Be it unto Me According to Thy Word


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I don’t have the power to become immortal.

But... If I was lucky enought to find the Garden of Eden and could wreastle with and beat a Cherubim with a flaming sword, I might could find a way...  

Unlikely :) 

But then that would fusterate the plan of salvation. Guess I won’t go on that expedition. 

That was "Parents" with a capital P to pick up on what you suggested here [ Posted 2 hours ago (edited)] just for argument's sake.

If Elohim (plural --Man and Wife) had the ability to change their bodies from Immortal to mortal at will - and back again, and the conception that became Jesus arose during their mortal expression, would the zygote be fully mortal or one that can also change back and forth?

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That was "Parents" with a capital P to pick up on what you suggested here [ Posted 2 hours ago (edited)] just for argument's sake.

If Elohim (plural --Man and Wife) had the ability to change their bodies from Immortal to mortal at will - and back again, and the conception that became Jesus arose during their mortal expression, would the zygote be fully mortal or one that can also change back and forth?

 

Fully mortal IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

Not cool.  Contrary to the current living prophet.  I think I'll accept his interpretation, as quoted in the lesson.

I do as well, but find it useful to explore other points of view--oft because through the process it strengthens my current beliefs and faith in living prophets.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zil said:

Not cool.  Contrary to the current living prophet.  I think I'll accept his interpretation, as quoted in the lesson.

Just to clarify.  I agree with President Nelson

Quote

Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:28–35

Why did the Savior need to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father?

President Russell M. Nelson explained that the Atonement of Jesus Christ “required a personal sacrifice by an immortal being not subject to death. Yet He must die and take up His own body again. The Savior was the only one who could accomplish this. From His mother He inherited power to die. From His Father He obtained power over death” (“Constancy amid Change,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 34).

Directly from the Come, Follow Me

I greatly dislike quotes like the following:

 

Quote

Bruce R. McConkie  "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. . .These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, second edition, pp. 546-547).

Quote

Orson Pratt  "the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called 'the Only Begotten of the Father;' that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones" [The Seer, 158.]

Go look up "Only Begotten in the Flesh" in the scriptures - you will not find it.  Jehovah was the "Only Begotten" prior to his mortal ministry...

I agree with President Nelson.  Mary and her womb - placenta nourished the savior.  And if you know anything about embryology you know that the mother and child's blood do not mix.  It is an extremely beautiful arrangement.  Without Mary, Jesus could not have performed his mortal ministry.  It is obvious that Jesus obtained the power over death from Heavenly Father.  That power came from priesthood keys though, not genetics.  IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Just to clarify.  I agree with President Nelson

I greatly dislike quotes like the following:

Go look up "Only Begotten in the Flesh" in the scriptures - you will not find it.  Jehovah was the "Only Begotten" prior to his mortal ministry...

I agree with President Nelson.  Mary and her womb - placenta nourished the savior.  And if you know anything about embryology you know that the mother and child's blood do not mix.  It is an extremely beautiful arrangement.  Without Mary, Jesus could not have performed his mortal ministry.  It is obvious that Jesus obtained the power over death from Heavenly Father.  That power came from priesthood keys though, not genetics.  IMHO

If President Nelson is allowing that Mary was a surrogate (contrary to the use of the word “conceive” in Matthew and Luke), and that Jesus’ Parents (or Their gametes) were of of a mortal phase for His conception, how could he consider Jesus “an immortal being not subject to death”?

I’m thinking that the keys of resurrection that were given to Jesus are different than His personal power over death; that His sinlessness after the age of accountability and divine protection gave Him personal power over death (including His choice of when, where and how to die), and that the keys for universal resurrection were obtained from the Father after He fulfilled His mortal mission (John 20:17; D&C 93;13).

I think the title "Only Begotten" is an example of "speaking of things to come as though they had already come" (Mosiah 16:6).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

If President Nelson is allowing that Mary was a surrogate (contrary to the use of the word “conceive” in Matthew and Luke), and that Jesus’ Parents (or Their gametes) were of of a mortal phase for His conception, how could he consider Jesus “an immortal being not subject to death”?

 

I’m thinking that the keys of resurrection that were given to Jesus are different than His personal power over death; that His sinlessness after the age of accountability and divine protection gave Him personal power over death (including His choice of when, where and how to die), and that the keys for universal resurrection were obtained from the Father after He fulfilled His mortal mission (John 20:17; D&C 93;13).

