Was the Lord Fertile?

[Rain]

25 minutes ago, longview said:

This really helps! Thank you so much. @teddyaware used ellipses to hide this qualifier: "It seems, that" in front of the quoted paragraph. Thus Elder Talmage plainly indicated this was his OWN opinion!

You're welcome.  I know Mcconkie and Marion G Romney also used "recurred", but if I remember right McConkie may have been using it because Talmage did. 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, longview said:

"It seems, that" in front of the quoted paragraph. Thus Elder Talmage plainly indicated this was his OWN opinion!

I don't think he's sharing his opinion as much as he's saying 'this is what I believe the evidence is showing".  "It seems" is a good way for him to suggest an interpretation of scripture that makes sense but isn't a statement of fact.

The evidence that Talmage is using for his interpretation is where Christ cries "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  Talmage puts forth that it could not have been physical suffering only that created such anguish, because physical suffering alone would not have caused God the Father to withdraw from Christ. 

Talmage assumes that God withdrawing from Christ in that moment was another moment of Christ suffering the consequences of our sins, because there is no other reason for God the Father to have left Christ alone in those moments.

Edited November 3, 2025 by bluebell

[longview]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

You're welcome.  I know Mcconkie and Marion G Romney also used "recurred", but if I remember right McConkie may have been using it because Talmage did. 

Awesome! If you are of a mind, could you retrieve the Romney references?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think he's sharing his opinion as much as he's saying 'this is what I believe the evidence is showing".  "It seems" is a good way for him to suggest an interpretation of scripture that makes sense but isn't a statement of fact.

The evidence that Talmage is using for his interpretation is where Christ cries "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  Talmage puts for that it could not have been physical suffering only that created such anguish, because physical suffering alone would not have caused God the Father to withdraw from Christ. 

Talmage assumes that God withdrawing from Christ in that moment was another moment of Christ suffering the consequences of our sins, because no other interpretation works.

Jesus is quoting scripture here, which can lead to different interpretations.  I like one provided by another poster awhile back:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75200-mark-1534/#findComment-1210142521

Quote

Christ was abandoned by God only in the sense that God did not spare him the sufferings of the Passion and Crucifixion, but allowed his enemies to work their will on him.

J. A. O’Flynn, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St Mark,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 932.

Also:

Quote

Thus, far from expressing a moment of despair, these words of Christ reveal his complete trust in his heavenly Father, the only one on whom he can rely in the midst of suffering, to whom he can complain like a Son and in whom he abandons himself without reserve: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Lk 23:46; Ps 31:5).

 

Edited November 4, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, longview said:

Awesome! If you are of a mind, could you retrieve the Romney references?

I'm on my phone currently and googling and can't find it.  I first saw it when I had a question about the atonement on the cross.  I asked my stake president who was CES and he asked someone else in CES and it was on a long paper list of quotes that he gave me.  I no longer have that now, sorry.  If I remember when I have time on the computer I will do another search.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jesus is quoting scripture here, which can lead to different interpretations.  I like one provided by another poster awhile back:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75200-mark-1534/#findComment-1210142521

Also:

 

Yep, lots of different interpretations out there.

[blackstrap]

Three sort of related thoughts.

1. Christ was a carpenter, No ? I have yet to meet a carpenter who has never smacked his thumb with a hammer or cut himself with a saw. Jesus may even have ( heaven forbid ) said ' dad gum it ! ' when he did so. 

2. Contrary to world opinion, it IS possible for a human being to live 33 years and still be celibate yet fully functional.

3. Many NDE reports say that when their life review was shown , they were able to " feel " the pain and suffering of those they sinned against. If a mere mortal can have that experience , I see no reason why Christ could not have felt the pain and suffering of all people.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Awesome! If you are of a mind, could you retrieve the Romney references?

I'm sorry, I'm just not finding it.  Maybe it was from before 1971 and that's why I can't find it?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Awesome! If you are of a mind, could you retrieve the Romney references?

I found a reference from Elder Romney in his October 1953 GC talk, but I have no idea if it's the quote that Rain is talking about.

"When Jesus was about to go through that terrible suffering incident to the atonement, he took his disciples with him to the Passover. As they sat in an upper chamber, Jesus broke bread and blessed it, and gave of it to his Apostles, telling them that this they should do often in remembrance of his body which was soon to be wounded on the cross for them, and for you and for me. Then he took wine, blessed it, and gave of it to them, telling them to do this often in remembrance of his blood which was to be spilled for them.
Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of him as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the Garden. He went there to pray and suffer. One of the New Testament writers says that it “ . .. was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:44.)"

Go here to read the talk in its entirety.  

[CV75]

On 11/1/2025 at 1:07 PM, teddyaware said:

At the outset, I must say I fully realize this thread’s topic could turn out to be very controversial and contentious, to say the least, although stirring up heated debate and Ill will is not at all my intention. Rather, what I’m submitting here are two very simple questions that I’m hoping can thoughtfully considered and addressed in a dispassionate, level headed manner. Here’s are the questions:

1) If the Lord was both fully divine and fully human while he sojourned in this mortal realm, do you believe it’s possible that he carried within his holy body living seed (spermatozoa), and if he did what are your thoughts about the reasonable probability that the Father of Heaven and Earth — God the Son — had a sexual nature?

