The Daddyship Of Joseph Of Nazareth

[David T]

There's a point where I think many Christians - and LDS in particular - tend to unintentionally denigrate the roles of adoptive fathers. Because there such a strong cultural and theological push to emphasize that Jesus was the Son of God, the role of Joseph - who acted and cared for Jesus as his father since before Mary gave birth according to the infancy narratives - is almost never acknowledged to be a father.

 

"That's Mary, Jesus' Mommy, and her husband Joseph."

"That's Mary, Jesus' Mother, and a good man who took care of Jesus."

 

For example, next week, the teacher of the Sunbeams (3 year olds) is given this teaching instruction:

 

•Which person is Jesus’ mother?

•What is her name? (See Luke 1:27.)

•Who is the man in the picture? (See Luke 1:27.)

•Who is Jesus’ father? (Heavenly Father. Joseph was a good man chosen by Heavenly Father to take care of Mary and Jesus.)

 

 

While one can argue this is simplicity for the sake of young children - adults in the church don't seem to grow out of this.

 

Here's why it's personal:

 

It looks very likely that in about two weeks, I will have a child placed into our home through adoption. Following that placement, and especially following finalization, that child will be, in all matters, legal, emotional, and covenantally, spiritually and eternally (especially following the sealing), our child. I will be his father. While not biological, it will be literally true and not just in a metaphorical sense, that I will be that child's father. In the exact same capacity that Joseph of Nazareth was the father of Jesus.

 

Joseph of Nazareth was the guiding male figure in his child's life. He worked to support him. He loved him. He cared for him, and taught him, and educated him. He guided his early sense of religious devotion. He, with his wife Mary, raised him in every sense that any family raises their children (which are also, essentially and truly children of God).

 

Because of the many ways in which Jesus in understood to be the Son of God in scripture (the moment of this declaration kept getting pushed backwards in time - it was because of his Resurrection by Paul, by acceptance and Adoption at Baptism by Mark, by his mortal conception by Matthew and Luke, and by his premortal nature by John [ note that the term only-begotten son is only used in a pre-mortal context in the scriptures], I feel Joseph, the man selected to be the de-facto adoptive father of the Savior of the World isn't given the honor he deserves in our tradition by the very fact that we often refuse to call him by the role he was directed and called by an Angel to serve as: the Father of the Messiah. He was Jesus' daddy. The fact that he apparently didn't provide Jesus' y-chromosome or other genetic material doesn't make him any less Jesus' daddy.

 

I would like to suggest this is taken into consideration next year especially when nativity scenes are set up, and the role of Joseph of Nazareth is noted. Don't be ashamed or afraid you are committing blasphemy by noting that in the scriptures, Joseph was in every practical way, at least as defined in the Family Proclamation, Jesus' Daddy.

Edited January 22, 2014 by David T

[The Nehor]

At the risk of being rude are you sure you are not projecting?

[CV75]

Joseph was in every practical way, at least as defined in the Family Proclamation, Jesus' Daddy.

I think Luke 2 makes that pretty clear (verses, 48, 51). Mary actually called him Jesus' father, and Jesus was subject to both Joseph and Mary in every practical way (verses 49 and 50 are not very practical since they didn't udnerstand what He meant).

[David T]

I think Luke 2 makes that pretty clear (verses, 48, 51). Mary actually called him Jesus' father, and Jesus was subject to both Joseph and Mary in every practical way (verses 49 and 50 are not very practical since they didn't udnerstand what He meant).

 

I agree. Which is why the previlence of circumlocutions to avoid saying Joseph was Jesus' father is annoying. Back during Christmas season, I had a Priest-age youth give me a funny look when he saw my 3-year-old daughter playing with Mary and Joseph figures, and happily declaring that they loved Jesus, and were Jesus' mommy and daddy. "Umm," the Priest awkwardly interjected, "she knows he's not Jesus' actual daddy, right?" - it's not the first time I've seen such an (over)reaction. It really appears to be felt that Joseph's role of father needs to be downplayed. I think that's silly.

 

Another pet peeve is that Mormons (as suggested its use by GAs and Manuals) also tend to use the word "literally" as a knowing euphemism for "biologically". And that doesn't always work.

[bluebell]

I agree. Which is why the previlence of circumlocutions to avoid saying Joseph was Jesus' father is annoying. Back during Christmas season, I had a Priest-age youth give me a funny look when he saw my 3-year-old daughter playing with Mary and Joseph figures, and happily declaring that they loved Jesus, and were Jesus' mommy and daddy. "Umm," the Priest awkwardly interjected, "she knows he's not Jesus' actual daddy, right?" - it's not the first time I've seen such an (over)reaction. It really appears to be felt that Joseph's role of father needs to be downplayed. I think that's silly.

