Only Begotten


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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?

Just look at the name of the Church.

The adversary is insidious.  He uses the tools at his disposal.  

How many times have we been told to use the correct name of the church?  And yet…   President Nelson is not the first to make this recommendation.

The Catholic church worships saints and the Virgin Mary.  I bet they didn’t start out worshiping them.

And yes there are millions of manuals full of misleading information.

Dude. Yes. Everyone (excepting Jesus) at one time or another is a tool of the devil.

Thinking of our Savior as an Elder Brother will not cause one to lose his or her exaltation.  But from reading the standard works, it is not what the Lord intended.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From General Conference April 2011

Boyd K. Packer

Guided by the Holy Spirit

Because of the Book of Mormon, we are frequently called the Mormon Church, a title we do not resent, but it is really not accurate.
In the Book of Mormon, the Lord revisited the Nephites because they prayed to the Father in His name. And the Lord said:
“What will ye that I shall give unto you?
“And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.
“And the Lord said … , why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?
“Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ … ? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day. …
“Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
“And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.”

BA89A3E5-18E5-4004-ABD9-CA6CC1DC0874.thumb.jpeg.bd9087de6e237d923dd0781e9e836b15.jpeg

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mikbone said:

How many times have we been told to use the correct name of the church?  And yet…   President Nelson is not the first to make this recommendation.

No, not at all. This plea has been made every few years at General Conference throughout my life. It has in fact been taught since the beginning of the Restoration. But President Nelson put the issue front and center, telling everyone to quit dancing around it and just buckle down and do it. I appreciate President Nelson's firm guidance in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Just look at the name of the Church.

The adversary is insidious.  He uses the tools at his disposal.  

How many times have we been told to use the correct name of the church?  And yet…   President Nelson is not the first to make this recommendation.

The Catholic church worships saints and the Virgin Mary.  I bet they didn’t start out worshiping them.

And yes there are millions of manuals full of misleading information.

Dude. Yes. Everyone (excepting Jesus) at one time or another is a tool of the devil.

Okay, so you believe the prophets and apostles are, at times, tools of the devil and are leading us all astray with misleading and false teachings. That part's clear.

But as to how the belief that Jesus is our elder brother destroys our potential for exaltation...?? How does looking at the name of the church address that question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mikbone said:

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

...

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

What do you find irritating about it?

  • The idea that Christ is our brother?
  • The idea that He is elder?
  • The affection?
  • A perceived excess of familiarity / lack of respect or devotion?
  • Or....?

Mostly just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:
13 hours ago, mikbone said:

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

...

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

What do you find irritating about it?

  • The idea that Christ is our brother?
  • The idea that He is elder?
  • The affection?
  • A perceived excess of familiarity / lack of respect or devotion?
  • Or....?

Mostly just curious.

<not mikbone>

I am sometimes irritated a bit by it, but not because I disbelieve the doctrine. I have pondered why I should be bothered by people proclaiming Christ as our elder brother, and I think I've decided that it feels like the term as often used constitutes a diminution of Christ's true role in our existence. The Savior is reduced to being our Big Buddy, the cool and reliable guy who's always there sticking up for us. I mean, it's true, but does that really convey the grandeur and perfection of God himself who condescended in the most literal sense to live among us? Does it emphasize our eternal indebtedness to him for his atoning grace and mercy? Used in a particular context, "elder brother" is a perfectly true and valid description of the Christ. But when people tend to think about their Redeemer primarily in terms of Big Buddy, I think there's a problem there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

<not mikbone>

I am sometimes irritated a bit by it, but not because I disbelieve the doctrine. I have pondered why I should be bothered by people proclaiming Christ as our elder brother, and I think I've decided that it feels like the term as often used constitutes a diminution of Christ's true role in our existence. The Savior is reduced to being our Big Buddy, the cool and reliable guy who's always there sticking up for us. I mean, it's true, but does that really convey the grandeur and perfection of God himself who condescended in the most literal sense to live among us? Does it emphasize our eternal indebtedness to him for his atoning grace and mercy? Used in a particular context, "elder brother" is a perfectly true and valid description of the Christ. But when people tend to think about their Redeemer primarily in terms of Big Buddy, I think there's a problem there.

I find this take rather interesting considering the backdrop of me getting further into my Korean language studies. 

