Only Begotten


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

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:

Yup, gotta love the first principles and ordinances of the gospel.

All of which are well documented in the scriptures.

It just sometimes seems like someone with a business background, around the turn of last century, started simplifying and organizing the gospel by making lists and definitions to better explain the gospel to the uninformed.  Although no doubt well intentioned, in my opinion, never needed to happen.  Primary sources are the best sources. 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

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.

I can't digest your long responses in a single go.

Anyway.  Heavenly Father is perfect.  We are his children.  But I wouldn't be suprised if he is physically more advanced (evolved) as you mentioned.  

I bet that he chose humanity in this current state of evolution to limit our mental and physical capacity as this state is the best for the current test.  Obviously from our studies of autistic savants the human brain has much more processing power than we are currently using.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

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.

Yup.  Jesus is the Son of God, Firstborn, and Only Begotten.

I personally like the idea that like those who are baptised and enter into covenants with Jesus Christ are begotten his Sons and Daughters.

Likewise Jehovah entered into covenants with Heavenly Father that no one else in our pre-mortal existence was aware of.  Therefore Jehovah is the Only Begotten.  It is pretty obvious that Jehovah has a relationship with Heavenly Father that is more significant than that of the rest of humanity.  

3 Ne 11: 7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

Of course, the term Only Begotten has layered meanings.  I have my musings as to how Jesus' conception might have occurred.  Dosent really matter.  He dosent define himself by my musings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

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'm pretty sure that Jehovah pre-dates the rest of us by a vast amount (including Lucifer).  He is older, much more experienced, wiser, and one with the Father. 

I'm satisfied that the title firstborn is associated with worthiness.  Hopefully through the grace of God...

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.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

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.

We worship the Father and The Son. 

We don't worship the Holy Ghost.  We seek after his constant companionship and cherish his influence.

We don't worship the Prophets either.  Although we do honor them.  I have my favorites and Joseph Smith is amoung them.  Each prophet that led a dispensation was a superstar, and likely one of the seven Archangels.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

It just sometimes seems like someone with a business background, around the turn of last century, started simplifying and organizing the gospel by making lists and definitions to better explain the gospel to the uninformed.  Although no doubt well intentioned, in my opinion, never needed to happen.  Primary sources are the best sources. 

Dude, it's literally Chapter 19 from the Gospel Principles manual.  All I did was copy the bolded section headings.  

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

I'm a big fan of "put the person griping about it in charge of it".  You have my vote to be on the correlation committee and figure out how to better run a sunday school class teaching principles to investigators and new members.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm a big fan of "put the person griping about it in charge of it".  You have my vote to be on the correlation committee and figure out how to better run a sunday school class teaching principles to investigators and new members.  

Hard pass.

I'm a big fan of Come Follow Me.  

I am very happy with General Conference Talks and the current thrust of the Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.  

Perhaps a centry ago, we were better off with the lists and definations.

I can't think of a better text than the scriptures & general conference talks.  

CF5FCC05-4BCD-4265-87B2-568E0A3FB5D9.jpeg.4d514872eebb43270d34c2c84b6723f3.jpeg

There is a good chance that Elder Bednar will be at the reins for a few decades.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

We worship the Father and The Son. 

We don't worship the Holy Ghost.  We seek after his constant companionship and cherish his influence.

We don't worship the Prophets either.  Although we do honor them.  I have my favorites and Joseph Smith is amoung them.  Each prophet that led a dispensation was a superstar, and likely one of the seven Archangels.  

The word worship is sometimes hard for me to understand the full extent of what it can possibly mean.  Some of the words describing worship – such as adore, praise, believe in and follow are but a few of many possible examples.  I believe that the highest form of worship is to emulate.  For me, I do not know of the Father and The Son to know as well as I ought.  But I believe that I can identify G-d’s goodness that appears as types and shadows in individuals I encounter.  In a sense my worship of emulation comes from the type and shadow example of others.  In that sense I worship them as well through emulation.

I had serious problems with worship through emulation until I talked with a Jewish Rabbi that explained that in ancient Hebrew the concept of – Thou shalt have no other G-ds before me – can mean that we look to G-d first (none other before) for our example and if there is any conflict in his divine place in our preferences that G-d is our divine king from which all our rights, privileges and connections to “light” and “truth” are granted.

If others accuse me of worshiping someone or something other than G-d – I am not concerned.  Especially I am not drawn to anger because I believe that is a means that Satan uses to divert our worship away from G-d and towards him.  I would love to say I worship only G-d but I am a work in process that from time to time I am beguiled, somewhat in the same manner as was Eve and therefore dependent (worship) Christ to deliver me though I am still transgressing.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The word worship is sometimes hard for me to understand the full extent of what it can possibly mean.

You are not the only one.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie made this statement: “We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense-the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator” (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, p.60).

However, in Mormon Doctrine Elder McConkie writes, “The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship…No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son…‘He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.’ (John 5:23.) It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son” (“Worship,” Mormon Doctrine). 

Also of note is one of my favorite Sacrament songs “I believe in Christ”  Penned by Bruce R. McConkie.

