marineland Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/manual/institute/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual_eng-new.pdf 30 – "The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman" (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 155). How did Heavenly Father condescend to become a literal parent? Thanks Tony
Ahab Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, marineland said: This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/manual/institute/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual_eng-new.pdf 30 – "The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman" (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 155). How did Heavenly Father condescend to become a literal parent? Thanks Tony What part of that did you not understand? We consider mortality as a step below the position an exalted, perfected, glorified person/personage has reached in terms of progression, so when our Father (an exalted, perfected, glorified personage/person) condescended to produce a mortal child with a mortal woman he was putting himself or part of himself (the part of him that made him the literal Father of Jesus) into that lower level mortal life form to do that. Jesus, too, who had earlier been immortal while he was living in heaven, took a step down to become mortal, going from being fully immortal to becoming only part immortal and part mortal. That should suffice for a basic explanation. If you have any more questions about that just ask our Father in heaven.
pogi Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: Father (an exalted, perfected, glorified personage/person) condescended to produce a mortal child with a mortal woman he was putting himself or part of himself (the part of him that made him the literal Father of Jesus) into that lower level mortal life form to do that. Jesus, too, who had earlier been immortal while he was living in heaven, took a step down to become mortal, going from being fully immortal to becoming only part immortal and part mortal. You mean his penis? Let’s not beat around the bush here, because that is what some LDS claim. Or do you mean his semen or DNA, or something else? You’re not being very clear. Are you suggesting that Mary was not really a virgin? Edited February 5, 2020 by pogi 1
churchistrue Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 53 minutes ago, marineland said: This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/manual/institute/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual_eng-new.pdf 30 – "The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman" (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 155). How did Heavenly Father condescend to become a literal parent? Thanks Tony I've never heard that taught that way, and it doesn't really make sense to me. Condescension of God would always be in reference to the Son, unless you mean an appearance like the First Vision possibly.
Calm Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 It makes more sense if you read the whole section: Quote Nephi saw the condescension of God Tell students that we read in the Book of Mormon that Nephi saw a vision wherein he learned about the parentage of Jesus Christ. We can learn additional truths from his vision. Invite a few students to take turns reading aloud from 1 Nephi 11:13–21. Ask the rest of the class to follow along and identify important doctrines taught in this passage. Explain that, in this context, the word condescend means to descend from a higher to a lower state or condition or to assume a lesser status. • Who did Nephi learn would be the parents of Jesus Christ? (Students should identify the following doctrine: God, the Eternal Father, and Mary are the parents of the mortal Jesus Christ.) • As you consider the lessons in this course so far, why would the birth of Jesus Christ be considered part of His condescension? Display the following statement by Brother Tad R. Callister, Sunday School general president, and ask a student to read it aloud: God the Son traded his heavenly home with all its celestial adornments for a mortal abode with all its primitive trappings. He, ‘the King of heaven’ (Alma 5:50), ‘the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth’ (Mosiah 3:5), left a throne to inherit a manger. He exchanged the dominion of a god for the dependence of a babe. ... It was a trade of unparalleled dimension. ... The great Jehovah, creator of worlds without number, infinite in virtue and power, made his entry into this world in swaddling clothes and a manger” (The Infinite Atonement [2000], 64). To help students understand how the mortal birth of Jesus Christ was also part of the condescension of God the Father, read aloud the following statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: ”The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 15)” Conclude by asking students what thoughts and feelings they have for the Savior as they consider His condescension and the miraculous nature of His birth. Ask if any of them would like to share their testimony of the Savior as a conclusion to today’s class. Student Readings • Matthew 1:18–24; Luke 1:26–35; John 10:17–18; 1 Nephi 11:13–21; Mosiah 3:7–8. • Robert E. Wells, “Our Message to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 65–66. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 3 hours ago, marineland said: ...........................How did Heavenly Father condescend to become a literal parent?...................... I don't see that as any sort of condescension, but I may be too blase about such things.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: ....................................... Quote To help students understand how the mortal birth of Jesus Christ was also part of the condescension of God the Father, read aloud the following statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: ”The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 15)” The manual misleads by suggesting that this was written by an Apostle. Elder McConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote and published that view. I see no reason to credit the notion that fathering a human son is an example of condescension. The condescension of the Son is a far different matter.