 

I think the title "Only Begotten" is an example of "speaking of things to come as though they had already come" (Mosiah 16:6).

I'm not saying that President Nelson thinks Mary was a surrogate.  That I pulled from Alma 7:10.  And the word conception can have many meanings.  Where does conception fall out with the terms ovulation, egg transport, fertilization, embryo development, implantation, pregnancy? 

"An immortal being not subject to death" also has wide interpretation.  We are all immortal beings.  I am subject to death, I will die; but I will be resurrected just like everyone else.  Jesus Christ Died.  But Christ is the only one that could overcome death without assistance.  

I think the keys of the resurrection were given to Jesus long before his birth.  He raised Lazarus 4 days after his burial...  Some may believe that Jesus ability to resist sin was due to his divine protection.  I think that Jehovah had been previously conditioned against sin and rebellion.  From John 20:17 we know that Jesus was able to self-resurrect before he ascended to the Father.  John 2:19 is also interesting.  Spencer W. Kimball talks about the keys of the resurrection in his talk Our Great Potential

 

Your understanding of the title "Only Begotten" is totally reasonable.  I just appreciate it as something different.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I'm not saying that President Nelson thinks Mary was a surrogate.  That I pulled from Alma 7:10.  And the word conception can have many meanings.  Where does conception fall out with the terms ovulation, egg transport, fertilization, embryo development, implantation, pregnancy? 

"An immortal being not subject to death" also has wide interpretation.  We are all immortal beings.  I am subject to death, I will die; but I will be resurrected just like everyone else.  Jesus Christ Died.  But Christ is the only one that could overcome death without assistance.  

I think the keys of the resurrection were given to Jesus long before his birth.  He raised Lazarus 4 days after his burial...  Some may believe that Jesus ability to resist sin was due to his divine protection.  I think that Jehovah had been previously conditioned against sin and rebellion.  From John 20:17 we know that Jesus was able to self-resurrect before he ascended to the Father.  John 2:19 is also interesting.  Spencer W. Kimball talks about the keys of the resurrection in his talk Our Great Potential

You understanding of the title "Only Begotten" is totally reasonable.  I just appreciate it as something different.

I was saying Elder Nelson's remarks allow for your idea of surrogacy, not that he necessarily conceived the same idea as yours... :)

The 1828 Webster definition, "To receive into the womb, and breed..." is in the context "...to begin the formation of the embryo or fetus..." The women named in Matthew 1 (Elizabeth and Mary) are identified as the ones beginning this formation (men do not conceive). If His formation began earlier and then implanted, we haven't Mary conceiving anything. Also, "To have a fetus formed in the womb; to breed; to become pregnant." I think this is what is meant by the same word used in Alma 7:10.

I don't the think the power or keys (as I mentioned, power and keys are different) of bringing someone back to life are the same as the power or keys of resurrection. People (well, at least one that I can think of) had been brought back to life before Jesus did it (Old Testament).

I was saying that Jesus had divine protection up until He became accountable or knowledgeable of how to exercise that power over life and death. Infants and little children are also sinless, yet they die by the usual culprits unless otherwise spared (sometimes through divine intervention). His life was preserved by another mechanism than His sinlessness until it became possible for Him to commit sin and exercise His power over life and death by virtue of His sinlessness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I was saying Elder Nelson's remarks allow for your idea of surrogacy, not that he necessarily conceived the same idea as yours... :)

The 1828 Webster definition, "To receive into the womb, and breed..." is in the context "...to begin the formation of the embryo or fetus..." The women named in Matthew 1 (Elizabeth and Mary) are identified as the ones beginning this formation (men do not conceive). If His formation began earlier and then implanted, we haven't Mary conceiving anything. Also, "To have a fetus formed in the womb; to breed; to become pregnant." I think this is what is meant by the same word used in Alma 7:10.

I don't the think the power or keys (as I mentioned, power and keys are different) of bringing someone back to life are the same as the power or keys of resurrection. People (well, at least one that I can think of) had been brought back to life before Jesus did it (Old Testament).

I was saying that Jesus had divine protection up until He became accountable or knowledgeable of how to exercise that power over life and death. Infants and little children are also sinless, yet they die by the usual culprits unless otherwise spared (sometimes through divine intervention). His life was preserved by another mechanism than His sinlessness until it became possible for Him to commit sin and exercise His power over life and death by virtue of His sinlessness. 

