Only Begotten


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

My mother taught me that when Jesus Christ was conceived, the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary.  And then Heavenly Father impregnated the Virgin Mary thus a celestial sperm united with a mortal egg which became Jesus Christ.

Was anyone else taught this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, mikbone said:

My mother taught me that when Jesus Christ was conceived, the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin Mary.  And then Heavenly Father impregnated the Virgin Mary thus a celestial sperm united with a mortal egg which became Jesus Christ.

Was anyone else taught this?

I've heard of it.  But I don't buy into it.  I've offered my take years ago.  But not too many people seem to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the scripture says that the Spirit overshadowed Mary, and I think that many LDS believe that Jesus was physically the product of DNA (as it were) from God and Mary.  But exactly how that process worked (or whether it was “the Spirit” versus “the Father”* who was engaged in that process), is something far deeper than I think I’ve heard speculated upon either by my family growing up or in any ward meeting that I’ve attended.  

*Brigham Young ridiculed the notion of conception by the Spirit, saying that if that were the case, you wouldn’t want to confirm females after baptism lest they possibly become pregnant whenever the Holy Ghost fell upon them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spent a full decade hearing from critics that "you mormons teach and believe that God had sex with Mary", I've learned to just stick with the word-for-word scriptural account, and refuse to speculate further.  There's just no point in doing so.

When it comes to talking about what I believe and why, it's far more enjoyable to raise an eyebrow at how much interest my underwear seems to generate.

Quote

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour 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: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 

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. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary might have been a bit more concerned about the whole process than she voiced, but she chose to just humbly accept what she was being told, and went with it.  I think there's wisdom there.  I get why Catholics revere her.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52CFECB7-57F7-4ABB-BED9-92F696157C00.thumb.jpeg.3e6fe9ebe6019abc53a580636704e1f1.jpeg

From Mormon Doctrine First Edition p. 494

 

Are we comfortable with the above statement?

Are we comfortable with the terms 

“Firstborn in the Spirit”

and

”Only Begotten in the Flesh”

even though these titles never appear in the scriptures?

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So….

Should we clean up our doctrine?

We are rejecting the monaker Mormon and trying to stick to the style guide by using the formal name of the Church.

Should we stop using the term ‘Only Begotten in the Flesh’?

Or should we define what the term means.  Or just leave it as is and let people stumble along?

How do you define Only Begotten in the Flesh?

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mikbone said:

How do you define Only Begotten in the Flesh?

As I said, I have my own take on it.  It satisfies scripture.  It satisfies the matter-of-fact statement that McConkie made, while rejecting what your mother said.  And it ties up several doctrinal problems with your Mom's take vis-à-vis sealing.  But no one seems to like my take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As I said, I have my own take on it.  It satisfies scripture.  It satisfies the matter-of-fact statement that McConkie made, while rejecting what your mother said.  And it ties up several doctrinal problems with your Mom's take vis-à-vis sealing.  But no one seems to like my take.

Aight let me have it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, would love to hear @Carborendum’s approach.

It’s probably worth noting that it was either Elder McConkie’s grandfather-in-law (Joseph F. Smith) or father-in-law (Joseph Fielding Smith) who was on-record as saying that God the Father sired Jesus through a . . . err . . . physical act of procreation.  Elder McConkie’s perspective may have been somewhat influenced by those personalities, independently of what the scriptures explicitly say.

I don’t know if the phrase “only begotten in the flesh” is scriptural, but “son of God after the manner of the flesh” certainly is (see 1 Ne 11:18).  And “The Living Christ” uses that phrase and emphasizes Christ as well as describing Him as the “Firstborn” of the Father, which presumably derives from Colossians 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t know if the phrase “only begotten in the flesh” is scriptural, but “son of God after the manner of the flesh” certainly is (see 1 Ne 11:18).  And “The Living Christ” uses that phrase and emphasizes Christ as well as describing Him as the “Firstborn” of the Father, which presumably derives from Colossians 1.

1 Ne 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Yup, there is no doubt that the Virgin Mary is Jesus Christ’s Mother after the manner of the flesh.

The above scripture, in my mind, does not justify the title ‘Only begotten in the flesh’

Usually when we use this title, we use it describe Christ’s relationship to Elohim not the Virgin Mary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

1 Ne 11:18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Yup, there is no doubt that the Virgin Mary is Jesus Christ’s Mother after the manner of the flesh.

