Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

James White, Beating That Poor Deadhorse Yet Again.


David Waltz

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the reply Juliann.

I realized that the "dumb newbie act" that you might have been talking about was the way I worded my question so as to come across as baiting -- I can see that now, and I'm sorry for wording my question that way. I'll try to do better in the future.

So a sermon is so obscure that you can't even find it, missionaries are "sketchy" about it....but you infer that this was somehow a Mormon belief?

Found it. Turns out, it's not exactly "so obscure" -- it's the 8th sermon in the first volume of the Journal of Discourses. I'm not Mormon, so I'm not as well read as many of you, but I'm doing my best -- any slack you can cut me is appreciated. :crazy:

Do you really think we are that interested in talking... let alone teaching... about Mary's sex life?

Brigham Young seemed to think his congregants were, because he said "The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary." and proceeded to preach on it for quite a chunk of text.

Anyways, I encourage you to read the whole sermon, or at least the middle part dealing with the nature of God/Jesus -- it's quite good and informative. But in lieu of that, here's the anecdotal section I was thinking of -- a selection from the sermon starting at JoD 1:46: (he's talking about how Christians waffle about in their futile ways, trying to grasp the nature of Jesus)

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever,that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea-"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."

So you are saying that your leaders aren't inspired? If not, why do you trust them to begin with? :P

Nice "feigned newbieness." ;)

Why trust them? Because they're older, wiser, and more experienced. That doesn't mean that I trust them without questioning/testing them. For example, even though my father is older and wiser than I am doesn't mean he's perfect, but if he tells me to heed something, I'd do well to at least listen and consider it carefully (even after I'm an adult).

I'm afraid of splitting hairs here over the definition of "inspired", because it can mean many things, but I'll try to be clear so as to explain how normal Protestants view the whole issue:

A ) Prophets (in the classical sense), when carried along by the Holy Spirit, speak the infallible word of God.

B ) Pastors aren't prophets in the Old Testament sense. Yes, they share wisdom and direct the church, but they don't speak infallibly when they preach, and their sermons aren't as reliable as scripture. This is in sharp contrast to the Mormon prophets. Pastors and theologians can be wrong, and the Bible isn't undermined by admitting that. The only authority is the Scripture, against which all men's words must be tested to see if they're trustworthy or not (Acts 17:11).

You aren't going to make much headway here trying to claim that such leaders haven't decided the course of conventional Christianity.

I claimed no such thing. I wouldn't disagree that various men have risen up and led various branches of the church into error -- there's no question about that, whether you're Mo or Anti-Mo.

In Mormonism the idea that everything will be laid out for us so that we will never have to make a decision or make a mistake is called "Satan's plan".

Prophets seem to be in another class. As I understand it, Mormonism teaches that without trustworthy teachers to carry the Keys of the Kingdom, that the church fell away into the Great Apostasy. It was when the Keys were restored through Joseph Smith and passed down through his succeeding prophets that the Church is to rally around them and follow them, because they are the only trustworthy teachers in the world, far and above all deceived and blind pastors who carry not the Keys.

I.E., you can trust the latter-day prophets more than normal Christian leaders, because the Mormon prophets carry the Keys.

Thanks for the discussion!

--clint

Edit: w00t! 20 posts -- now I can reply to PMs. :fool:

Link to comment

I seem to recall reading a sermon by either B. Young or J. F. Smith where he said that Mary most certainly conceived through normal action of the Father, for if Mary had conceived through the Holy Spirit, then every time they baptised a young woman she would get pregnant, and the church would be overloaded having to care for children without earthly fathers.

But alas, I'm unable to find the quote.

I don't know about the second part, but Brigham Young taught that Jesus' conception was a result of "natural action" (See JoD 8:115).

CKS

post-3151-1196449788_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Brigham Young taught that Jesus' conception was a result of "natural action" (See JoD 8:115).

And, I hasten to point out, both artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization result in natural conceptions, too. Nothing supernatural is required in either case.

I don't deny that many Latter-day Saints, including many Latter-day Saint leaders, have suggested that the conception of Jesus took place by the method that anti-Mormons insist is our official teaching. And, for all I know, they may well have been correct. That wouldn't bother me even a teensy tiny little bit.

But such ideas are not, and never have been, official Church doctrine, and, so long as Jesus is regarded as literally the Son of the Father, the exact mechanism by which the Father's DNA was implanted in Mary's womb is a matter of, at most, tertiary importance.