59D65C5A-DF5C-4151-B7AE-41977FB12E58.jpeg.975baa5ed29c26f1d3e857fd47209005.jpeg

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2023 at 9:10 AM, Carborendum said:

Seriously?!?!

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

Yes seriously… Why don’t you try answering my very reasonable and logical questions? How about the following?

1) Do you believe the glorified man we call God the Father has DNA?

2) If you answer question 1 in the affirmative, do you believe Jesus has DNA from both his mother AND his Father? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Yes seriously… Why don’t you try answering my very reasonable and logical questions? How about the following?

1) Do you believe the glorified man we call God the Father has DNA?

2) If you answer question 1 in the affirmative, do you believe Jesus has DNA from both his mother AND his Father? 

Does Heavenly Father have DNA?

I have no idea. 

Probably not as we know it at least.

DNA is amazing.  Its primary function is to store information and create structural protein.

1 Corinthians 15: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Blood and protein seem corruptible.

Joseph Smith once said that God lives in everlasting burnings.

God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” … All men who are immortal dwell in everlasting burnings.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367

The above situation would denature protein.

Also…

Luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

D&C 130: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

I also doubt that pre-mortal spirits have DNA.  

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that this subject is ripe for Hammer problems..
 
When all you have is a Hammer everything looks like a nail.
 
When all we understand is the mortal biological reproductive process... we make divine reproductive processes look mortal and biological.
 
The scriptures clearly state that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, God ways are not our ways.  It also seems pretty safe to say that God's biology is not our biology.  Yet our thoughts, ways and biology are the only hammer we really have to try to understand God.
 
The scriptures talk about God creating Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam's rib.  A God that can create Adam's DNA from the dust, and Eve's DNA from Adam's rib, does not seem like he would have any problem creating Christ mortal DNA from Mary's egg.
 
Did he though?   I don't know...  And that is another issue that affects this subject we do not seem nearly comfortable with saying and acknowledging "We do not know"  Instead we try to "Hammer" the unknown into something we think we know.  And more often than not we end up being wrong. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The scriptures clearly state that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, God ways are not our ways.  It also seems pretty safe to say that God's biology is not our biology.  Yet our thoughts, ways and biology are the only hammer we really have to try to understand God.

I agree with all of this. Here's another thing I agree with: The sexual act is not dirty or debasing or disgusting, unless we ourselves make it that way. People seem to have a huge "ick" factor with the very idea of divine sexuality. (People today, I mean. The Greeks seemed just fine with it, which frankly is one aspect of the otherwise often-perverse Greek ideas on sexuality that I rather like.) There should be no such "ick", regardless of one's conception (NPI) about divine sexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Does Heavenly Father have DNA?

I have no idea. 

Probably not as we know it at least.

DNA is amazing.  Its primary function is to store information and create structural protein.

1 Corinthians 15: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Blood and protein seem corruptible.

Joseph Smith once said that God lives in everlasting burnings.

God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” … All men who are immortal dwell in everlasting burnings.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367

The above situation would denature protein.

Also…

Luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

D&C 130: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

I also doubt that pre-mortal spirits have DNA.  

Do you believe the earthly body of Only Begotten Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, had human DNA? If you do, from where and whom do you believe he got the male side of his DNA profile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Yes seriously… Why don’t you try answering my very reasonable and logical questions? How about the following?

1) Do you believe the glorified man we call God the Father has DNA?

2) If you answer question 1 in the affirmative, do you believe Jesus has DNA from both his mother AND his Father? 

 

I will provide my speculation to your questions:

1.  I believe G-d has DNA.  I speculate that G-d uses his own DNA to create all life forms and this, I believe explains why all life seem to have evolved from an initial something. 

2.  I believe Jesus, by the fact that he was a male, had an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his divine Father.   I have no other explanation that I can suggest, for why Jesus was male.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

Do you believe the earthly body of Only Begotten Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, had human DNA? If you do, from where and whom do you believe he got the male side of his DNA profile?

It is my thinking that as we are told in scripture that we are the "image and likeness" of G-d.  I believe it is possible that DNA can be flawed by our mortal existence and as such will be corrected in the resurrection.  That if our flesh is ingested by worms or other creatures that through our individual DNA we can be restored to a “perfect” frame wherein nothing is lost – even though I have come to appreciate my baldness and the ease in keeping my head in order.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Does Heavenly Father have DNA?

I have no idea. 

Probably not as we know it at least.

DNA is amazing.  Its primary function is to store information and create structural protein.

1 Corinthians 15: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Blood and protein seem corruptible.

Joseph Smith once said that God lives in everlasting burnings.

God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” … All men who are immortal dwell in everlasting burnings.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367

The above situation would denature protein.

Also…

Luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

D&C 130: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

I also doubt that pre-mortal spirits have DNA.  dwelling in everlasting burnings also 

If dwelling in everlasting burnings denatures protein, why doesn’t that fire also denature the protein in God the Father’s body of flesh and bone, a body that’s as tangible as man’s? In other words, why doesn’t the fire consume and destroy God’s flesh and bone? Or is it only the DNA portion of resurrected human protein that will denature in fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Does Heavenly Father have DNA?