Culture has changed in Korea since I was a kid.  But there are still vestiges of the old order in the society. One of the interesting linguistic quirks is the common usage of the term "elder brother" as opposed to simply "brother' who happens to be older than I am.

In Korean society there was definitely a societal pecking order that everyone understands.  And one of those things is that elders are our superiors.  They are expected to receive their due reverence.  This custom has largely gone away in recent years.  But older people still expect this, some of the youth still abide by it especially with elders that they respect.

The term for older brother is not simply "brother" (hiongje) with an adjective of "older" added to it.  It is a completely different word (oba).  However, both words translate into English as "brother".

It may sound like we're saying "Big Buddy" in English.  But in other cultures, it is certainly a token of respect and even "fear" in the Biblical sense.  It is a much higher honorific than it is in English (that is to say: in English, it doesn't mean anything other than a chronology).  In other cultures (including our own in past generations -- and even today for some families) being the eldest means that he is the heir apparent.  None of the other siblings has that claim.  And they are beholden to that elder brother. 

Another interesting find is the Korean word for "God."  The word "Hananim" is literally "The Honorable One."  The base word is "hana" which means "one".  The terminating particle is "nim" which is the honorific.  In a religious context, we could translate it as "The Holy One."  Funny that the term for "Holy Ghost" uses a completely different term.  Still trying to figure it out.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

<not mikbone>

I am sometimes irritated a bit by it, but not because I disbelieve the doctrine. I have pondered why I should be bothered by people proclaiming Christ as our elder brother, and I think I've decided that it feels like the term as often used constitutes a diminution of Christ's true role in our existence. The Savior is reduced to being our Big Buddy, the cool and reliable guy who's always there sticking up for us. I mean, it's true, but does that really convey the grandeur and perfection of God himself who condescended in the most literal sense to live among us? Does it emphasize our eternal indebtedness to him for his atoning grace and mercy? Used in a particular context, "elder brother" is a perfectly true and valid description of the Christ. But when people tend to think about their Redeemer primarily in terms of Big Buddy, I think there's a problem there.

Interesting. I have never equated "elder brother" with "big buddy".

That being said, other than the language of "big buddy" itself being less solemn than appropriate, the concept doesn't feel diminutive unless it's diametrically in opposition to the Christ's role, which it is not. In fact, it's interesting that you inject a sense of "reduced" to the matter at all. The primary times I've seen Christ "reduced" to nothing but a "big buddy" is outside the Church....speaking of less solemn than appropriate:

In contrast, I have seen arguments made concerning other points of doctrine coming from those not of our church that claim our views diminish God. As in the idea that believing we can become as God is diminishes God somehow. Or that God having a physical body diminishes him. Etc. But, once again, I've primarily heard this from those not of our church. Alternately, I've heard many within the church argue that God being a "normal" man at one point who went through "normal" mortality would diminish Him. And therefore they argue that God must have been the Savior of His mortality. Whereas I know that might be the case...the implication that He would be diminished if it were not the case...

I wonder what the difference is in thinking or, perhaps, in how I was taught. None of these things would diminish God in any way. All power, all love, and all knowledge is all power, all love, and all knowledge.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:
17 minutes ago, mikbone said:

The sacrament neither remits sin

Has someone ever said it did?

Perhaps not in this particular venue, but I grew up hearing the common LDS idea that the act of partaking of the sacrament cleanses us from sin as a sort of rebaptism. For that matter, the physical act of baptism does not cleanse us, either, though we teach our children, new converts, and even each other that it does. Christ's atonement cleanses sin, and as far as I understand, nothing else does. The baptism itself is the formal making of a covenant. Through the covenant we receive Christ's atoning blood. Salvation lies not in being baptized and partaking of the sacrament, but through being baptized and partaking of the sacrament. This distinction is very often lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Perhaps not in this particular venue, but I grew up hearing the common LDS idea that the act of partaking of the sacrament cleanses us from sin as a sort of rebaptism. For that matter, the physical act of baptism does not cleanse us, either, though we teach our children, new converts, and even each other that it does. Christ's atonement cleanses sin, and as far as I understand, nothing else does. The baptism itself is the formal making of a covenant. Through the covenant we receive Christ's atoning blood. Salvation lies not in being baptized and partaking of the sacrament, but through being baptized and partaking of the sacrament. This distinction is very often lost.