2BizE Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 Since we know the laws of procreation, do we really think Mary got pregnant in any other way than the natural laws of procreation allow? 1
CA Steve Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 4 hours ago, Ahab said: What part of that did you not understand? We consider mortality as a step below the position an exalted, perfected, glorified person/personage has reached in terms of progression, so when our Father (an exalted, perfected, glorified personage/person) condescended to produce a mortal child with a mortal woman he was putting himself or part of himself (the part of him that made him the literal Father of Jesus) into that lower level mortal life form to do that. Jesus, too, who had earlier been immortal while he was living in heaven, took a step down to become mortal, going from being fully immortal to becoming only part immortal and part mortal. That should suffice for a basic explanation. If you have any more questions about that just ask our Father in heaven. I am pretty sure this isn't the type of condescension the OP was asking about. 1
InCognitus Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Calm said: ”The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 15)” Conclude by asking students what thoughts and feelings they have for the Savior as they consider His condescension and the miraculous nature of His birth. Ask if any of them would like to share their testimony of the Savior as a conclusion to today’s class. This gets even more interesting when you read the full article on the Condescension of God from Mormon Doctrine: Quote Condescension of God See GOD, GRACE OF GOD, ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, SALVATION BY GRACE. After asking the question, "Knowest thou the condescension of God" an angel showed Nephi the virgin who was to be "the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." Nephi saw that "she was carried away in, the Spirit for the space of a time," and that she then appeared "bearing a child in her arms, . . . even the Son of the Eternal Father." Then with the exclamation, "Look and behold the condescension of God," the angelic ministrant showed Nephi many of the major incidents in the mortal ministry of the Lamb of God, including the fact that "he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." (1 Ne. 11:13-36.) Thus the condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal offspring born of mortal woman. And the condescension of God (meaning the Son) consists in the fact that though he himself is the Lord Omnipotent, the very Being who created the earth and all things that in it are, yet being born of mortal woman, he submitted to all the trials of mortality, suffering "temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death" (Mosiah 3:5-8), finally being put to death in a most ignominious manner. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.155) McConkie is quoting from 1 Nephi 11, and this is the chapter in the Book of Mormon where three out of four verses were changed, between the 1830 and 1837 editions, by Joseph Smith to add the words "the Son of", to eliminate ambiguous references to Jesus. In the 1830 edition verse 18 read, "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God", and verse 21 read, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!", and verse 32 read, "he was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world". But I think the original reading is relevant to this topic. Here is a portion of the chapter with the insertions noted in square brackets: Quote 16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? 17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. 18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of [the Son of] God, after the manner of the flesh. 19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. 21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even [the Son of] the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? 22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. 23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul. 24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him. 25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God. 26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God! 27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove. 28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them. 29 And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not. 30 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them. 31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out. 32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [the Son of] the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record. 33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world. (1 Nephi 11:16–33) Clearly this chapter is talking about Jesus, who is the Son of God, being born on earth and the events of his mortal ministry and death on the cross and his resurrection. But I think the original wording of the 1830 edition was intentional to teach us how Jesus came into the world to represent his Father, and the works of the Father were done through him. Like it says in John 14:10-11: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." And John 5:19-20: "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." So the condescension of the Father was to send his Son as his representative to do the works of his Father, and he came into the world to redeem his brethren. Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father (which is the gist of Hebrews 1:3). Edited February 5, 2020 by InCognitus 3
InCognitus Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 39 minutes ago, 2BizE said: Since we know the laws of procreation, do we really think Mary got pregnant in any other way than the natural laws of procreation allow? This topic was covered here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72568-a-miraculous-birth/?tab=comments#comment-1209952656 1
CV75 Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, marineland said: This is from Lesson 7 (Religion 250 manual). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/manual/institute/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual_eng-new.pdf 30 – "The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected, glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman" (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 155). How did Heavenly Father condescend to become a literal parent? Thanks Tony Assuming an older definition (Webster 1828): CONDESCENSION, noun Voluntary descent from rank, dignity or just claims; relinquishment of strict right; submission to inferiors in granting requests or performing acts which strict justice does not require. Hence, courtesy. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/condescension RE: the bold part, it has to do with grace. Christ and all that is connected with His redemptive mission is an act of mercy or divine condescension (John 3: 14-18). Edited February 5, 2020 by CV75 1
Ahab Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 17 hours ago, pogi said: You mean his penis? Let’s not beat around the bush here, because that is what some LDS claim. Or do you mean his semen or DNA, or something else? You’re not being very clear. Are you suggesting that Mary was not really a virgin? I was thinking of whatever part or parts of himself he used to fertilize one of Mary's eggs to make her pregnant, and no my mind was not focused on his penis because I don't believe he used that to do it. Just whatever it took for him to be the literal Father of Mary's child, the one we know as Jesus. Whatever it took from him to fertilize one of Mary's eggs, and yes specifically one of her eggs since she was, I believe, the literal Mother of Jesus rather than only a surrogate for another woman's egg which was fertilized by his and our Father in heaven. All that was required for Mary to remain a virgin during that process was for her to have never "known" a man in that intimate way we refer to as "sex". So I think of some type of in vitro fertilization process. I told the person who wrote the OP to ask God about this if he had any more questions but you ignored my counsel and chose to ask me, instead, but I think it would have been better if you had just asked our Father, yourself.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 14 hours ago, CA Steve said: I am pretty sure this isn't the type of condescension the OP was asking about. Any way you can think of how he condescends to our level would apply. I'm amazed he condescends to our level to even talk with us or to do anything for us. That's what parents do though, I suppose. We don't deserve it but they love us anyway.
pogi Posted February 5, 2020 Posted February 5, 2020 14 hours ago, 2BizE said: Since we know the laws of procreation, do we really think Mary got pregnant in any other way than the natural laws of procreation allow? Is it your position that God had sex with Mary (as some believe), or that he used some form of artificial insemination?