You are generous.  

So a surrogate mother cannot conceive?  How about when a woman freezes her eggs and then uses a sperm donor, and that union in a test tube creates an embryo, and then that embryo is inserted into a surrogate.  If the embryo implants within the surrogate's womb we have conception and pregnancy, no?  And I bet this exact case has happened multiple times within the past year in the good 'ole USA.  Yuck!   And yes men only assist in fertilization (thank goodness) phew. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jesus_Christ/Conception  Is a pretty good site discussing this principle.

From Dorland's Medical Dictionary (I had to wipe the dust off of the book /cringe)   Conception - The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrium, the formation of a visible zygote. 

Alma 7:10 is great.  And every single word was translated by Joseph Smith.  There is no questioning the source.   I love the phrases, being a virgin,  precious and chosen vessel, and overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost.  1 Ne 11:19 is probably also significant.  

Yeah, I pointed out the Lazarus resurrection because He had been dead 4 days!  All the other incidents appear to be bringing back someone from the dead, a resuscitation.  But Lazarus was a resurrection.  

Also John 10:18 is like a nail in the coffin lid.

Quote

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

What do you mean by: "His life was preserved by another mechanism than His sinlessness until it became possible for Him to commit sin and exercise His power over life and death by virtue of His sinlessness."

I agree that His sinlessness allowed him the opportunity to perform the Atonement.  But probably the actions during the Atonement, travel to paradise and back, as well as the self-resurrection required some pretty hard core abilities, knowledge, understanding, willpower, and most of all love for both us and the Father.

I stand all amazed.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2019 at 11:30 AM, mikbone said:

Just to clarify.  I agree with President Nelson

I greatly dislike quotes like the following:

 

Go look up "Only Begotten in the Flesh" in the scriptures - you will not find it.  Jehovah was the "Only Begotten" prior to his mortal ministry...

I agree with President Nelson.  Mary and her womb - placenta nourished the savior.  And if you know anything about embryology you know that the mother and child's blood do not mix.  It is an extremely beautiful arrangement.  Without Mary, Jesus could not have performed his mortal ministry.  It is obvious that Jesus obtained the power over death from Heavenly Father.  That power came from priesthood keys though, not genetics.  IMHO

You seem to be dismissing the clarifying and reasoned-based assertions of two Apostles because their clarifications aren't explicitly stated in scripture, and this without  you addressing the reasoning (Heavenly Father and Mother begot numerous spirits in the pre-existence), and also presumably so that you can hold on to a personal theory that is, ironically, nowhere explicitly stated in scripture, let alone even reasonably implied, and a theory that strains the use of the word "mother," in Mary's case"  and when challenged (see my query on heavenly parents begetting spirit children),  ,you had to invent an ad hoc (non-scriptural) hypothesis from whole cloth.

I may not buy it, but it does show some creativity. To each their own.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the pertinent portion (in bold) Scripture Guide explanation of Begotten (:

"Although Jesus Christ is the only child begotten of the Father in mortality, all people may be spiritually begotten of Christ by accepting Him, obeying His commandments, and becoming new persons through the power of the Holy Ghost."

Or this statement in the Ensign: "Jesus was the only person to be born of a mortal mother, Mary, and an immortal father, God the Father.That is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten Son of God."

Or this from the Church's lesson manual:  "He is the First Begotten Son of the Father in the premortal existence and the Only Begotten Son of the Father on earth. God the Eternal Father is the literal parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of His other spirit children. … “The ‘divine Sonship’ also refers to the designation ‘Only Begotten Son in the flesh.’ 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Deleted anti-Mormon link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

You are generous.  

So a surrogate mother cannot conceive?  How about when a woman freezes her eggs and then uses a sperm donor, and that union in a test tube creates an embryo, and then that embryo is inserted into a surrogate.  If the embryo implants within the surrogate's womb we have conception and pregnancy, no?  And I bet this exact case has happened multiple times within the past year in the good 'ole USA.  Yuck!   And yes men only assist in fertilization (thank goodness) phew. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jesus_Christ/Conception  Is a pretty good site discussing this principle.

From Dorland's Medical Dictionary (I had to wipe the dust off of the book /cringe)   Conception - The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrium, the formation of a visible zygote. 

Alma 7:10 is great.  And every single word was translated by Joseph Smith.  There is no questioning the source.   I love the phrases, being a virgin,  precious and chosen vessel, and overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost.  1 Ne 11:19 is probably also significant.  