2) Are there any inferences or implications that might be drawn, or interesting speculations that might be entertained, while focusing on this apparently very rarely considered possibility that God the Son had a fully functioning reproductive system, with living seed that might very well have been able to produce human offspring?

I believe He had and has a sexual nature. Since you've qualified the second question in terms of entertainment, can you describe the functionality of your reproductive system, supported by the results of your semen analysis, and your ability to produce human offspring? This will help me to draw inferences, implications and speculations about the Lord's atonement in relation to your experience with these, since He comprehends everyone's situations, circumstances and particulars.

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I believe He had and has a sexual nature. Since you've qualified the second question in terms of entertainment, can you describe the functionality of your reproductive system, supported by the results of your semen analysis, and your ability to produce human offspring? This will help me to draw inferences, implications and speculations about the Lord's atonement in relation to your experience with these, since He comprehends everyone's situations, circumstances and particulars.

Wat

[3DOP]

22 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Wat

I think we can be relieved to see that CV75 misread Teddy's "...speculations that might be entertained..." as a different kind of entertainment than a careful reading would entertain! Heh.

[CV75]

[Orthodox Christian]

If Christ was true man and true God, why should it be assumed that he wasn't?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

If Christ was true man and true God, why should it be assumed that he wasn't?

I'm mostly just guessing here, but I think that some people who struggle with the idea of Christ having a sexual nature do so because of their views on sex.  Those views being that asexual is always superior to sexual because all aspects of our sexual nature are a part of the fallen world.  Even people who don't specifically believe such things can sometimes still struggle with any sexual aspect of mortality that isn't utilitarian sex for creation purposes.

I think it's hard for some to accept that our sexual natures are not somehow sinful or fallen, and so it's hard for them to accept or confront a perfect Jesus that includes sexuality.

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm mostly just guessing here, but I think that some people who struggle with the idea of Christ having a sexual nature do so because of their views on sex.  Those views being that asexual is always superior to sexual because all aspects of our sexual nature are a part of the fallen world.  Even people who don't specifically believe such things can sometimes still struggle with any sexual aspect of mortality that isn't utilitarian sex for creation purposes.

I think it's hard for some to accept that our sexual natures are not somehow sinful or fallen, and so it's hard for them to accept or confront a perfect Jesus that includes sexuality.

A purity religion doesn’t come without its challenges. I work with plenty of couples who suffer as a result of one or both intrinsically experience shame around their own sexuality. 

[Orthodox Christian]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm mostly just guessing here, but I think that some people who struggle with the idea of Christ having a sexual nature do so because of their views on sex.  Those views being that asexual is always superior to sexual because all aspects of our sexual nature are a part of the fallen world.  Even people who don't specifically believe such things can sometimes still struggle with any sexual aspect of mortality that isn't utilitarian sex for creation purposes.

I think it's hard for some to accept that our sexual natures are not somehow sinful or fallen, and so it's hard for them to accept or confront a perfect Jesus that includes sexuality.

THANK augustine for the jaundiced view of sex that Western Chritianity is saddled with, probably due to guilt about his own sexual excesses. Any how, Christ's  sexuality, although I am sure was normal as he was tested by all sin, isn't  the issue is it, because He came to do the will of the Father, not His own.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

THANK augustine for the jaundiced view of sex that Western Chritianity is saddled with, probably due to guilt about his own sexual excesses. Any how, Christ's  sexuality, although I am sure was normal as he was tested by all sin, isn't  the issue is it, because He came to do the will of the Father, not His own.

I think it's only the issue when people view sexuality as sinful in and of itself.  Because then it becomes about Christ being born with a sinful aspect to His nature (which would be a dealbreaker for all Christians), rather than being born capable of committing sin.

But if you don't view sexuality as a part of the fallen world, then you're right, it's not an issue.

[Orthodox Christian]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it's only the issue when people view sexuality as sinful in and of itself.  Because then it becomes about Christ being born with a sinful aspect to His nature (which would be a dealbreaker for all Christians), rather than being born capable of committing sin.

But if you don't view sexuality as a part of the fallen world, then you're right, it's not an issue.

When God finished creation he stood back and saw that all was good, very good in fact. Sex as part of creation is a blessing, and is good. What is fallen about it, I suppose is fallen man's  attitude and use of it. Of course Christ was capable of sin, otherwise why tempt Him? To see our Lord and our God  incarnated as man in every aspect I guess should give us comfort, not make us feel uncomfortable. He knows first hand what being a man is, but all His humanity He laid at the Father's  feet, as we as Christians should strive to do. Well that is part of Orthodox Christianity, and it's  flippin  hard.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

When God finished creation he stood back and saw that all was good, very good in fact. Sex as part of creation is a blessing, and is good. What is fallen about it, I suppose is fallen man's  attitude and use of it. Of course Christ was capable of sin, otherwise why tempt Him? To see our Lord and our God  incarnated as man in every aspect I guess should give us comfort, not make us feel uncomfortable. He knows first hand what being a man is, but all His humanity He laid at the Father's  feet, as we as Christians should strive to do. Well that is part of Orthodox Christianity, and it's  flippin  hard.