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) On 2/4/2020 at 4:46 PM, churchistrue said: I've never heard that taught that way, and it doesn't really make sense to me. Condescension of God would always be in reference to the Son, unless you mean an appearance like the First Vision possibly. He voluntarily gave up transcendence and became immanent so he could interact with his children and organize matter instead of creating ex nihilo.The Son only does what he has seen his father do, so he also was able to come to Earth and interact with God's children. I think we as Spirit Intelligences do something similar when we are given physical bodies. We have come here voluntarily as part of the Plan of Salvation, and accepting the challenge of being led by the savior. Taking on a material body is clearly a condescension from being a spirit intelligence. At least that's the way I see it. I think our doctrine that we all took on bodies necessitates some kind of condescension. It's unavoidable. Edited February 6, 2020 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 There are a lot of weirdos that are way too interested in the specifics of dad’s sex life. Might as well lean into it. How long do you think the foreplay took?
pogi Posted February 6, 2020 Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, The Nehor said: There are a lot of weirdos that are way too interested in the specifics of dad’s sex life. Might as well lean into it. How long do you think the foreplay took? Well, if my dad is having sex with my sister/his daughter, who claims to be a virgin - yeah, I want to know about it! I know all families are a little dysfunctional, but dang! And there are a lot of Latter-day Saints who believe that. Edited February 6, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 34 minutes ago, pogi said: Well, if my dad is having sex with my sister/his daughter, who claims to be a virgin - yeah, I want to know about it! I know all families are a little dysfunctional, but dang! And there are a lot of Latter-day Saints who believe that. Apparently everyone who has ever lived on this planet is a brother or sister, and everyone who has yet to be born here is a brother or sister, too. It's all we've got to work with. No other option. Even if some people act as if there is something wrong with it. So, now you know. Our Father had no choice but to get one of his daughters pregnant to give birth to Jesus because all of the women living here were his daughters. He had no other option. And there was nothing wrong with it. I'm sure he treated her with great respect. Probably best to just not get into this issue very much. 1
pogi Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Apparently everyone who has ever lived on this planet is a brother or sister, and everyone who has yet to be born here is a brother or sister, too. It's all we've got to work with. No other option. Even if some people act as if there is something wrong with it. So, now you know. Our Father had no choice but to get one of his daughters pregnant to give birth to Jesus because all of the women living here were his daughters. He had no other option. And there was nothing wrong with it. I'm sure he treated her with great respect. Probably best to just not get into this issue very much. She was a virgin.
The Nehor Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 18 minutes ago, Ahab said: Apparently everyone who has ever lived on this planet is a brother or sister, and everyone who has yet to be born here is a brother or sister, too. It's all we've got to work with. No other option. Even if some people act as if there is something wrong with it. So, now you know. Our Father had no choice but to get one of his daughters pregnant to give birth to Jesus because all of the women living here were his daughters. He had no other option. And there was nothing wrong with it. I'm sure he treated her with great respect. Probably best to just not get into this issue very much. My comment was meant to shut down the discussion and not to analyze it. We know virtually nothing about this and speculation is unseemly. 1
Ahab Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, pogi said: She was a virgin. She was, wasn't she.
Ahab Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, The Nehor said: My comment was meant to shut down the discussion and not to analyze it. We know virtually nothing about this and speculation is unseemly. I'm not afraid of discovering or sharing knowledge of anything, unless God has told us he doesn't want us to discuss it. When we are trying to learn we just need to try to do so with respect, just as we should when we try to share what we have learned. I'm satisfied with the idea of in vitro fertilization, and I think the main thing we need to realize is that our Father in heaven was/is literally the Father of Jesus, and Mary was/is his Mother in the flesh. We shouldn't hide that fact or make it seem like there is something shameful about that. Edited February 7, 2020 by Ahab
pogi Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 On 2/4/2020 at 9:17 PM, 2BizE said: Since we know the laws of procreation, do we really think Mary got pregnant in any other way than the natural laws of procreation allow? Yet, God seems to defy our understanding of the laws of nature. If Christ can walk on water, turn water into wine, heal the blind with spit and mud, etc. do we really believe that his Father who invested him with these powers could not cause a birth in a way we don’t understand? When did we stop believing in the God of miracles? 2
Ahab Posted February 7, 2020 Posted February 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Yet, God seems to defy our understanding of the laws of nature. If Christ can walk on water, turn water into wine, heal the blind with spit and mud, etc. do we really believe that his Father who invested him with these powers could not cause a birth in a way we don’t understand? When did we stop believing in the God of miracles? May seem like it sometimes, but he doesn't really. The issue is what did it take for one of Mary's eggs to become fertile and what it was from our Father that fertilized her egg. Even if it was something other than what we call sperm, something different because his body is different than ours are now, it must still have been something from our Father that fertilized her egg, just because that's what it takes for us, our kind of being, to be born in mortal flesh.
Recommended Posts