James White, Beating That Poor Deadhorse Yet Again.

[cksalmon]

I would say what I've already said many times: The notion that the Father begat Jesus by means of physical intercourse with Mary is not and has never been official Church doctrine. It rests to a large extent on certain nineteenth century speculations among the Brethren. The fact is that we don't know and don't claim to know the mechanism of Christ's conception. What we have always affirmed, and what is theologically crucial to affirm, is that Jesus is and was literally the Son of the Father.

I assume that White will reference the 1916 proclamation and work backwards from there to the JoD passages, rather than forward to modern clarifications by the brethren (though, to be honest, I have no idea if the brethren have issued any such qualifications or whether they felt it necessary to do so). On the other hand, one could perhaps read the 1916 document as the clarification.

What I think we can be reasonably sure of is that physical intercourse was assumed and preached by some leaders in the 19th C. It would be quite interesting to have been in the room where the "The Father and The Son" was being composed and ask, "What do you mean by 'literal?'"

CKS

EDIT: grammar.

[Hick Preacher]

DCP mentions-

Sorry, I don't buy into your neat contrast. My Christianity is, so far as I can see, just as biblical as your "Biblical Christianity"â?¢ is. And perhaps even more so.

Sorry DCP for my over usage of the word-- I am just attempting to illustrate the distinction between LDS and Traditional systems.

Please accept my apology-

But how else can I illustrate the distinctions? Perhaps you could make a recommendation- and if agreeable I will use it in future posts.

You may call me an anti-Mormon is you like-- everyone else does too-

[Hammer]

>>Why waste your time reprinting this guys dump?>>

Silly meâ?¦I thought this was a Mormon apologetics boardâ?¦

The Beachbum

Yeah, well some mistake it for a dump yard.

[Hammer]

Hick thinks he counts based on his former membership.

I have found that those who once had the light and then sinned against the light become even more darkened in their mind and know less about the Mormon religion than those who were never members.

[Avatar4321]

So the NON-Mormons get to decide what Mormon doctrine is?

exactly. And they have no problem declaring it to be something none of us have ever said it is.

I still haven't figured out how arguing that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father somehow makes us believe that the Father and Mary somehow had sex to create Him. And I think its completely disrespectful to talk about it so crassly even if it was doctrine.

[mnn727]

But how else can I illustrate the distinctions? Perhaps you could make a recommendation- and if agreeable I will use it in future posts.

May I suggest "mainstream Christian" or "Creedal Christian" (or my personal favorite "Paulist" since more mainstreamers take their beliefs from Paul rather than from Christ).

[David Waltz]

Hi ck,

You wrote:

>>I assume that White will reference the 1916 proclamation and work backwards from there to the JoD passages, rather than forward to modern clarifications by the brethren (though, to be honest, I have no idea if the brethren have issued any such qualifications or whether they felt it necessary to do so). On the other hand, one could perhaps read the 1916 document as the clarification.>>

Me: Two quick points; first, I think the Harold B. Lee quote I provided earlier in this very thread is an excellent example of a â??modern clarification by the brethrenâ?; and second, since one of the basic tenants of Mormonism is continuing revelation, a methodology of â??working backwardsâ? seems quite faulty.

The Beachbum

[Avatar4321]

This quote never existed- Kevin Graham was not here.

The only problem with your assertion here is that it was never taught to begin with so of course it would never be "official doctrine"

[cksalmon]

Hi ck,

You wrote:

>>I assume that White will reference the 1916 proclamation and work backwards from there to the JoD passages, rather than forward to modern clarifications by the brethren (though, to be honest, I have no idea if the brethren have issued any such qualifications or whether they felt it necessary to do so). On the other hand, one could perhaps read the 1916 document as the clarification.>>

Me: Two quick points; (1) first, I think the Harold B. Lee quote I provided earlier in this very thread is an excellent example of a â??modern clarification by the brethrenâ?; and (2) second, since one of the basic tenets of Mormonism is continuing revelation, a methodology of â??working backwardsâ? seems quite faulty.

The Beachbum

(1) I missed that post, David. I agree with you. I would add the section heading, "Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth."

(2) Philosophically, and putting on my Mormon cap, I quite agree with this as well. But I don't think I'll be disappointed in terms of my outlay of White's methodology in tomorrow's continuation.

Still, I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the 1916 deliberations.

CKS

[cksalmon]

The only problem with your assertion here is that it was never taught to begin with so of course it would never be "official doctrine"

Of course it was very clearly implied by past leaders that the union was sexual. That's the issue that underlies the debate.