Link to comment
Non-reference to the non-existence and certainly not present M. KG

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"

Dang Mod Mind Tricks.

Link to comment

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.

In the long-long ago times, when I spent a lot of time in Logan, there were a lot of guys running around with red baseball caps on their heads. The caps bore the logo, Select Sires. I know what the company was in the business of doing. Does CKS?

Link to comment

I don't deny that many Latter-day Saints, including many Latter-day Saint leaders, have suggested that the conception of Jesus took place by the method that anti-Mormons insist is our official teaching. And, for all I know, they may well have been correct. That wouldn't bother me even a teensy tiny little bit.

I suppose we'll have to agree to agree, then. I haven't stated here that it is the "official teaching"; I have suggested, obliquely in places, that it has been both believed and taught by some LDS leaders. The easiest reading of the Brigham Young passage I provided, to my mind, leans strongly in that direction.

CKS

Link to comment

When they made such a suggestion they wandered far from the scriptures. I don't object to God having a biological son. I do object to denials of the virgin birth that say God employed a method he did not. The conception was via the Spirit.

Link to comment

Indeed. I absolutely agree with your emphasis here.

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

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?

One word... Serogate.

Test Tube Baby...

I'm sure President Benson knew them.

Link to comment
0

Will you be nice now?

What wasn't nice?

Good for you for knowing, BTW, but you aren't "most Protestants."

And how is "most Protestants don't know how many chapters there are in the Book of Jude" un-nice, while "Mormons tell lies" remains consistent with your notions of Christian love?

Inquiring minds, and all that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

What wasn't nice?

Good for you for knowing, BTW, but you aren't "most Protestants."

And how is "most Protestants don't know how many chapters there are in the Book of Jude" un-nice, while "Mormons tell lies" remains consistent with your notions of Christian love?

Inquiring minds, and all that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Just pickin' atcha. While quite serious and enthusiastic, you just might be a nice guy. :P

Link to comment

It seems to me that there is a good deal of "presentism" going on in this thread.

Virtually nothing was known about molecular biology in the 1800's. Drs. Watson and Crick hadn't even been born yet. There was no such thing as in vitro fertilization. The very understanding of what it is to be the "father" of a person was rather different than it is today.

It is completely reasonable that someone such as Brigham Young, given a scriptural understanding that Jesus was the literal son of Elohim, would reach the conclusion that Jesus' conception was acheived in the only way that he knew about.

Given our much greater understanding of these things, we are able to envision several other possibilities.

I have little doubt that Heavenly Father knows of a multitude of additional possibilities that have never occurred to any of us.

Link to comment
It seems to me that there is a good deal of "presentism" going on in this thread.

Maybe.

I don't think so, though.

Virtually nothing was known about molecular biology in the 1800's. Drs. Watson and Crick hadn't even been born yet. There was no such thing as in vitro fertilization. The very understanding of what it is to be the "father" of a person was rather different than it is today.

You'll get no dispute from me on any of this.

It is completely reasonable that someone such as Brigham Young, given a scriptural understanding that Jesus was the literal son of Elohim, would reach the conclusion that Jesus' conception was acheived in the only way that he knew about.

Yes.

Given our much greater understanding of these things, we are able to envision several other possibilities.

Yes.

I have little doubt that Heavenly Father knows of a multitude of additional possibilities that have never occurred to any of us.

Precisely my point.

I personally don't care one way or the other how Jesus was conceived -- provided that the theologically essential fact that he was literally the Son of the Father is maintained.

I've simply been at pains to point out that the Church has no official position, and has never had an official position, on the precise mode of the conception of Jesus. The scriptures don't tell, and no revelation on the subject has ever been claimed by any leader of the Church.

I have not the slightest problem with any proposed scenario that I've encountered regarding this subject, so long as it preserves the literal fatherhood of the Father.

Link to comment

Personally, I would not even concede the notion that early Church leaders believed or taught that Jesus was concieved by means of sexual intercourse between the Father and Mary. Those leaders were teaching a Gospel mystery and were not direct or explicit in their statements.

As a convert to the Church, I knew nothing...absolutely nothing of the specific claim of sexual relations. In my religion classes and various LDS Church discussions, I was introduced to the various statements without prejudice. I did not once interpret those statements to mean what the critics claim them to mean.