Agreed

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

THANK augustine for the jaundiced view of sex that Western Chritianity is saddled with, probably due to guilt about his own sexual excesses. Any how, Christ's  sexuality, although I am sure was normal as he was tested by all sin, isn't  the issue is it, because He came to do the will of the Father, not His own.

THANK augustine? It is obvious you know how to capitalize. So you guys don't venerate St. Augustine? Is it because of his views on sex? 

Has the Eastern Church always taught two principal ends of marriage? 

 

[Orthodox Christian]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

THANK augustine? It is obvious you know how to capitalize. So you guys don't venerate St. Augustine? Is it because of his views on sex? 

Has the Eastern Church always taught two principal ends of marriage? 

 

I apologise  if my reply was flippant, I didn't mean to cause offence. We weren't discussing marriage specifically. I think the Orthodox probably don't venerate Augustine as much as other Church Fathers, he certainly isn't quoted as much in the Orthodox church. I think that for him to promote the idea that original sin is transmitted to humanity through the male sperm during intercourse is somewhat strange. And to logically reason from that that any baby who dies before baptism will go to hell, or limbo has struck very real fear into the hearts of generations of RC mothers. Also that any sex that isn't procreational is sinful, and this from a man whose early life seems to have been the epitome of licentiousness seems a twist too far. It's a bit like poacher turned game keeper. We venerate many saints obviously  some can be off the mark at times, but we accept that though they are sanctified, they were human and capable of mistakes and form our own judgements in light of Scripture and the teachings of the Church. In the East this particular view of original sin is not held. 

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I apologise  if my reply was flippant, I didn't mean to cause offence. We weren't discussing marriage specifically. I think the Orthodox probably don't venerate Augustine as much as other Church Fathers, he certainly isn't quoted as much in the Orthodox church. I think that for him to promote the idea that original sin is transmitted to humanity through the male sperm during intercourse is somewhat strange. And to logically reason from that that any baby who dies before baptism will go to hell, or limbo has struck very real fear into the hearts of generations of RC mothers. Also that any sex that isn't procreational is sinful, and this from a man whose early life seems to have been the epitome of licentiousness seems a twist too far. It's a bit like poacher turned game keeper. We venerate many saints obviously  some can be off the mark at times, but we accept that though they are sanctified, they were human and capable of mistakes and form our own judgements in light of Scripture and the teachings of the Church. In the East this particular view of original sin is not held. 

A lot of it is an adoption of Plato’s thoughts. He was (at least in his later works) opposed to any sex that wasn’t procreative. Christianity (at least the kind of Christianity that survived) took that and gave it biblical justification. Add in Paul’s recommendation that people should be celibate if they could and it all leans that way.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I apologise  if my reply was flippant, I didn't mean to cause offence. We weren't discussing marriage specifically. I think the Orthodox probably don't venerate Augustine as much as other Church Fathers, he certainly isn't quoted as much in the Orthodox church. I think that for him to promote the idea that original sin is transmitted to humanity through the male sperm during intercourse is somewhat strange. And to logically reason from that that any baby who dies before baptism will go to hell, or limbo has struck very real fear into the hearts of generations of RC mothers. Also that any sex that isn't procreational is sinful, and this from a man whose early life seems to have been the epitome of licentiousness seems a twist too far. It's a bit like poacher turned game keeper. We venerate many saints obviously  some can be off the mark at times, but we accept that though they are sanctified, they were human and capable of mistakes and form our own judgements in light of Scripture and the teachings of the Church. In the East this particular view of original sin is not held. 

No worries OC. No offence. But I don't think his singular beliefs had such a long lasting effect. Us Latins rejected his babies burning for not being baptized more than a millennium ago. 

But we did hold on to a primary end of marriage that you mention for much longer. Did you guys have a secondary or co-primary end earlier, as we do now?

I don't mind a bit if you are ahead of us. I want us back together, and that would show our holdouts that we needed you. Do you not think you need us? Not at all?

Edited November 7, 2025 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of it is an adoption of Plato’s thoughts. He was (at least in his later works) opposed to any sex that wasn’t procreative. Christianity (at least the kind of Christianity that survived) took that and gave it biblical justification. Add in Paul’s recommendation that people should be celibate if they could and it all leans that way.

Hi Teddy. Hi The Nehor, 

So how do you two explain us "apostates" progressing until we get it right? You know that we now teach two ends in marriage, right? It took until 1870 for papal infallibility. 1965 or '66 gives us two ends in marriage. Will you guys have nailed everything perfectly before your first two millenia? We will have to wait to see I guess.

Cut us a break, we are STILL a young church. Calling us apostates because of out first centuries? Sheesh. I'll take our early centuries over yours anytime anyway. Especially when it comes to orthopraxy but even orthodoxy too.