 

Another pet peeve is that Mormons (as suggested its use by GAs and Manuals) also tend to use the word "literally" as a knowing euphemism for "biologically". And that doesn't always work.

I've kind of got to agree with Nehor here, in that I think you are taking this much to personally. 

 

I have an adopted father who couldn't by more my dad if it was possible to try, so I completely understand the idea of adoptive fathers being in every aspect a 'real' father.

 

However, Joseph is not like every other adopted father.  He's not like you, and he's not like my dad either.  His role was to help raise the Son of God.  A mortal man can completely take over that job of father from another mortal man.  A mortal man could never replace deity though.  God did not give up His rights as father as other men do when they're children are adopted.  And He played a very active role in Jesus' life, unlike biological fathers who's children are adopted by another man. 

 

It is supposed to be understood that God was Jesus' father, and that needs to be understood as it is the main aspect of the Gospel (as most Christians view it anyway).

 

Jesus' paternity is important, so it is emphasized, as it should be.  That does not denigrate Joseph.  Given all of that, I don't understand what good would come from a church wide push to downplay Jesus being the Son of God in favor of Jesus being the son of Joseph.

 

However, on a personal level, I think Joseph can be a great example and role model for men who have adopted children and if a father wanted to use him as a teaching tool with his own children when discussing adoption, i think that is a great idea.

[David T]

However, Joseph is not like every other adopted father.  He's not like you, and he's not like my dad either.  His role was to help raise the Son of God.

 

My daughter, and my son, will both sing, "I am a child of God, and He has sent me here. Has given me an earthly home, with parents kind and dear." I am helping to raise a daughter of God, and am about to assist in helping to raise a son of God.

 

 

 

A mortal man can completely take over that job of father from another mortal man.  A mortal man could never replace deity though.

 

I believe our Heavenly Father is present in seeking to inspire and guide, and speak to through personal revelation the raising of all of his children. 

 

 

 

God did not give up His rights as father as other men do when they're children are adopted.  And He played a very active role in Jesus' life, unlike biological fathers who's children are adopted by another man.

 

I don't see how Heavenly Father's role in Jesus' life is any different than that in the life of any of his other children being guided by earthly parent in mortality. It's only Heavenly Mother who we're not allowed to talk to, or apparently know anything about.

 

 

It is supposed to be understood that God was Jesus' father, and that needs to be understood as it is the main aspect of the Gospel (as most Christians view it anyway).Jesus' paternity is important, so it is emphasized, as it should be.

 

I think I disagree that the biological fatherhood of Jesus is "the main aspect of the Gospel", as only two gospel writers note it (connecting it to an out-of-context verse in Isaiah for support), and in prologues that aren't ever mentioned again in the rest of their gospels - or any other scripture. It is the divinity of the premortal Christ, and his Eternal role in saving us, that the God of Israel chose (as we all did) to be incarnated as one of us is a key message of the Gospel. Not the idea of the birth of a genetically half-mortal/half-god.

 

 

 

That does not denigrate Joseph.  Given all of that, I don't understand what good would come from a church wide push to downplay Jesus being the Son of God in favor of Jesus being the son of Joseph.

 

That's a dichotomy I don't think needs to exist. In my examples (such as the primary manual), what was happening was the explicit downplaying of Joseph's role.

 

I've just found it sad that of all the scriptural meanings given to Jesus' sonship:

1. A sign of his Resurrection (Paul)

2. A sign of his adoption/kingship at Baptism (Mark)

3. A sign of his premortal deity (John, Moses, Doctrine and Covenants)

4. A sign of his condescension to mortality (Book of Mormon)

5. A sign of his unique birth circumstances (Matthew and Luke)

 

I actually find the one we talk about and emphasize the most (#5) the least significant when it comes to the mission and ministry and salvation of Christ, and the one least applicable and relatable. [ Note that the term "Only begotten after the manner of the flesh" is not a scriptural term. It entered use as an attempt to explain and combine the preeminent premortal title of "Only Begotten" with the latter idea that each and every one of us are begotten spirit Sons or Daughters of God)]

 

Now I completely hold it as possible that all 5 are true. I simply do not see #5 as having any major (or pre-eminent) significance to me as part of the message of the Gospel.

 

Jesus could save us because of his premortal divinity, and his complete and unwavering devotion and obedience to God in mortality. Even in mortality, He places his flesh firmly in subjection to his divine spiritual strength. (as per Abinadi's declaration). I don't worship Jesus because he was a demigod, I worship him because he was our God in the flesh, and showed us all our potential, giving us a model we can and should follow, all the while relying on his strength.