Yeah, I pointed out the Lazarus resurrection because He had been dead 4 days!  All the other incidents appear to be bringing back someone from the dead, a resuscitation.  But Lazarus was a resurrection.  

Also John 10:18 is like a nail in the coffin lid.

What do you mean by: "His life was preserved by another mechanism than His sinlessness until it became possible for Him to commit sin and exercise His power over life and death by virtue of His sinlessness."

I agree that His sinlessness allowed him the opportunity to perform the Atonement.  But probably the actions during the Atonement, travel to paradise and back, as well as the self-resurrection required some pretty hard core abilities, knowledge, understanding, willpower, and most of all love for both us and the Father.

I stand all amazed.

A woman freezing her eggs is not a surrogate, whether the embryo is implanted in her or not. The implantation takes place post-conception (which occurs in a dish—hey! there’s an Ether reference!). So I would designate the oocyte donor as the conceiving party, and the surrogate as the receiving (and subsequent stages) party.

Dorland’s was first published in 1890, which is fine (which edition are you using?) and doesn’t differ materially from Webster’s definition, but in your idea, Mary is not contributing the oocyte for the Zygote which develops until it is "visible" and then gives rise to the Blastocyst along the way and which is implanted in her endometrium by God, so she is not conceiving in either stage.

Lazarus’s restoration to life was not a resurrection since he did not become immortal (Alma 11:45), Jesus being the first to experience resurrection in this world ( https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/resurrection?lang=eng ), hence referencing Himself in John 10:18 as laying down His life so that he might take it again, doing so for the sheep, that they also may be resurrected once He is.

Little children are sinless yet subject to death. Their sinlessness does not give them power over death. They are typically taken or preserved according to the rules of this world, but some are preserved by divine intervention. This is what I meant for Jesus: His sinlessness as a little child did not give Him power over death; considering the terrible opposition, He was preserved by another mechanism (divine protection) until He was of age and ability to protect Himself.

Yes, there is plenty to be amazed about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2019 at 11:03 AM, wenglund said:

Adding to the mystery,  the 4 women named (or intimated) in Joseph's genealogy are Thamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary.

Why are these 4 women mentioned as opposed to others? Do these 4 women have something in common besides being female?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You forgot one woman:  Rachab, the Jericho prostitute who assisted Joshua’s spies and was thus spared  with her household when the Israelites conquered the city.  

Matthew contrasts four women who were not virgins at the time of their marriages, to one woman who was. He may also be getting in a jibe at first-century AD Jews who were fond of mocking Yeshua-bin-Yosef as illegitimate.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You forgot one woman:  Rachab, the Jericho prostitute who assisted Joshua’s spies and was thus spared  with her household when the Israelites conquered the city.  

Good catch. I had mistaken Rachab/Rahab for a city rather than a mother.

According to Wikipedia,  "Michael Coogan claims the book of Joshua, more than any other book of the Bible, contains short etiological narratives that explain the origins of religious rituals, topographical features, genealogical relationships, and other aspects of ancient Israelite life, and that the legend of Rahab is such an example. The story of Rahab would therefore provide an answer as to how a Canaanite group became part of Israel in spite of the Deuteronomistic injunction to kill all Canaanites and not to intermarry with them.[16][17][18]

So, not only was Rachab a harlot, but she was a non-Israelite, a forbidden Canaanite.

Of further interest, while the genealogies have Rachab giving birth to Boaz, with Salmon as the father (Salmon was alleged to have been one of the spies sent to Jericho by Joshua), according to Rabbinical literature ,  Rachab married Joshua following her conversion,  and "their descendants included the prophets Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Seraiah, Mahseiah, and Baruch, and the prophetess Hulda, although there is no report in the book of Joshua of the leader marrying anyone, or having any family life.[19] "

 

Quote

Matthew contrasts four women who were not virgins at the time of their marriages, to one woman who was. He may also be getting in a jibe at first-century AD Jews who were fond of mocking Yeshua-bin-Yosef as illegitimate.  

Excellent. And, I appreciate you getting the thread back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2019 at 12:24 AM, wenglund said:

If so, then how did the baby Jesus become clothed with flesh?

