Begotten Vs Created

[dougtheavenger]

I am concerned that critics of the church are getting too much help from us. In particular, I want to arm myself against the following accusations.

1. Mormons are not Christians.

2. Mormons deny the divinity of Christ.

Lately, I have taken to pointing out that some critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints seem to oppose their own creeds; in particular this part of the Nicene creed.

"We believe in [...] one Lord Jesus Christ [...] begotten of the Father before all worlds [...] begotten, not made".

LDS doctines, as contained in the four standard works, state that Jesus was begotten of the Father. Our critics use this to claim that we teach that Jesus was a created being. I believe this is false and the following exceprts from the standard works are what I base this belief on.

Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father

D&C 93

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Abraham - Chapter 3

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

Moses 1:3

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

John - Chapter 1 - KJV

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John - Chapter 1 - JST

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Jesus was begotten of the Father before the creation of the world.

D&C 76

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

The two assertions

1. Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the father.

2. Jesus was begotten of the Father before the creation of the world.

seem to conflict in the minds of some people.

Presumably, this conflict arises from their concept of "begotten" as the beginning of existence rather than an event that occurred during Jesus' existence.

Mormon doctrine and non-Mormon doctrine is the same when it comes to Jesus being "begotten in the flesh". Jesus existed before His mortal birth to Mary. He likewise continued to exist after His death on the cross. Nothing in LDS doctrine that I know of says that spiritual begetting is the beginning of existence rather than an event that ocurrs at a point during the existence of the spirit.

In any case there is clearly a difference between creation and begetting. Our spiritual begetting involved our Heavenly Mother. Here is an example of creation.

Abraham - Chapter 3

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

Edited June 30, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Yep yer gittin it, but good luck convincing closed minds you have much.........

The ontological (that is, what is based in reality) philosophy of Christianity causes them to have different meaning of definitions of words than we do when begotten and created are used. It's a pure muddle which only ticks everyone off at each other when it's really delved into....at least it used to be...... so be very careful when going this route with your friends and family....

[ERayR]

Begotten, created. Begotten is created, created can be begotten. I think differences are being created where non exist.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Begotten, created. Begotten is created, created can be begotten. I think differences are being created where non exist.

Very likely true actually, but, then again, drats to it all, the devil is in the details......

[cdowis]

I heard a Christian theologian declare: "We know today more about the nature of God than the prophets."

He was, of course, talking about philosophical discussions leading us to a higher understanding of the nature of Divinity. Such profound ponderings as the creation of time, and whether God is in or outside time. Well,of course, I couldn't avoid it, so I asked him a very simple question that only an LDS could answer.

That shut him up.

[ERayR]

I heard a Christian theologian declare: "We know today more about the nature of God than the prophets."

He was, of course, talking about philosophical discussions leading us to a higher understanding of the nature of Divinity. Such profound ponderings as the creation of time, and whether God is in or outside time. Well,of course, I couldn't avoid it, so I asked him a very simple question that only an LDS could answer.

That shut him up.

It is not just the good non-member doctors who have this attitude. Many of our own good doctors have an overrated sense of importance about their marvelous discoveries and musings. The only thing necessary for salvation and even exaltation is a simple faith in God and the atonement of Jesus Christ. One who has this will see to the saving ordinances and be fine. For some of us these other things are interesting but not necessary. I think the parable of the widows mite might be in order here.

Hugh Nibley addressed the same problem this way: Twenty-three years ago today, if you will cast your minds back, on this same occasion I gave the opening prayer in which I said: "We have met here today clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood . . ." Many have asked me since whether I really said such a shocking thing, but nobody has ever asked what I meant by it.

[ERMD]

It is not just the good non-member doctors who have this attitude. Many of our own good doctors have an overrated sense of importance about their marvelous discoveries and musings. The only thing necessary for salvation and even exaltation is a simple faith in God and the atonement of Jesus Christ. One who has this will see to the saving ordinances and be fine. For some of us these other things are interesting but not necessary. I think the parable of the widows mite might be in order here.