 

 

However, on a personal level, I think Joseph can be a great example and role model for men who have adopted children and if a father wanted to use him as a teaching tool with his own children when discussing adoption, i think that is a great idea.

 

I would love to see this done more in the Church. Especially since the Church does indeed highly emphasize the importance of Adoption.

Edited January 22, 2014 by David T

[strappinglad]

We have little if any mention of Joseph after the temple episode when Jesus was about 12. It is apparent the Joseph was not in the picture at the time of the crucifixion .If someone here has a source that speaks of Joseph during Christ's older life , please link to it.

It was said that Christ was referred to as the carpenter's son. Joseph might have been as much as 20 years older than Mary, and if so , would have been near 70 at the crucifixion if still alive. I wonder if Joseph was airbrushed from the scriptures so as to increase the figure of Mary to veneration.

Edited January 22, 2014 by strappinglad

[oremites]

 

Another pet peeve is that Mormons (as suggested its use by GAs and Manuals) also tend to use the word "literally" as a knowing euphemism for "biologically". And that doesn't always work.

 

I agree that Joseph is given a short shrift in the story of Christ's life.  Unfortunately, we have very little information about him and what role he played (which I don't doubt was as significant as any other father's).

 

I don't think anyone, even subconsciously, uses Joseph to somehow give adoptive fathers less than their due.  Don't take it so personally.

 

One of my pet peeves is people suggesting that "literally" is simply a knowing euphemism for "biologically".  It goes way beyond that. 

[bluebell]

My daughter, and my son, will both sing, "I am a child of God, and He has sent me here. Has given me an earthly home, with parents kind and dear." I am helping to raise a daughter of God, and am about to assist in helping to raise a son of God.

 

 But you know that we don't equate ourselves as children of God, with Christ, as the Son of God.  We (you, me, your children, etc...) have two mortal parents.  Christ only had one.  You as an adopted father are not the same kind of adopted father that Joseph was.  That doesn't lessen your role, or his.

 

 

 

I believe our Heavenly Father is present in seeking to inspire and guide, and speak to through personal revelation the raising of all of his children. 

 

 

I don't see how Heavenly Father's role in Jesus' life is any different than that in the life of any of his other children being guided by earthly parent in mortality. It's only Heavenly Mother who we're not allowed to talk to, or apparently know anything about.

 

I think I disagree that the biological fatherhood of Jesus is "the main aspect of the Gospel", as only two gospel writers note it (connecting it to an out-of-context verse in Isaiah for support), and in prologues that aren't ever mentioned again in the rest of their gospels - or any other scripture. It is the divinity of the premortal Christ, and his Eternal role in saving us, that the God of Israel chose (as we all did) to be incarnated as one of us is a key message of the Gospel. Not the idea of the birth of a genetically half-mortal/half-god.

 

I realize this is your belief, and it's probably also another reason that you are struggling with this.  You have a belief about Jesus' paternity that does not agree with the doctrine of the church.  Given that, it makes sense that you disagree with Joseph's role in history as well.

 

That's a dichotomy I don't think needs to exist. In my examples (such as the primary manual), what was happening was the explicit downplaying of Joseph's role.

 

 

As it should have been.  If the doctrine of the church is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh and the biological Son of God, then there is every reason to focus on Heavenly Father as Jesus' father, and no reason at all to focus on Joseph's role.  

 

I've just found it sad that of all the scriptural meanings given to Jesus' sonship:

1. A sign of his Resurrection (Paul)

2. A sign of his adoption/kingship at Baptism (Mark)

3. A sign of his premortal deity (John, Moses, Doctrine and Covenants)

4. A sign of his condescension to mortality (Book of Mormon)

5. A sign of his unique birth circumstances (Matthew and Luke)

 

I actually find the one we talk about and emphasize the most (#5) the least significant when it comes to the mission and ministry and salvation of Christ, and the one least applicable and relatable. [ Note that the term "Only begotten after the manner of the flesh" is not a scriptural term. It entered use as an attempt to explain and combine the preeminent premortal title of "Only Begotten" with the latter idea that each and every one of us are begotten spirit Sons or Daughters of God)]

 

Now I completely hold it as possible that all 5 are true. I simply do not see #5 as having any major (or pre-eminent) significance to me as part of the message of the Gospel.

 

 That's fine (I couldn't disagree more, but that's between you and God and has nothing to do with me), but it still doesn't have much to do with Joseph.  What would the church gain spiritually by focusing more on him?