T%hanks, -Wade Englund-

 

And there is the kicker. A perfect glorified body which produced the "egg" could not have produced a body that was mortal and that could die. If so, our earth life also becomes obsolete because Heavenly Father and Mother could have easily born us already in such a manner. I wouldn't need an earthly father and mother to obtain a body of flesh and blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wenglund said:

You seem to be dismissing the clarifying and reasoned-based assertions of two Apostles because their clarifications aren't explicitly stated in scripture, and this without  you addressing the reasoning (Heavenly Father and Mother begot numerous spirits in the pre-existence), and also presumably so that you can hold on to a personal theory that is, ironically, nowhere explicitly stated in scripture, let alone even reasonably implied, and a theory that strains the use of the word "mother," in Mary's case"  and when challenged (see my query on heavenly parents begetting spirit children),  ,you had to invent an ad hoc (non-scriptural) hypothesis from whole cloth.

I may not buy it, but it does show some creativity. To each their own.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the pertinent portion (in bold) Scripture Guide explanation of Begotten🙂

"Although Jesus Christ is the only child begotten of the Father in mortality, all people may be spiritually begotten of Christ by accepting Him, obeying His commandments, and becoming new persons through the power of the Holy Ghost."

Or this statement in the Ensign: "Jesus was the only person to be born of a mortal mother, Mary, and an immortal father, God the Father.That is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten Son of God."

Or this from the Church's lesson manual:  "He is the First Begotten Son of the Father in the premortal existence and the Only Begotten Son of the Father on earth. God the Eternal Father is the literal parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of His other spirit children. … “The ‘divine Sonship’ also refers to the designation ‘Only Begotten Son in the flesh.’ 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the creativity comment.  And please know that my thoughts are my own and I am not preaching doctrine.  That is never my intent.  I have found this site helpful to clarifying my personal beliefs and understanding the perceptions of other Saints.  That being said...

There has been an underlying current within some of the teachings of the Early authorities that led many to believe that...

Heavenly Father and the Virgin Mary had coitus (the Holy Ghost perhaps transfigured Mary) and that union produced the seed that housed the Savior's spirit (Very much like the Zeus + Alkmena = Hercules mythos).  This leads to propagating theories that The Virgin Mary was only married to Joseph for time and that she was Sealed to Heavenly Father for Eternity (sounds like a catholic nun belief).  These types of ideas continue to be promulgated, for example look at the very popular Da Vinci Code book and Movies...  And the idea of the immaculate conception

btw - my mother, and many older saints probably agree with the above description of Christ's conception.  And it is understandable because during the early Saints lifetime there was no concept of a test tube baby.  With the advent of modern science, we can now perceive the possibility of alternate production methods.

The modern general authorities have tempered the wording of comments about the nature of Christ's birth to be more in line with the Scriptures, and I think that this is a good thing.  We don't know how it happened.  

But I have issues with the above concept, and based upon my feelings and scriptures like Alma 7:10, I think that Christ's birth was special, but done very differently.  And when you recognize that Heavenly Father and the Virgin Mary's physical union is not a requirement; and appreciate the possibility of placement of the seed into Mary.  The idea of surrogacy becomes is a possibility.  I don't see why it would be improper for Jesus genetic mother to be none other than our Heavenly Mother.  The Virgin Mary is the Daughter of Christ, Christ created our first Parents, and when Mary was baptized she became spiritually begotten of Christ as well.  If she is a surrogate mother instead of a genetic parent it makes things less messy.  

As for the title of Firstborn & Only Begotten and the bolded text that you question...

Firstborn and Only Begotten

Jesus Christ has many titles. He has earned them all. In current church literature, we usually see the above titles written as such, Firstborn in the spirit and Only Begotten in the flesh.[1]  Interestingly, neither the terms “Firstborn in the spirit” nor “Only Begotten in the flesh” can be found in a single verse in our entire canon. I assume that these suffixes spirit and flesh were added to give emphasis to a singular meaning of each title. Perhaps we have done ourselves a disservice by doing so. I believe that each term has a grander meaning.

Firstborn is a simple term at first glance. It means first born, or eldest among a group of siblings. It was also associated with a birthright gift of a double portion.[2]  Take for example

     Adam - Cain, Abel, Seth

     Abraham - Ishmael, Isaac

     Isaac - Esau, Jacob

     Jacob - Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin

In the list above if you had to pick out the firstborn whom would you choose?  The eldest or the righteous?  Who got the birthright?  The answer is obvious. Blessings, power, and authority have never been bestowed upon mankind because of birth order. Spiritual gifts are given to those who have proven themselves. There are occasions when an eldest son rightly deserved the birthright, but in those cases the eldest son was righteous.