How bizarre.  I cannot recall anyone ever saying that the Sacrament cleanses one from sin.  Maybe they did and it went in one ear and out the other.  Baptism is a little more complex, since I probably heard it and just assumed they were talking in shorthand and meant something more like what you write...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

How bizarre.  I cannot recall anyone ever saying that the Sacrament cleanses one from sin.  Maybe they did and it went in one ear and out the other.  Baptism is a little more complex, since I probably heard it and just assumed they were talking in shorthand and meant something more like what you write...

We've actually had a handful in our stake say that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The ordinance of the sacrament is a holy and repeated invitation to repent sincerely and to be renewed spiritually. The act of partaking of the sacrament, in and of itself, does not remit sins. But as we prepare conscientiously and participate in this holy ordinance with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then the promise is that we may always have the Spirit of the Lord to be with us. And by the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, we can always retain a remission of our sins."

David A. Bednar  "Always Retain a Remission of Your Sins"  April 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how you repent of your sins:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

Quote

We Must Recognize, Feel Sorrow for, Forsake, and Confess Our Sins
We Must Make Restitution
We Must Forgive Others
We Must Keep the Commandments of God

So yeah, the last one includes taking the sacrament, so yeah, taking the sacrament is part of it I suppose.  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

This is how you repent of your sins:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

So yeah, the last one includes taking the sacrament, so yeah, taking the sacrament is part of it I suppose.  

David A. Bednar quite dislikes these rote lists…

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2020/6/30/23216397/elder-bednar-mission-leadership-seminar-repentance-real-intent-remission

Recognizing and forsaking sin, feeling remorse and making restitution for sin, and confessing sins to God — and to priesthood leaders, when needed — are necessary elements but do not constitute a behavioral checklist one can mechanically, quickly and casually complete.

“If we do these things and fail to recognize and depend upon the Redeemer and His atoning sacrifice, then even our best efforts are in vain.”

“Remorse motivated only by personal embarrassment or social pressure is superficial. Confession without contrition is shallow. Restitution without a personal renewal and a true change of heart is hollow.” 

Sometimes Church members may memorize the various repentance steps — recognition, remorse and restitution — and omit the most important consideration of all, the Redeemer.  “Turning away from evil does not bring spiritual healing without turning to Christ,”

 

I love the new emphasis on Jesus Christ.

 

When we read the new testament and see all the people that Jesus healed and then said, thy sins are forgiven thee.   We never see the 5 step program.

We always see great faith as well as a broken heart and contrite spirit.

Just saying.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mirkwood said:

We've actually had a handful in our stake say that.  

I disbelieve that anyone understands such a concept to mean the eating of the bread and drinking of the water are magic pills/ potions that cleanse sin themselves. Or that they can, for example, watch porn just before church and then be completely free of the consequences of that with nothing but the eating and drinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 3:29 PM, 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 wasn't taught that, but it and various permutations have crossed my mind here and there along the way and none of them remained there very long -- they could not "implant." :D Scientific descriptions are woefully insufficient to convey the condescension of God before, during and after Jesus' conception. It can't even explain, fully (meaning spiritually/eternally as well as physically/temporally), how and why I was conceived.

There are all kinds of metaphysical notions, including various analogies to explain one facet or another of the atonement of Christ, the resurrection, exaltation, etc. Bottom line for me is (from D&C 63):

59 Behold, I am from above, and my power lieth beneath. I am over all, and in all, and through all, and asearch all things, and the day cometh that all things shall be bsubject unto me.

60 Behold, I am aAlpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ.

61 Wherefore, let all men abeware how they take my bname in their lips—

62 For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not aauthority.

63 Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will aown them; otherwise they shall be cut off.

64 Remember that that which cometh from above is asacred, and must be bspoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit cthrough prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 1:26 PM, Carborendum said:

I've offered my take years ago.  But not too many people seem to accept it.

Still waiting.  If you shared it before, I must have forgotten.

Hit me with the updated version.

I have my own musings as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I disbelieve that anyone understands such a concept to mean the eating of the bread and drinking of the water are magic pills/ potions that cleanse sin themselves. Or that they can, for example, watch porn just before church and then be completely free of the consequences of that with nothing but the eating and drinking. 