 

Jesus could save us because of his premortal divinity, and his complete and unwavering devotion and obedience to God in mortality. Even in mortality, He places his flesh firmly in subjection to his divine spiritual strength. (as per Abinadi's declaration). I don't worship Jesus because he was a demigod, I worship him because he was our God in the flesh, and showed us all our potential, giving us a model we can and should follow, all the while relying on his strength.

 

 

Again, that's fine.  It disagrees with the doctrine of the church, but it's your belief.  However, it doesn't have a thing to do with a need to focus more on Joseph.

 

Is there a doctrinal reason to focus more on him? 

[Senator]

 

   You have a belief about Jesus' paternity that does not agree with the doctrine of the church.  

 

What then is the doctrine of the church on this matter?

[David T]

My daughter, and my son, will both sing, "I am a child of God, and He has sent me here. Has given me an earthly home, with parents kind and dear." I am helping to raise a daughter of God, and am about to assist in helping to raise a son of God.I believe our Heavenly Father is present in seeking to inspire and guide, and speak to through personal revelation the raising of all of his children. 

 But you know that we don't equate ourselves as children of God, with Christ, as the Son of God.  

I don't equate us in terms of our individual salvific missions. I recognize his unique pre-mortal role, and his atoning and example-setting role in mortality. I do equate us in terms of being children of God, 'joint heirs with Christ'. I don't feel the need to qualify the statement, "I am a son of God" by saying, "Well, you know, not like JESUS is the son of God."

 

We (you, me, your children, etc...) have two mortal parents.  Christ only had one.  You as an adopted father are not the same kind of adopted father that Joseph was.  That doesn't lessen your role, or his.

So explain to me how Joseph's role is practically different? What was he asked or required to do with the son of God under his stewardship that we are not also asked to do with the children of God under our stewardship? I really don't understand this perspective, and am truly interested in your thoughts. My mind is not above being changed! 

[bluebell]

What then is the doctrine of the church on this matter?

 

That Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh.

[bluebell]

I don't equate us in terms of our individual salvific missions. I recognize his unique pre-mortal role, and his atoning and example-setting role in mortality. I do equate us in terms of being children of God, 'joint heirs with Christ'. I don't feel the need to qualify the statement, "I am a son of God" by saying, "Well, you know, not like JESUS is the son of God."

 

 

 

So explain to me how Joseph's role is practically different? What was he asked or required to do with the son of God under his stewardship that we are not also asked to do with the children of God under our stewardship? I really don't understand this perspective, and am truly interested in your thoughts. My mind is not above being changed! 

 

I've got dinner guests coming in two hours and am on my way to walmart to get a few last minute things.  I promise to return to this by tomorrow.  

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Some days I go the Jose Saramago route and think of Joseph as the "literal" ("biological", "chromosomal") daddy of that Virgo (born of a Celestial "Virgin") Jesus. Kinda reverses things - adoptive parents aren't emulating Joseph, they're emulating the role of our Heavenly Parents. Hindus can all call Gandhi Bapu, Papa, even if they're not his "literal" children.

 

Edit: I just reread this post and realized it might come off as doing exactly what the OP was talking about - to be clear, I too have been similarly dismayed at the tendency to downplay Joseph's role. 

Edited January 23, 2014 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Senator]

That Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh.

 

Meaning??

 

[Of course you know where I'm going with this....]

[Coreyb]

There's a point where I think many Christians - and LDS in particular - tend to unintentionally denigrate the roles of adoptive fathers. Because there such a strong cultural and theological push to emphasize that Jesus was the Son of God, the role of Joseph - who acted and cared for Jesus as his father since before Mary gave birth according to the infancy narratives - is almost never acknowledged to be a father.

 

"That's Mary, Jesus' Mommy, and her husband Joseph."

"That's Mary, Jesus' Mother, and a good man who took care of Jesus."

 

For example, next week, the teacher of the Sunbeams (3 year olds) is given this teaching instruction:

 

 

While one can argue this is simplicity for the sake of young children - adults in the church don't seem to grow out of this.

 

Here's why it's personal:

 

It looks very likely that in about two weeks, I will have a child placed into our home through adoption. Following that placement, and especially following finalization, that child will be, in all matters, legal, emotional, and covenantally, spiritually and eternally (especially following the sealing), our child. I will be his father. While not biological, it will be literally true and not just in a metaphorical sense, that I will be that child's father. In the exact same capacity that Joseph of Nazareth was the father of Jesus.