Hugh Nibley addressed the same problem this way: Twenty-three years ago today, if you will cast your minds back, on this same occasion I gave the opening prayer in which I said: "We have met here today clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood . . ." Many have asked me since whether I really said such a shocking thing, but nobody has ever asked what I meant by it.

I've been following this thread, and I think this is the best post yet.

[David T]

Nothing in LDS doctrine that I know of says that spiritual begetting is the beginning of existence rather than an event that ocurrs at a point during the existence of the spirit.

In any case there is clearly a difference between creation and begetting. Our spiritual begetting involved our Heavenly Mother.

LDS revelation is neutral and silent on the concept of 'spiritual begetting', as you present it. It's not found there. It's a later interpretive approach that, admittedly, has become popular.

I posted s significant portion of the rest of this in the earlier thread that doug spun this off from:

In the New Testament, it is understood that Jesus is "the Son of God". The New Testament writers, however, show that it wasn't fully understood by everyone in the same way what that actually or practically meant. For Mark , Jesus became the Son of God at his Baptism (Paul's language seems to favor an adoptionist reading as well as a seal on his righteousness). For Matthew and Luke, they both gave distinct narratives that explained him as being called Son of God in terms of having had a miraculous human-father-less conception. For John, he's the unique and only Son of God because he (and only he) premortally came forth from God as the logos.

All NT writers that express humanity as having a sonship relationship with God view humans as sons of God only asmuch as they are adopted into the Covenant.

Therefore, when Latter-day Saint theology developed and expressed the concept that we all premortally became/are children of God, the explanation of the title 'One and Only/Unique/Only Begotten Son of God' as applied to Jesus then didn't make literal sense. Qualifiers (like "in the flesh") had to be added.

I don't think we need to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is a biological demigod to declare him as a unique and prototypical Son of God, or to affirm his sacral kingship title of Only Begotten. (Even Restoration scripture like the Book of Moses has Only Begotten as a premortal designation without reference to physical biological conception).

It's a concept Restoration doctrines and principles have expanded our views on, without coming down firm and definitively with a solid descriptive revelation on what it all has to mean, even though many leaders have certainly expressed their thoughts on it.

The principles are:

* All of humanity are essentially spirits co-eternal with God

* At some point, all spirits became 'children of God'

* The eternal spirit eventually born as Jesus had a uniquely sacred role and relationship as a prototypical Son of God.

There are lots of interpretive glosses we can place over those principles. While it is one of the more popular positions to overlay biological spirit-begetting/birth as describing point #2., I am far more persuaded by a Covenant Adoption model. (The historicaland philosophical problems with 'spirit birth' are very persuasive for me).

Edited July 1, 2012 by David T

[ERayR]

Youv'e really got to love how the good scholars are consistently trying to diminish the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus Christ. Two thousand years and how many translations and they are still parsing words to detract from Jesus Christ. And we do not believe in an inerrant Bible.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Alternatively, scholars are trying to Restore an ancient context lost to modern interpretive lenses. Why would a Covenantal understanding detract from Christ? By His fruits will we know Him, not His royal parentage.

[CV75]

I am concerned that critics of the church are getting too much help from us. In particular, I want to arm myself against the following accusations.

I would say a life form arising from one its own kind is an example of “begotten.” So both camps can see Christ (and other sons and daughters) as begotten of the Father.

A life form not arising from one of its own kind would be “made” or “created.” The camps seem to part in how they view human life in relation to its Maker.

[BCSpace]

LDS doctines, as contained in the four standard works, state that Jesus was begotten of the Father. Our critics use this to claim that we teach that Jesus was a created being. I believe this is false and the following exceprts from the standard works are what I base this belief on.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "created being". For sure, as you point out, the material and intelligence of Jesus has always existed (like ours). And Jesus was also in the very begin with the Father. But the official doctrine is that Jesus is begotten both spiritually and physically of the Father. To be begotten is a form of creation; an organization of pre-existing material.

Trinitarians often point to Colossians 1:16. But that merely refers to things visible and invisible in the "physical" universe. Jesus was not involved in the creation of the place where God dwells