The above scripture, in my mind, does not justify the title ‘Only begotten in the flesh’

Usually when we use this title, we use it describe Christ’s relationship to Elohim not the Virgin Mary.

(Not arguing a point, just thinking aloud) This is a passage where punctuation (largely inserted by John Gilbert) influences how we read it.  The comma in its current location suggests that “after the manner of the flesh” refers to “mother of the Son of God”. Without the comma, “after the manner of the flesh” could as easily refer merely to “Son of God”.

In a larger sense, though:  where are you going with this, exactly?  Are you suggesting that if we aren’t willing to openly come out and say “yeah, God the Father had sex with Mary”, that we should quit using phrases like “Only Begotten after the Flesh”, “Firstborn”, etc?  I’m generally comfortable with the way the Q15 framed “The Living Christ”—shouldn’t I be?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, modern fertility treatment creates children "after the manner of the flesh" without the need for sexual intercourse.

It's always been strange to me that people feel the need to work out the details of these things though.

Can we not simply accept the literal truth of Jesus being God and Mary's physical son without profaning them? Seems a reasonable idea to me. Accordingly, I won't comment further on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In a larger sense, though:  where are you going with this, exactly?  Are you suggesting that if we aren’t willing to openly come out and say “yeah, God the Father had sex with Mary”, that we should quit using phrases like “Only Begotten after the Flesh”, “Firstborn”, etc?  I’m generally comfortable with the way the Q15 framed “The Living Christ”—shouldn’t I be?

I think that we are better off using terms found in the scriptures and stop adding material to limit the meaning of titles especially those that refer to Christ.

My mother for example has limited her understanding based upon tertiary commentary.  Mormon Doctrine, Doctrine of Salvation, etc.

Only Begotten in the flesh seems to limit the title to the birth of Jesus.

But we know that Jehovah had this title (Only Begotten) prior to the war in Heaven. 

Many times the title is used to explain the terms of an ordinance e.g. spiritually begotten.

D&C 93:22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

 

I think that we generally get ourselves into trouble when we try to explain or limit God with our mortal ideas.  

My faith in Christ is not limited or defined by how his conception occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example is the affection that I have heard many times describing Jesus Christ as our Elder Brother.

The following document does a smash up job documenting it’s origin.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/jesus-christ-as-elder-brother/

When Jehovah presented himself to the brother of Jared there was no mention of elder brother…

Ether 3: 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

 

Personally, I find it irritating to hear Latter-Day Saints refer to Jesus as our elder brother.

 

It used to not upset me when people refer to us as Mormons but I’m starting to take umbrage, especially if they know the style guide and choose to ignore it.

 

Do we suppose that God is irritated that His Church is referred to as the Mormon Church?

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Personally, I find it irritating to hear Latter-Day Saints refer to Jesus as our elder brother.

What a strange this to say, and an even stranger emotional response. Why, on earth, would this be "irritating"?

The things some people find to annoy themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What a strange this to say, and an even stranger emotional response. Why, on earth, would this be "irritating"?

well, if the adversary was successfully muddying the waters by encouraging the members to use terms and concepts that are contrary to the truth…

 

I also find flat-earthers irritating.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've heard of it.  But I don't buy into it.  I've offered my take years ago.  But not too many people seem to accept it.

So do you believe Mary was somehow impregnated without a sperm fertilizing her egg? Do you believe that Jesus had DNA from his Father (meaning that God the Father was his literal human Father?)? Or do you believe he was some sort of hybrid half-human with DNA from his mother only? One last question: If God the Father is a perfect Man whose resurrected human body functions perfectly, do you believe his resurrected reproductive system produces DNA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikbone said:

well, if the adversary was successfully muddying the waters by encouraging the members to use terms and concepts that are contrary to the truth…

 

I also find flat-earthers irritating.

Help me understand...

You think that believing Jesus Christ is our brother is leading people away from Him? That people are losing out on their exaltation because of that belief? Moreover... you believe that something that has been taught in manuals, expressed in hundreds if not thousands of church talks, and is generally believe by almost every faithful member in the church, is actually a lie from Satan? That Brigham Young, Parley P Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, Thomas S. Monson, and the like were tools of Satan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Seriously?!?!

And some people wonder why we avoid talking about this subject.

Not me. I wish such conversations would go away, or at most timidly whispered in darkened rooms.

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