 

Joseph of Nazareth was the guiding male figure in his child's life. He worked to support him. He loved him. He cared for him, and taught him, and educated him. He guided his early sense of religious devotion. He, with his wife Mary, raised him in every sense that any family raises their children (which are also, essentially and truly children of God).

 

Because of the many ways in which Jesus in understood to be the Son of God in scripture (the moment of this declaration kept getting pushed backwards in time - it was because of his Resurrection by Paul, by acceptance and Adoption at Baptism by Mark, by his mortal conception by Matthew and Luke, and by his premortal nature by John [ note that the term only-begotten son is only used in a pre-mortal context in the scriptures], I feel Joseph, the man selected to be the de-facto adoptive father of the Savior of the World isn't given the honor he deserves in our tradition by the very fact that we often refuse to call him by the role he was directed and called by an Angel to serve as: the Father of the Messiah. He was Jesus' daddy. The fact that he apparently didn't provide Jesus' y-chromosome or other genetic material doesn't make him any less Jesus' daddy.

 

I would like to suggest this is taken into consideration next year especially when nativity scenes are set up, and the role of Joseph of Nazareth is noted. Don't be ashamed or afraid you are committing blasphemy by noting that in the scriptures, Joseph was in every practical way, at least as defined in the Family Proclamation, Jesus' Daddy.

I think it is Jesus who sets the precedent by so often referring to his Father in Heaven as being his Father. Maybe Joseph had died and he was referring to Joseph in heaven.   But that doesn't explain the Temple episode where Joseph was still alive. I am joking, but seriously, I believe Joseph was a really great man.

[rpn]

Your primary probably sings the following during Christmas time each year (we sing it at our family celebration too).

1. 1. When Joseph went to Bethlehem, I think he took great care
   To place his tools and close his shop and leave no shavings there.
   He urged the donkey forward then, with Mary on its back,
   And carried bread and goat cheese in a little linen sack.
2. 2. I think there at the busy inn that he was meek and mild
   And awed to be the guardian of Mary's sacred child.
   Perhaps all through the chilly hours he smoothed the swaddling bands,
   And Jesus felt the quiet strength of Joseph's gentle hands.
3. 3. And close beside the manger bed, he dimmed the lantern's light
   And held the little Jesus close upon that holy night.
4. Words: Bessie Saunders Spencer, 1898-1989. © 1960 IRI.
   Music: I. Reed Payne, 1930-2009. © 1977 IRI

 

This sunbeam lesson notwithstanding I think children are taught about Joseph's role.   And you are quite right that often the primary has a whole group of stepfathers so kids fully understand the position Joseph was in.

[bluebell]

Meaning??

 

[Of course you know where I'm going with this....]

 

Meaning that God the Father is the biological father of Jesus' mortal body.

[bluebell]

I don't equate us in terms of our individual salvific missions. I recognize his unique pre-mortal role, and his atoning and example-setting role in mortality. I do equate us in terms of being children of God, 'joint heirs with Christ'. I don't feel the need to qualify the statement, "I am a son of God" by saying, "Well, you know, not like JESUS is the son of God."

 

 Ok.  The scriptures do make that distinction though, every time they describe Jesus as the 'Only Begotten Son of God'. When i said that 'we' don't view being a child of God as the same as being the only begotten Son of God, i meant 'we' as in members of the church (in general).  

 

 So explain to me how Joseph's role is practically different? What was he asked or required to do with the son of God under his stewardship that we are not also asked to do with the children of God under our stewardship? I really don't understand this perspective, and am truly interested in your thoughts. My mind is not above being changed!

 

 

My first thoughts on this are that we know that the only way an adopted father becomes the eternal father of a child is through the sealing power.  When a child is sealed to someone, it is as if that child was born to that person.  That is not a promise that extends to temporal adoptions-the laws of the land have no sway in Heaven, and the church's teachings on adoption largely focus, if not completely focus, on the need and importance of this sealing.  

 

The scriptures are clear in that it is possible for a man to have stewardship over a child and raise that child, and not be considered the father of that child.  The law of Moses had provisions for that, where men were expected to raise seed for a relative who had died. That specifically concerns a biological child but it supports the idea that the spiritual law of adoption does not hinge on a man simply raising a child.  The powers of Heaven must be evoked, or laws of Heaven must be utilized for the process (for lack of a better term) to be complete.

 

And this is one of the huge ways that our stewardship over adopted children differs than Joseph's with Jesus.  When we adopt children, we plan on having them sealed to us.  In fact, it is the teaching of the church that that is one of the reasons such children should be adopted-so they can be sealed to their parents.  These adopted children are not just given to us to have stewardship over while on the earth, we are expected to seal them to us and have them for eternity as well.