And it was clearly implied by President and Prophet Ezra Taft Benson as recently as 1988 (while he was serving as President and Prophet), a quotation which postdates David's Lee reference by a number of years:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father" (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 6).

Now, what did Benson mean by his use of the periphrastic superlative "most literal sense?" Or, indeed, by "sired?"

CKS

[Pahoran]

To be fair David, that isn't what James White said. He did not say LDS cannot be trusted because they are LDS. He is saying that these particular LDS scholars cannot be trusted because what they say flies in the face of history. I think that is a valid point to make, especially since LDS frequently challenge the credibility of critics for things as silly as the credibility of their alma mater.

Thank you for that textbook example of the "tu quoque" fallacy.

It's actually two fallacies in a single assertion, since it is a straw man. Latter-day Saints do not "frequently challenge the credibility of critics for things as silly as the credibility of their alma mater." We occasionally point out that certain of our "critics" have made false claims about themselves, such as Walter Martin claiming to have an earned doctorate when in fact he purchased one from a mail order diploma mill, and therefore are not to be trusted when they make assertions that cannot otherwise be checked.

Nobody here has dealt with the force of White's argument. The "that's not official" response doesn't mean anything, because after all, so little is "official" anyway, yet so much is actually being taught. So it is a distinction without a difference when critics refer to LDS teachings or LDS doctrine. They are not lying. They simply fail to acknowledge the distinction pushed by the apologists.

No, they are not lying. They are just too arrogant, presumptuous, foul-mannered and uncivilised to allow Latter-day Saints to define their own doctrine.

Let's call things by their right names: White's accusation (it's not an argument) is a mere excuse, and a flimsy one at that, to deceive others into thinking that he is the authority on LDS life and teaching.

He is nothing of the sort.

Non-LDS observers rightly point out that the Mormon Church has taught embarrassing things in its past. For modern Mormons to use this "but that isn't official doctrine" response, is really irrelevant to the non-LDS world.

Perhaps so, but only on the same basis that those allegedly "embarrassing things in its past" must also be "irrelevant to the non-LDS world."

In fact, I would bet that even most Mormons wouldn't have a clue about this supposed difference between teachings and "official" teachings.

Perhaps so; but then, most Protestants don't know how many chapters there are in the Book of Jude, either.

If it is taught in conference or in Sunday school, then the Church is responsible for it. That is how we see it and that is probably how most Mormons see it as well. Only the apologists seem to place such an importance on what appears to be a distinction without a difference.

The one thing you really should see--but apparently can't--is that how you take it upon your arrogant self to see our doctrine is the very height of irrelevance.

The fact that _enter embarrassing doctrine_ has been taught by the Church is enough for critics to note.

Particularly if they are opportunistic fault-finders; particularly since "has been taught by the Church" and "some Mormon said this once" are categories that you are deliberately collapsing by means of your devious "distinction without a difference."

It doesn't matter to them whether or not it has gone through some formal canonization process. It remains a Mormon teaching nevertheless. When did the Heavenly Mother doctrine gone through canonization? Only recently are the apologists reaching a consensus that it is in fact "official" doctrine, and this only because the First Presidency alluded to it in an official proclamation by the Church.

Remarkable how you can skate so close to a valid point and yet avoid admitting it. I admire your skill.

But for nearly two centuries this doctrine would have been considered by modern apologists as "mere speculation" and perhaps "garbled" doctrine. But we all know this is what Mormons generally accept and believe to be true.

The only "mere speculation" in view is the paragraph quoted.

Could you imagine if the KKK came out with a statement saying that they believe negros should have equal rights? When forced to deal with a long racist history, the KKK apologists come out and state that none of those beliefs were ever canonized into KKK law and that all past racists in the organization were merely expressing their own opinions. Well, this is how laughable it sounds to non-LDS when LDS apologists try to lessen the impact of historic Mormon teaching. This is especially true when we consider we are talking about alleged prophets and apostles, and not a political organization like the KKK. Teachings mean everything in religious institutions. It defines who they are and what they stand for.

Let's see. You are comparing us to the KKK, but you think it absurd for us to regard you as an anti-Mormon.

Got it.

Apologists are always saying we should let Mormons tell us what Mormonism teaches, right? Well, weren't the historic LDS leaders Mormons too?

Yes.

"Dr" James White, however, is not.