Jehovah is our eldest brother. When the second spirit child was delivered into premortality - Jehovah was already there. We don’t know how much time expired between the birth of Jehovah and the birth of the second spirit child, it could have been relatively short or unimaginably long. It is my opinion that Jehovah’s spirit VASTLY outdates ours.

D&C 93:21-22 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

This Church of the Firstborn is an eternal construct. We learn from D&C 76:51-55 how we can become members of the church of the Firstborn. Perhaps Jehovah was already a member of this church of the Firstborn during our premortality.

In the New Testament, the term only begotten was translated from the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενὴς). Monogenes has two primary definitions, “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship” and “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind”.[3]  When we use the term Only Begotten in the flesh we are limiting the title to a concept of how Jesus’ mortal birth was different from all others. Jesus Christ’s birth was unique, but the title Only Begotten was applied to Jehovah long before He was born as a babe to Mary.[4]  It is also interesting that Satan attempted to claim the title Only Begotten during his rant in Moses 1:18-19. I don’t think that Satan was trying to convince Moses that the sire of his body of flesh and blood was Heavenly Father…

It is true that Jesus Christ’s birth was unique and that the father of his mortal body is God the Father, but the specifics of how this process occurred has not been revealed. It is a common statement that Christ inherited mortality (the ability to suffer pain and die physically) from Mary, and immortality (the powers of godhood and resurrection) from Elohim.

“That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure through mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.”  In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman”[5]

Only Begotten Son -  … These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.[6]

The above two quotes from very well accepted sources both seem to indicate that Jesus Christ conception was secondary to the physical union of Elohim and Mary…  Personally, I do not believe that Elohim should be compared to a galivanting Greek god. I believe that the best representation of the conception of Jesus Christ can be found in the Book of Mormon

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.[7]

This scripture indicates that the Holy Ghost actively participated in the conception of Jesus Christ. But in no way, does the above scripture indicate coitus. Mary was a virgin.[8]   The term Only Begotten likely has a different meaning.

Throughout the scriptures we learn that through ordinances we can become spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Christ.[9]  It is my firm belief that Jehovah had made commitments and partook of ordinances in the ‘beginning’. And because of these commitments Jehovah was the only character in our premortal existence that was begotten of Elohim.

 

[1] Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 91–118.

[2] Deuteronomy 21:17

[3] Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition)

[4] Moses 1:6, 13, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 27; 3:18; 4:3; 6:52; 2 Nephi 25:12; Alma 9:26.

[5] James A. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], p. 81.

[6] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine

[7] Alma 7:10

[8] 1 Nephi 11:20, 2 Nephi 17:14

[9] Mosiah 5:7, Moses 6: 64-68, D&C 93:21-22

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

A woman freezing her eggs is not a surrogate, whether the embryo is implanted in her or not. The implantation takes place post-conception (which occurs in a dish—hey! there’s an Ether reference!). So I would designate the oocyte donor as the conceiving party, and the surrogate as the receiving (and subsequent stages) party.

 

Dorland’s was first published in 1890, which is fine (which edition are you using?) and doesn’t differ materially from Webster’s definition, but in your idea, Mary is not contributing the oocyte for the Zygote which develops until it is "visible" and then gives rise to the Blastocyst along the way and which is implanted in her endometrium by God, so she is not conceiving in either stage.

Lazarus’s restoration to life was not a resurrection since he did not become immortal (Alma 11:45), Jesus being the first to experience resurrection in this world ( https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/resurrection?lang=eng ), hence referencing Himself in John 10:18 as laying down His life so that he might take it again, doing so for the sheep, that they also may be resurrected once He is.

 

Little children are sinless yet subject to death. Their sinlessness does not give them power over death. They are typically taken or preserved according to the rules of this world, but some are preserved by divine intervention. This is what I meant for Jesus: His sinlessness as a little child did not give Him power over death; considering the terrible opposition, He was preserved by another mechanism (divine protection) until He was of age and ability to protect Himself.

 

Yes, there is plenty to be amazed about.

 

Yes, In my prior commentary I was trying to put forth the impersonal creation of children in our society.  Wherein you could have 3 people involved in a pregnancy.  A women who froze her eggs for the sake of children in the later part of her life, because she couldn't be bothered with the hardship of raising a family during the prime of her life.  A man donating his sperm for $$, and a surrogate mother carrying a child as a career (Surrogacy average cost is $90K - 130K)...