 

We have no teaching that Joseph will ever be sealed to Jesus.  There is no teaching that Joseph 'adopted' Jesus, or will adopt Him when it is possible to do so.  There is no scriptural support for the idea that Jesus will be a part of Joseph's lineage in the eternities.  Everything we have points to Joseph being given stewardship over Jesus during His mortal life and that is it.  

 

 

This leaves me wondering, is there any doctrinal support for the idea that Joseph is the father of Jesus in the same way that you will be the father of the child you adopt, or my father is to me?  I don't believe there is any.

 

My second thoughts mirror what Coreyb said.  If we are denigrating Joseph by not focusing more on his fatherhood of Jesus, then Jesus Himself has also denigrated him.  But I don't believe that He has, and I don't believe that following the Savior's example in how we speak of (and who we speak of) Jesus' Father denigrates him either.

 

[CV75]

I agree. Which is why the previlence of circumlocutions to avoid saying Joseph was Jesus' father is annoying. Back during Christmas season, I had a Priest-age youth give me a funny look when he saw my 3-year-old daughter playing with Mary and Joseph figures, and happily declaring that they loved Jesus, and were Jesus' mommy and daddy. "Umm," the Priest awkwardly interjected, "she knows he's not Jesus' actual daddy, right?" - it's not the first time I've seen such an (over)reaction. It really appears to be felt that Joseph's role of father needs to be downplayed. I think that's silly.

 

Another pet peeve is that Mormons (as suggested its use by GAs and Manuals) also tend to use the word "literally" as a knowing euphemism for "biologically". And that doesn't always work.

Since you see an issue with adults not growing out of a childlike simplicity, I think some adults continue to view Jesus as unique from all others ever born into the Earth, and that this uniqueness was essential for completing His mission. I think at least half of what Jesus accomplished that we could never have was by virtue of what He inherited in mortality from His Father. For example, I think that while the rest of us bring our pre-mortal strengths with us by virtue of our mortal parentage, Jesus’ pre-mortal strengths were unique and could only be brought into mortality by a Father. In His adult life, Jesus continuously references His Father, so recognizing Heavenly Father as Jesus’ Sire provides some continuity to the narrative, constancy in their relationship, and some poignancy to the last moments of Jesus’ life.

I can also see from Luke 2:49-50 how His Father was as involved in His formative years as his father Joseph was, and perhaps more if you include the miracles of prophecy of His mission and the miracles of His conception and birth, protection, warnings, dreams to relocate to Egypt, etc..

None of this downplays Joseph’s role, and being as well-rewarded as he must be, I don’t think he would object to getting as little mention as he does in comparison to the Father.

Also, theologially speaking, I think that "literal" and "figurative" are equally important, each in their own sphere, and especially where a principle of is both literal and figurative.

[David T]

Ok.  The scriptures do make that distinction though, every time they describe Jesus as the 'Only Begotten Son of God'. When i said that 'we' don't view being a child of God as the same as being the only begotten Son of God, i meant 'we' as in members of the church (in general).  

 

The context of scripture is important here - note what we've been given in context with the revelation that we are all children of God. The revelation of Jesus as the Son of God was a MAJOR step forward in the revelation to the world that we are ALL children of God. I believe this was a key aspect of the revelation of Christ. The declaration of Jesus as the unique Son of God was a big deal, and, as I noted before in the New Testament, this BIG DEAL appeared to have to be led up to, 'line upon line'. His sonship is first noted as being at his Resurrection by Paul ("Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" - Romans 1:3-4), then at his Baptism by Mark (Mark 1:10-11), then at his birth by Mark and Luke, and then, ultimately, by John, at his Premortality, which is where the term "Only Begotten" is introduced. Please note that 'Only Begotten' is only used in the scriptures in the context of his pre-mortal pre-eminence and status, and is never connected with his birth.

 

• We first see it in John, which makes no reference to Jesus' birth and childhood.

• The revelations of the Restoration continued with the line-upon-line usage. In the Visions of Moses, man is declared to be created in the image of "Mine only begotten", as is Moses, "in the similitude of mine Only Begotten".  Satan at that moment, even claims to be the "Only Begotten." - this is a key modern revelation by Joseph Smith of man being a son of God, like unto Jesus the Son of God. - it is at this point where Moses is even called, "my son". 

• The JST of John 1, on the premortality of Christ as the agent of creation and the word/logos, brings in his nature as  the glory as "of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 
• D&C 76 notes that "And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son."