But the interesting thing with Mormonism is that these "garbled notions" are generally based on teachings by Prophets and Apostles. We don't pull this stuff out of nowhere. These are things that have been taught within the Church and by authoritative LDS leaders. This must mean their notions of Mormonism was "garbled" just the same. Are they anti-Mormons too?

There is a difference--a real one, so you will probably try to dismiss it--between believers proclaiming what they believe in good faith, and attackers exploiting those statements for polemical purposes. Perhaps you genuinely can't see it. Perhaps you don't want to see it.

But we do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mod note] Too many points to edit out after we already deleted the others. Pahoran, you are dealing with another Kevin Graham sockpuppet. We will leave yours up for now. -Mods

[Hoops22]

Perhaps so; but then, most Protestants don't know how many chapters there are in the Book of Jude, either.

0

Will you be nice now?

[auteur55]

Do all the "Christians" on this board who hold Mormons theologically accountable for every speculative theory advanced by any member of the church in any period of time forget that nearly every epistle in the New Testament was sent to members of the church "Christians" who often got sound doctrine dead wrong and were advancing speculative belief as possible truth.

Is it any wonder, that like in the early church, epistles are sent from authoritative sources to the members correcting said false doctrine and repudiating speculative belief that had grown beyond mere speculation?

Or am I the only one seeing the double standard?

[Avatar4321]

Of course it was very clearly implied by past leaders that the union was sexual. That's the issue that underlies the debate.

And it was clearly implied by President and Prophet Ezra Taft Benson as recently as 1988 (while he was serving as President and Prophet), a quotation which postdates David's Lee reference by a number of years:

Now, what did Benson mean by his use of the periphrastic superlative "most literal sense?" Or, indeed, by "sired?"

CKS

Exactly what he said. That Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father. God is literally His Father.

Why do you guys always read sex into text that clearly doesnt mention it?

[auteur55]

Shaking my head

And these are the people continuing to call out church leaders and apologists for their "lack"of honesty. And they wonder why don't take their claims seriously.

[cksalmon]

Exactly what he said. That Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father. God is literall His Father.

Why do you guys always read sex into text that clearly doesnt mention it?

Not "literall His Father," but his father in the "most literal sense." "Sired," even.

I acquiesce, however. Neither "natural" procreation nor sex is specifically mentioned.

Perhaps Jesus' being "sired" by Elohim in the "most literal sense" is actually describing something other than sexual procreation. I don't realistically see that myself, but I'll leave your personal convictions to your own judgment, with no harm done.

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

Now, what did Benson mean by his use of the periphrastic superlative "most literal sense?" Or, indeed, by "sired?"

President Benson may have meant precisely what the critics desperately hope he meant.

Personally, I really don't care, one way or the other, about the precise mode of the conception of Christ.

What I care about, what is theologically essential to me, is that Jesus be the Son of the Father in the most literal sense of that term. Not symbolically. Not metaphorically. Not by adoption. Literally.

But I can believe him to be absolutely literally the Son of the Father without believing that the Father had sex with Mary in order to effect his conception. The two notions are plainly and easily separable.

And so, come to think of it, could President Benson.

[cksalmon]

President Benson may have meant precisely what the critics desperately hope he meant.

...

What I care about, what is theologically essential to me, is that Jesus be the Son of the Father in the most literal sense of that term. Not symbolically. Not metaphorically. Not by adoption. Literally.

Indeed. I absolutely agree with your emphasis here.

But I can believe him to be absolutely [and most] literally [sired as] the Son of the Father without believing that the Father had sex with Mary in order to effect his conception. The two notions are plainly and easily separable.

I suppose they are separable, but I wouldn't say that they are "plainly and easily separable."

And so, come to think of it, could President Benson.

It's possible. But I don't view his statement as so pristinely-unencumbered by authorial intentionality as you might. What did he actually mean to convey by his statement? That's a different question than what "could" he have meant?

I wonder about the pro-apologetic emphasis on what could have been meant when an easier reading is a nestling in our interpretive laps.

CKS

EDIT: HTML issues.

EDIT#2: What does Jesus' being "sired" by Elohim in the "most literal sense" mean, in your estimation? What was intended here? One potential answer is that it merely means what it says: viz., that Jesus was "sired" by Elohim in the "most literal sense." But, that's just an affirmation of the question under discussion. I wonder what you concretely take this to mean?

[Daniel Peterson]

I suppose they are separable, but I wouldn't say that they are "plainly and easily separable."

You haven't heard of artificial insemination? In vitro fertilization hasn't reached your neighborhood?

