than what a spirit alone would experience without a body). There is no cortex to receive any kind of sensory perception whatsoever. If the only thing that person is experiencing is spiritual information than it is not experiencing mortality. So, that person goes to the Celestial Kingdom without experiencing mortality. If the experience is needed, as you propose, how does that individual get the mortal experience? The answer to that is that mortality experience is not needed, at least for that individual. It is only needed for those who need it (those that need to be stratified in a 3 Kingdom system) and for those who have been called to do specific works that may have otherwise been a candidate for the Celestial Kingdom without even coming here (i.e. - Christ).

[Dr T]

I'd saying, "only" as in "unique".

[Seminarysnoozer]

sorry for the confusion, I don't think we came to earth "fully informed", only partially informed. Spirits who go into resurrected bodies are more fully informed than spirits going into their first bodies.... so two births, two baptisms, two lives (mortal and immortal) - the first done in ignorance, the second done with a little experience under our belts.

I don't think we know all the ins and outs of how spirits combine with our bodies - but if our heart is beating, if our lungs are breathing, blood flowing - if a person is alive, there has to be some form of connection between flesh and spirit - which gives that spirit experience.

I know that you were saying that we don't come here "fully" informed. The issue is the statement that without being fully informed one cannot really consent to such a thing. I think that idea is false. I think we can consent to coming here without having the experience prior, there is no need for full understanding at that point. Just like someone consenting to a surgery they have never had before, it doesn't require past experience. And I wouldn't say that person goes into the surgery in ignorance.

I think, in part, the source of the differing view is your statement that we come here in ignorance. I don't think that is true. I think your use of the word "ignorance" is misplaced. I would say that you take any spirit prior to coming here and compare to an individual here that may even be a well informed member of the church, in good standing and the pre-mortal spirit would supersede the mortal understanding of the gospel a million times over. The spirit would also likely have a greater understanding of the universe and the world we live in than any scientist or worldly thinker could come close to. So, where does this idea that spirits come into this world (meaning before they get here) with ignorance. I think that is a false idea. We are fallen here. This is not a raised up position, this is fallen and we have fallen very far.

If ignorant is how we were before coming here, then we must be worse than ignorant now. And again, I will point out that for all those who die before the age of 8, which by far outnumbers all the members of true gospel for all ages of time (except maybe the millennium) will go onto the Celestial Kingdom with now accountable experience from this life. I would venture to say that a child that died before the age of 8, who is admitted into the Celestial Kingdom will not be as "ignorant" as the person who lives a full life here and is admitted into the Telestial Kingdom. Where would that knowledge come from then? From the pre-mortal maturing process. The "ignorance" avoiding experience obtained by a full mortal life will not be missed by the being who dies before the age of 8.