We saw hints of the lack of exclusivity in the exclusive term when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews is trying to make a connection with the story of Abraham, and refers to Isaac, the branch from where the covenant would flow,  as Abraham's "Only begotten" - ( "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten - Hebrews 11:17) - if this is a reference just to the only biological seed, then we're clearly leaving out Ishmael!.

 

Go ahead - do a search on scriptures.lds.org - the phrase "Only Begotten Son" is only ever used in reference to Jesus in the scriptures to present his eternal and premortal pre-eminence and glory and divinity. It is never used in connection with his conception and mortal birth.

 

I believe the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was the beginning of the grand revelation to the world that we are all in a very real and eternal sense, beloved children of God, part of a single divine family.

 

(I also find it interesting that there are proponents of the "Only Begotten Son of God after the manner of the flesh" who also claim that Adam's body was also biologically sired by The Father, but it doesn't count , they say, as being 'after the manner of the flesh', because 'flesh' is redefined as meaning 'mortality', and since, goes the argument, Adam was born as an immortal, it wouldn't have been 'after the manner of the flesh' - allowing God to be the biological father of two men's earth bodies, but only one being technically 'after the manner of the flesh'! I know, right?!)

 

Make no doubt about it, the role of Christ as a unique Son of God is important, and key. I do not deny that, nor do I reject the possibility that Jesus did get his male DNA from an Exalted Celestial Father, and was therefore a genetic demigod. But I'm honestly not convinced, or even motivated to be convicted of this. I see no theological necessity or purpose to it. I see the direction of scripture, when taken as a whole, points swiftly beyond and past the two stand-alone infancy narratives as the gospel-centric importance of the meaning of the declaration of Jesus being the divine son and savior of the world, and what that means for the Heavenly Family.

 

I think when we focus on that one version of the story and explanation, we're focusing on a bump along the way to the fuller revelation of what Divine Parentage truly means, and the true importance of Christ as our family representative, savior, and example.

Edited January 23, 2014 by David T

[bluebell]

The context of scripture is important here - note what we've been given in context with the revelation that we are all children of God. The revelation of Jesus as the Son of God was a MAJOR step forward in the revelation to the world that we are ALL children of God. I believe this was a key aspect of the revelation of Christ. The declaration of Jesus as the unique Son of God was a big deal, and, as I noted before in the New Testament, this BIG DEAL appeared to have to be led up to, 'line upon line'. His sonship is first noted as being at his Resurrection by Paul ("Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" - Romans 1:3-4), then at his Baptism by Mark (Mark 1:10-11), then at his birth by Mark and Luke, and then, ultimately, by John, at his Premortality, which is where the term "Only Begotten" is introduced. Please note that 'Only Begotten' is only used in the scriptures in the context of his pre-mortal pre-eminence and status, and is never connected with his birth.

 

• We first see it in John, which makes no reference to Jesus' birth and childhood.

• The revelations of the Restoration continued with the line-upon-line usage. In the Visions of Moses, man is declared to be created in the image of "Mine only begotten", as is Moses, "in the similitude of mine Only Begotten".  Satan at that moment, even claims to be the "Only Begotten." - this is a key modern revelation by Joseph Smith of man being a son of God, like unto Jesus the Son of God. - it is at this point where Moses is even called, "my son". 

• The JST of John 1, on the premortality of Christ as the agent of creation and the word/logos, brings in his nature as  the glory as "of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 
• D&C 76 notes that "And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son."

We saw hints of the lack of exclusivity in the exclusive term when the author of the Letter to the Hebrews is trying to make a connection with the story of Abraham, and refers to Isaac, the branch from where the covenant would flow,  as Abraham's "Only begotten" - ( "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten - Hebrews 11:17) - if this is a reference just to the only biological seed, then we're clearly leaving out Ishmael!.

 

Go ahead - do a search on scriptures.lds.org - the phrase "Only Begotten Son" is only ever used in reference to Jesus in the scriptures to present his eternal and premortal pre-eminence and glory and divinity. It is never used in connection with his conception and mortal birth.

 

I believe the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was the beginning of the grand revelation to the world that we are all in a very real and eternal sense, beloved children of God, part of a single divine family.

 

(I also find it interesting that there are proponents of the "Only Begotten Son of God after the manner of the flesh" who also claim that Adam's body was also biologically sired by The Father, but it doesn't count , they say, as being 'after the manner of the flesh', because 'flesh' is redefined as meaning 'mortality', and since, goes the argument, Adam was born as an immortal, it wouldn't have been 'after the manner of the flesh')

 

Make no doubt about it, the role of Christ as a unique Son of God is important, and key. But the direction of scripture, when taken as a whole, points swiftly beyond and past the two stand-alone infancy narratives as the gospel-centric importance of the meaning of the declaration of Jesus being the divine savior of the world, and what that means for the Heavenly Family.