The statements of past LDS theologians are interpreted in the eye of the beholder.

Regards,

Six

Link to comment

I don't know about the second part, but Brigham Young taught that Jesus' conception was a result of "natural action" (See JoD 8:115).

No, he said Jesus' "birth" was a result of "natural action."

Bernard

Link to comment

"I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever,that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea-"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."

And you can't tell that Brother Brigham was sticking his thumb in

the learned professors' eye? You need to read more Brigham. He had

the greatest sense of humor.

Bernard

Link to comment

I suppose we'll have to agree to agree, then. I haven't stated here that it is the "official teaching"; I have suggested, obliquely in places, that it has been both believed and taught by some LDS leaders. The easiest reading of the Brigham Young passage I provided, to my mind, leans strongly in that direction.

The potter can do as he wishes with his clay. Who is the clay to question

what the potter does?

Bernard

Link to comment

Why do people think that in vitro fertilization as an alternative "natural" way for Christ to be conceived is better than the other obvious alternative? Assuming LDS principles about the nature of God and man, I don't see what is disgusting about the more direct reading of statements by LDS general authorites. Rather it is the idea of in vitro fertilization that I find postively disgusting.

The glory of God's creation lies entirely in the fact that creation is an act of love and, conversely, love itself is creative. Any theology that will appreciate the conception of Christ, or any other child, should recognize that a deep union in love between his parents brought him forth, and that this tells us something about both love and creation. As a Catholic, I make much of the fact that Mary is "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit, and term that points to a theophanic event, a preeminent degree of self-revelation of God to Mary. This was a metaphysical event with no physical process involved. Mary knew God in the fullness of love and Christ was conceived in her as immediate effect of God's will, without any intermediate process. He spoke and it came into being.

But if the same event needed to be explained in terms of an interaction of material beings, this view could not be right, and a natural process would need to exist. If one were to hypothesize about that process, it would seem that the answer would need to be whatever process was most intrinsically loving. It seems to me that guys like Brigham Young and Orson Pratt came closer to providing such an explanation than the modern interpretations of them do. Perhaps in vitro fertilization could be performed lovingly, but it does not seem inherently loving, as I think the conception of Jesus should be. Of all possible explanatinos, it seems instead the most cold, impersonal, and (dare I says it) sterile.

Link to comment

Why do people think that in vitro fertilization as an alternative "natural" way for Christ to be conceived is better than the other obvious alternative?

Soren, I can't speak for the others who have posted here, but when I speak of in vitro fertilization, I do so only to point out that 2007's medical technology has methods of achieving conception that do not involve "intimate relationships." I don't for one second think that in vitro fertilization was how it was done. It is merely an example to demonstrate that fatherhood can be separated from sexual acts.

As I stated previously, I would imagine that Heaveny Father knows of ways to get this done that none of us has the slightest inkling of.

I don't pretend to kown how was done. All I know is that Jesus is the literal son of God the Father, and that the Book of Mormon states unequivocally that Jesus was born of a virgin. Assuming that "virgin" is to be understood in the usual English sense (and not as, say, "a young woman"), then conception must have taken place in a manner that did not involve intimate relations.

However, I would be fine with learning that the conception took place in the usual manner, and that "virgin" simply meant "young woman."

The thing I object to is people who insist that "Mormons teach that Mary had sex with God." That is putting words in our mouth. We teach no such thing.

Link to comment
Why do people think that in vitro fertilization as an alternative "natural" way for Christ to be conceived is better than the other obvious alternative? Assuming LDS principles about the nature of God and man, I don't see what is disgusting about the more direct reading of statements by LDS general authorites.

Neither do I. I've never said that I find it disgusting.

I've never even said which way I myself lean on this topic -- though certain others, it seems, are happy to speak for me.

Link to comment

If Mr White believes what he said...then he is not a liar. Jesus said to not judge by the flesh. By his posts which are his fruits we can judge them. We can say that Mr. White posts are lies...but that does not make Mr. White a liar just a person who errs and has taken evil for good.

LDS must live the higher laws....accusing blaming and condemning is what Judas did and the Lord called him a devil for it.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Unless of course Mr White has been corrected on this issue by LDS yet he refuses to accept the correction. Its one thing to think that LDS might believe it but when informed that they do not accept this view and yet continue to assert as though we do, then that does make him a liar.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...