I would hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mikbone

There are many thoughts put forward throughout this thread.  Some time ago I involved myself in personal research.  The human brain is a most interesting part of our physical characteristics.  The evolution of the human brain is a conundrum for science because the capacity is much greater than the need or uses which leaves science baffled in discovering or explaining the evolution of the human brain.  In my mind the proper response is that our human brain is a miracle by which we learn not just things physical but spiritual as well.  Science has discovered that the human brain is capable of learning and adapting to anything in our environment – in truth we have yet to discover the extent of its capabilities.

Attractions, enjoyments, hopes, dreams and even if we are happy or discouraged is a function and result of our brain and what (including how) it learns and acquires (wires itself).  In scripture there are references to our heart, might, mind and strength – all of which are functions of our brain.  Jesus talked of ears that do not hear as well as eyes that do not see.  In science we learn that our brain determines what we hear and see.  This process for me is often confusing because I am dyslectic. Often things I hear or see my brain interprets incorrectly until more information is gathered – after which I will hear and see the same things differently.  I am inclined to think and believe that we all do this to varying degrees and is the primary reason that opinions of things are so different.

I am of the opinion that the creation of human life is perhaps the closest experience we can have in mortality to anything truly Celestial.  The act of creating human life can also be interpreted as the ultimate act of carnal pleasure.   I am not here to give lessons in creation and things spiritual versed carnal, sensual and devilish.  Rather, I will attempt to give insights to my thoughts and conclusions from prayer and pondering.

I have no problem with our Father in Heaven being the literal father of Jesus Christ’s physical and spiritual body in every sense of what is possible, which is, in part, the very definition of “The Son of G-d”.   I do not believe a Saint of G-d need put any limitations on the meaning that Jesus was the only begotten son of G-d in the flesh.  Those that have difficulty of Jesus being the Son of G-d because of their understanding (or experiences) in the act of creating human life – I can give some allowance – though for me such allowances are not necessary.

As to Jesus being our older brother – I believe is a misunderstanding and misconception of something that is true.  There is no where in scripture that suggests Jesus is everybody’s older (oldest) brother.  What we are told (Abraham 3) is that Jesus is the most noble and advanced of all the Father’s spiritual creations – and the one like unto the Father.  This is my understanding of the term “first born” or the son (or daughter) of the birthright.  I find it interesting that in all cases in scripture where two brothers contend for the spiritual birth right of their father that the birthright has gone to the younger of the two.  I have speculated that this is a type and shadow of the conflict between Jehovah and Lucifer in the pre-existence and that Lucifer thought that because he was the son of the morning (oldest - first) that he thought himself worthy because of that alone that he should be the Son of the birthright.

I would add one other thing about worship.  It is my understanding that there are many types and shadows of our heavenly G-d – including The Father, The Son and Holy Ghost.  And that the worship of our G-d can include the worship of those types and shadows as related to those types and shadows that are given us of G-d.  I also believe that all true worship of G-d is a worship by covenant.  I have no problem in anyone worshiping G-d through the worship of any given type and shadow.  I have been accused by some “Christians” as being a polytheist because of our worship of Joseph Smith – or the ancient prophet Mormon - or even our current Prophet.  I believe G-d calls Prophets to be a type and shadow of Them.  Being interpreted by others to be a polytheist does not bother me nor does it bother me that many do not want to hear why their misunderstanding does not concern me as they think it should.  I am glad to discuss my thoughts and understandings – if my explanations upset or concern somebody – it is perhaps because I explain thing poorly but beyond that it really is not my problem or something I can fix.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mikbone said:

David A. Bednar quite dislikes these rote lists…

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2020/6/30/23216397/elder-bednar-mission-leadership-seminar-repentance-real-intent-remission

Recognizing and forsaking sin, feeling remorse and making restitution for sin, and confessing sins to God — and to priesthood leaders, when needed — are necessary elements but do not constitute a behavioral checklist one can mechanically, quickly and casually complete.

“If we do these things and fail to recognize and depend upon the Redeemer and His atoning sacrifice, then even our best efforts are in vain.”

Ok, that's accurate and fair, I suppose.  But one would wonder - if one does not accept Christ as their savior, why would they be bothering to repent in the first place?  Those chapters in Gospel Principles sort of build on each other, and I don't think they're frivolously ordered:

image.png.6df2ca66fdbe2e1ff9c6927740695f2b.png

 

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