Dorland's 28th Edition, 1994.  My point is that conception can mean implantation.  We don't really know the specifics that produced the Virgin birth...

I listed John 10:18 because therein Jesus states that He can raise himself.  In my mind, implying that He did not require the Father to resurrect him.  No other human has the ability to do what Jesus did...  Jesus Christ will resurrect us all.  See John 11:25

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Would it be useful in taking some time to dissect the reasons we think intercourse between God and Mary would be so problematic?  Are our concerns primarily born of theological concerns, or from an emotion-based “ick!” factor?

Because if they weren't married then it is adultery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Would it be useful in taking some time to dissect the reasons we think intercourse between God and Mary would be so problematic?  Are our concerns primarily born of theological concerns, or from an emotion-based “ick!” factor?

I’m game.  Probably should start another thread.  I have already derailled this one.

Originally, I was just trying to put forth the idea that Joseph & Mary’s geneology is only there to legitimize His claim.  Really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2019 at 10:23 AM, wenglund said:

In short, why would a record written for Jews from a male perspective contain the forbidden names of women in a man's genealogy, while a record for Jews and Gentiles written from a female perspective contain no women' names in a woman's genealogy?

I have my suspicions, but I am interested to see what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not 100% sure (maybe no one is), but the women might be mentioned because it was for a Jewish audience.  The women mentioned are the only ones in the record who are foreigners and not Jews by birth (as far as tradition and the Old Testament go at least).   They might be mentioned to show the women who are not Jews, but who are part of the genealogical line.  This establishes a connection to other peoples as well.  Each women is from a different people than the Israelites.  Each woman comes from a kingdom or people from each direction from Israel.  

Ruth came from Moab, south of Israel.  

Matthew indicates that Bathsheba is from the Hittites, north of Israel.

Tradition and vague references in Genesis indicate that Tamar is a Canaanite , which is west of Israel. 

Rahab came from Jericho, east of the northern parts of Israel.  

This shows that Christ is for kingdoms and principalities in all directions, rather than just Israel.   

Matthew is also the one who mentions the wise-men coming for Jesus birth.  The wise-men were not Jewish either.

So although the Gospel according to Matthew  was written for a Jewish audience, Matthew goes out of his way to show that non-Jews also hold Christ as significant, such as with the genealogy and with the mention of the wide-men and that Christ was more than for just the Jews.   Otherwise the women and wise-men wouldn't be mentioned.  Matthew may have wanted to make this clear to his Jewish audience.  

At least that's my take.  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Define “married”.

What am I? A dictionary? ;)

Anyhow, honestly, I almost regret my reply in that I really have no interest in discussing this particular subject, considering it inappropriate.

Whether that feeling stems from an "ick" factor or not isn't something I'm concerned with finding out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

Thanks for the creativity comment.  And please know that my thoughts are my own and I am not preaching doctrine.  That is never my intent.  I have found this site helpful to clarifying my personal beliefs and understanding the perceptions of other Saints.  That being said...

There has been an underlying current within some of the teachings of the Early authorities that led many to believe that...

Heavenly Father and the Virgin Mary had coitus (the Holy Ghost perhaps transfigured Mary) and that union produced the seed that housed the Savior's spirit (Very much like the Zeus + Alkmena = Hercules mythos).  This leads to propagating theories that The Virgin Mary was only married to Joseph for time and that she was Sealed to Heavenly Father for Eternity (sounds like a catholic nun belief).  These types of ideas continue to be promulgated, for example look at the very popular Da Vinci Code book and Movies...  And the idea of the immaculate conception

btw - my mother, and many older saints probably agree with the above description of Christ's conception.  And it is understandable because during the early Saints lifetime there was no concept of a test tube baby.  With the advent of modern science, we can now perceive the possibility of alternate production methods.

The modern general authorities have tempered the wording of comments about the nature of Christ's birth to be more in line with the Scriptures, and I think that this is a good thing.  We don't know how it happened.  