(Personally, I'm betting that God has an even better understanding of reproductive biology than my local fertility clinic does. But I'm just a wild and crazy guy. Maybe I'm way out there in left field, and we've completely caught up to the Divine Mind on this one.)

[Tanyan]

A spiritual artificial incemination ?.

Repost !.

[cksalmon]

You haven't heard of artificial insemination? In vitro fertilization hasn't reached your neighborhood?

I've familiar with the concept. But, I manifestly and absolutely wouldn't characterize it as exemplary of "siring" Jesus in the "most literal way." I would, moreover, deny the proposition that artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization constitutes siring in the most literal sense.

Call me old-fashioned.

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

I, on the contrary, would be entirely comfortable with the expression, because the father is the father and the son is the son and the father has fathered the son in the most literal way when the father's sperm is what fertilized the egg that developed into the son. No metaphor. No symbolism. No adoption. Literal fatherhood. However the sperm was introduced to the egg.

And I dare say that Ezra Taft Benson, who knew something about farming, understood this, too.

He might well have intended what you want him to have intended. As I say, I don't care. But I don't think your reading of him is a slam dunk.

[cksalmon]

I, on the contrary, would be entirely comfortable with the expression, because the father is the father and the son is the son and the father has fathered the son in the most literal way when the father's sperm is what fertilized the egg that developed into the son. No metaphor. No symbolism. No adoption. Literal fatherhood. However the sperm was introduced to the egg.

Well, I'm not uncomfortable with it, at least not while attempting to assume an LDS perspective, which I'm trying here to do. "Introduced" in what manner?

And I dare say that Ezra Taft Benson, who knew something about farming, understood this, too.

Again, I find myself in hearty agreement. One who knows something about the impregnation of farm animals (my paternal grandparents raised beef cattle with a shifting variety of preferably fecund studs) surely must know that artificial, in vitro, fertilization is actually not the most literal sense in which that sort of offspring is typically sired. And certainly not in Benson's day.

He might well have intended what you want him to have intended.

My desires, whatever they may be, are irrelevant to the present discussion.

As I say, I don't care.

Okay. As a participant in this particularly-specified discussion, I actually do care.

But I don't think your reading of him is a slam dunk.

Call it a bank shot, then. What does siring in the most literal sense concretely mean?

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

"Introduced" in what manner?

Brought together with the egg in such a way as to fertilize it.

Again, I find myself in hearty agreement. One who knows something about the impregnation of farm animals (my paternal grandparents raised beef cattle with a shifting variety of preferably fecund studs) surely must know that artificial, in vitro, fertilization is actually not the most literal sense in which that sort of offspring is typically sired. And certainly not in Benson's day.

What's "not literal" about artificial insemination? What's "not literal" about (the quite distinct technique called) in vitro fertilization?

What does siring in the most literal sense concretely mean?

It means "being the father of," as in "being the supplier of fertilizing sperm for," as I said.

It isn't a synonym, so far as I can tell, for a popular Anglo-Saxon verb beginning with f.

It seems, incidentally, that even veterinary technologists dealing with in vitro fertilization continue to describe the fathers of the offspring as "sires." The example below required approximately two (2) seconds of Google searching:

http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/full/88/2/776/T5

Just as I had expected.

[cksalmon]

Brought together with the egg in such a way as to fertilize it.

What's "not literal" about artificial insemination? [i suggested that it was not "the most literal sense," rather than that it was "not literal"--CKS] What's "not literal" about (the quite distinct technique called) in vitro fertilization?

It means "being the father of," as in "being the supplier of fertilizing sperm for," as I said.

It isn't a synonym, so far as I can tell, for a popular Anglo-Saxon verb beginning with f.

It seems, incidentally, that even veterinary technologists dealing with in vitro fertilization continue to describe the fathers of the offspring as "sires." The example below required approximately two (2) seconds of Google searching:

http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/full/88/2/776/T5

Just as I expected.

I don't think we should shift the goalposts mid-game. I'm wondering about what Benson meant by "the most literal sense" of "siring." Your question(s) as to what is "not literal" about artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization is wide of the mark in terms of that question--it's the difference between a periphrastic superlative and something that simply adequately meets your definition of "literal."

Is "the most literal sense" of "siring" equivalent to artificial insemination? To in vitro fertilization?

I assume that Benson had no contact with the Federation of Animal Science Societies before issuing his teaching.

I don't believe that the The Journal of Dairy Science, pretigious as that publication may be in its field, tells us anything particularly compelling about Benson's authorial intent.

CKS

EDIT: content.