I have no idea. 

Probably not as we know it at least.

DNA is amazing.  Its primary function is to store information and create structural protein.

1 Corinthians 15: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Blood and protein seem corruptible.

Joseph Smith once said that God lives in everlasting burnings.

God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” … All men who are immortal dwell in everlasting burnings.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367

The above situation would denature protein.

Also…

Luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

D&C 130: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

I also doubt that pre-mortal spirits have DNA.  

Who knows but that an eternal fire is the singularity of a super massive black hole.  I seriously doubt that a super massive black hole is beyond the technology of G-d’s understanding.  Perhaps G-d is a being of a Kardashev level III civilization (kingdom) that can utilize the resources of a Black Hole as well as other resources of our universe to be able to organize such physical matter.

We are told that there is a difference between resurrected elements.  That that which is Celestial cannot allow any impurities of other glories.  That no unclean thing can be in G-d’s presents.   I was unable to look up the spelling of the ancient scriptural notion of eternal.  It is my impressions that the structures of life are the same but that the glory of such is the difference.  I assume that a Celestialized DNA protean is incorruptible as are all things Celestial.  A hair is protean and according to scripture not one will be lost.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

The above situation would denature protein.

 

So this is the coolest unexpected gift I've received all year.   Thanks @mikbone!  I now have a new catch phrase I intend to use in many different situations.  Example: 

The Engineer - Scifi Eye: averting an asteroid catastrophe

"Well kids, prepare to have our protein denatured!"

 

 

Also: 

Prosecution: "And when you pour gasoline on the defendant and lit him on fire, what was your main reason for doing so?"

Accused: "I was trying to denature his protein."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mikbone said:

It just sometimes seems like someone with a business background, around the turn of last century, started simplifying and organizing the .gospel by making lists and definitions to better explain the gospel to the uninformed. 

This has become a fairly frequent approach for General Conference addresses. Quite a few such addresses are organised around the idea of giving the listener a list of 3 or 4 things they need to do to accomplish a specific objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire

This comment reminded me that there are many verses of scripture that are worded in such a way as to give the impression that all those in Hell are/will also dwelling in the midst of eternal fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

It just sometimes seems like someone with a business background, around the turn of last century, started simplifying and organizing the gospel by making lists and definitions to better explain the gospel to the uninformed.  Although no doubt well intentioned, in my opinion, never needed to happen.  Primary sources are the best sources. 

15 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This has become a fairly frequent approach for General Conference addresses. Quite a few such addresses are organised around the idea of giving the listener a list of 3 or 4 things they need to do to accomplish a specific objective.

Believe me when I say that I totally understand that a business background does not qualify one to give lessons or doctrinal dissertations.

But putting together a list is part and parcel of virtually every self-improvement program I've ever read or heard of.  You two seem to talk about it a if it is a bad thing.

I was in a zone conference asking for help in how to talk to people.  The primary feedback was,"You open your mouth and put words into  it. Duh-uh."

I asked "what words?"

One smart aleck responded,"Oh, don't worry.  He just wants to be commanded in all things." I was seriously considering going home from my mission because of this.  I could have left the church.

He didn't realize just how socially awkward I was.  He thought I was being lazy and stupid.  He also didn't realize just how sincere and earnest I was. 

So, even if we assume I was lazy and stupid, wouldn't that mean that I need to figure out how to be more hard working and intelligent?

For someone who simply had no clue how to be socially engaging with complete strangers in a very stressful and awkward position, a "to do list" would have been extremely helpful.  But no one offered me one.  

As a result, it was about 5 more years before I found a to do list that cured my inability to speak to people.  And it was just in time to meet my wife.

Now, how much more could I have done on my mission to bring souls to Christ if someone had actually given me a to do list to overcome my awkwardness?

If you're so against lists, consider that people who REALLY don't know how to do something, NEED lists.

I also have the story of my learning to read.  But I'll save that for another day.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mikbone said:

I'm a big fan of Come Follow Me.  

I am very happy with General Conference Talks and the current thrust of the Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.  

Perhaps a centry ago, we were better off with the lists and definations.

Yep, and the revision to For the Strength of Youth is much more principle based and less checklist-ey.  

I'm a fan of both.  I have sufficient trust in the humans designing curricula, that even if they radically redesign the lesson on repentance, I'm sure it will be an improvement.

That said, I'm not going to stop being a fan of the 7 step 'wheel of repentance'.  I'm not overstating it, but I am literally alive  and faithful today because of that chapter and those 7 items.  There are folks out there who have concluded the great plan of happiness just isn't for them, because of what they've done (often incorrectly internalized as 'who they are').  That checklist, when it arrives after the knowledge of the Savior and His atoning sacrifice, offers hope where there is none available from any other avenue.

I also like the church's addiction recovery plan, based on the classic AA 12 steps.  And an entire industry of how to rock, spawned by Franklin Covey's '7 habits of highly effective people'.  And I also like carrying around a clipboard. :)

Edited by NeuroTypical
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