But I have issues with the above concept, and based upon my feelings and scriptures like Alma 7:10, I think that Christ's birth was special, but done very differently.  And when you recognize that Heavenly Father and the Virgin Mary's physical union is not a requirement; and appreciate the possibility of placement of the seed into Mary.  The idea of surrogacy becomes is a possibility.  I don't see why it would be improper for Jesus genetic mother to be none other than our Heavenly Mother.  The Virgin Mary is the Daughter of Christ, Christ created our first Parents, and when Mary was baptized she became spiritually begotten of Christ as well.  If she is a surrogate mother instead of a genetic parent it makes things less messy.  

As for the title of Firstborn & Only Begotten and the bolded text that you question...

Firstborn and Only Begotten

Jesus Christ has many titles. He has earned them all. In current church literature, we usually see the above titles written as such, Firstborn in the spirit and Only Begotten in the flesh.[1]  Interestingly, neither the terms “Firstborn in the spirit” nor “Only Begotten in the flesh” can be found in a single verse in our entire canon. I assume that these suffixes spirit and flesh were added to give emphasis to a singular meaning of each title. Perhaps we have done ourselves a disservice by doing so. I believe that each term has a grander meaning.

Firstborn is a simple term at first glance. It means first born, or eldest among a group of siblings. It was also associated with a birthright gift of a double portion.[2]  Take for example

     Adam - Cain, Abel, Seth

     Abraham - Ishmael, Isaac

     Isaac - Esau, Jacob

     Jacob - Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin

In the list above if you had to pick out the firstborn whom would you choose?  The eldest or the righteous?  Who got the birthright?  The answer is obvious. Blessings, power, and authority have never been bestowed upon mankind because of birth order. Spiritual gifts are given to those who have proven themselves. There are occasions when an eldest son rightly deserved the birthright, but in those cases the eldest son was righteous.

Jehovah is our eldest brother. When the second spirit child was delivered into premortality - Jehovah was already there. We don’t know how much time expired between the birth of Jehovah and the birth of the second spirit child, it could have been relatively short or unimaginably long. It is my opinion that Jehovah’s spirit VASTLY outdates ours.

D&C 93:21-22 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

This Church of the Firstborn is an eternal construct. We learn from D&C 76:51-55 how we can become members of the church of the Firstborn. Perhaps Jehovah was already a member of this church of the Firstborn during our premortality.

In the New Testament, the term only begotten was translated from the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενὴς). Monogenes has two primary definitions, “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship” and “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind”.[3]  When we use the term Only Begotten in the flesh we are limiting the title to a concept of how Jesus’ mortal birth was different from all others. Jesus Christ’s birth was unique, but the title Only Begotten was applied to Jehovah long before He was born as a babe to Mary.[4]  It is also interesting that Satan attempted to claim the title Only Begotten during his rant in Moses 1:18-19. I don’t think that Satan was trying to convince Moses that the sire of his body of flesh and blood was Heavenly Father…

It is true that Jesus Christ’s birth was unique and that the father of his mortal body is God the Father, but the specifics of how this process occurred has not been revealed. It is a common statement that Christ inherited mortality (the ability to suffer pain and die physically) from Mary, and immortality (the powers of godhood and resurrection) from Elohim.

“That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure through mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.”  In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman”[5]

Only Begotten Son -  … These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.[6]

The above two quotes from very well accepted sources both seem to indicate that Jesus Christ conception was secondary to the physical union of Elohim and Mary…  Personally, I do not believe that Elohim should be compared to a galivanting Greek god. I believe that the best representation of the conception of Jesus Christ can be found in the Book of Mormon

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.[7]

This scripture indicates that the Holy Ghost actively participated in the conception of Jesus Christ. But in no way, does the above scripture indicate coitus. Mary was a virgin.[8]   The term Only Begotten likely has a different meaning.

Throughout the scriptures we learn that through ordinances we can become spiritually begotten sons and daughters of Christ.[9]  It is my firm belief that Jehovah had made commitments and partook of ordinances in the ‘beginning’. And because of these commitments Jehovah was the only character in our premortal existence that was begotten of Elohim.

 

[1] Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 91–118.

[2] Deuteronomy 21:17

[3] Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition)

[4] Moses 1:6, 13, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 27; 3:18; 4:3; 6:52; 2 Nephi 25:12; Alma 9:26.

[5] James A. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], p. 81.

[6] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine

[7] Alma 7:10

[8] 1 Nephi 11:20, 2 Nephi 17:14

[9] Mosiah 5:7, Moses 6: 64-68, D&C 93:21-22

 

It was good of you to share this, and to clarify about just thinking through ideas and not declaring doctrine.  And, given the tangent, I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share