 

I think when we focus on that one story and explanation, we're focusing on a bump along the way to the fuller revelation of what Divine Parentage truly means, and the true importance of Christ as our family representative, savior, and example.

 

I get that you believe this David, and like i said before, that's fine.  I'm really don't want to debate it with you as we've done this before on previous threads.  You have an unique interpretation of scripture and since it has nothing to do with me, i don't have a problem with it.  

 

As to the OP though, your belief on it disagrees with the doctrines of the church on the subject.  That is important to this conversation as far as we are talking about how the church teaches about Joseph, and what they focus on in regards to Jesus' paternity.

 

The church's teachings on Joseph are logical and valid given it's doctrine on who Christ's biological father is.  In your belief system, it might make sense to focus more on Joseph, but since your belief system (on this issue) and the church's are opposed (in that they are contradictory in nature), it makes little sense to want the church to change it's teachings because they don't square with your beliefs on the subject.

[David T]

I think you missed my edited addendum, so I'll remove it from the above post, and make it its own here:

--

 

And of course, this is the underlying annoyance in Joseph having his role downplayed. In all of this, I still always assume that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. I want to make that clear.

 

I also wasn't asking for more curriculum or lessons based on Joseph, just not, in those small ones in which he is mentioned, taking away the significance of they key role he did play, the title of the role that sets himself as a wonderful example of what we try to teach in the Family: A Proclamation to the World. In the eyes of the Church, "Father" is the most important title a mortal can have in an eternal context. I dislike seeing that title removed from a righteous mortal like Joseph who did indeed fill that role to the most important child in the history of the world in the name of giving one more reason to call God the Father (there are already so many reasons we rightfully call him that!) - it sort of reminds me of Nathan's parable of the poor man who had a ewe lamb that was then taken away by the King, who already had many. In this case, it isn't the king himself taking away the ewe lamb, it's church members in a well meaning attempt to do what they think will greater magnify and please the King.

 

I am not asking the doctrine of the Church to be revised on this matter. Just in an adjustment in the sensitivity in which THE scriptural example of an adoptive father is represented by members. I will actually likely write a letter to the curriculum department on this, addressing only the topic matter, and not going into divisions of doctrine - not my place! *grin*

 

And yes, it also comes from the personal cultural annoyance of seeing adoptive fathers often not being considered as someone's 'real' father. Just try separating scriptural questions and seeking from personal experiences 

Edited January 23, 2014 by David T

[bluebell]

I think you missed my edited addendum, so I'll remove it from the above post, and make it its own here:

--

 

And of course, this is the underlying annoyance in Joseph having his role downplayed. In all of this, I still always assume that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. I want to make that clear.

 

I also wasn't asking for more curriculum or lessons based on Joseph, just not, in those small ones in which he is mentioned, taking away the significance of they key role he did play, the title of the role that sets himself as a wonderful example of what we try to teach in the Family: A Proclamation to the World. In the eyes of the Church, "Father" is the most important title a mortal can have in an eternal context. I dislike seeing that title removed from a righteous mortal like Joseph who did indeed fill that role to the most important child in the history of the world in the name of giving one more reason to call God the Father (there are already so many reasons we rightfully call him that!) - it sort of reminds me of Nathan's parable of the poor man who had a ewe lamb that was then taken away by the King, who already had many. In this case, it isn't the king himself taking away the ewe lamb, it's church members in a well meaning attempt to do what they think will greater magnify and please the King.

 

I am not asking the doctrine of the Church to be revised on this matter. Just in an adjustment in the sensitivity in which THE scriptural example of an adoptive father is represented by members. I will actually likely write a letter to the curriculum department on this, addressing only the topic matter, and not going into divisions of doctrine - not my place! *grin*

 

And yes, it also comes from the personal cultural annoyance of seeing adoptive fathers often not being considered as someone's 'real' father. Just try separating scriptural questions and seeking from personal experiences 

 

Got it.  

 

Being adopted by my father, I have never run into the idea that adopted fathers are not 'real' fathers.  

 

I also have a sister who is adopted (while i am my mother's biological child, she is neither of my parents' biological child).  This sister went thru some very difficult years growing up and also has a daughter who is not the biological daughter of her husband, though he has been there since she was born.  

 

I have had some experience with adopted fathers, and it has not ever been my experience to have adopted fathers not seen as 'real' fathers.  Perhaps that is why this kind of thing doesn't bother me at all.