The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[theplains]

On 5/12/2022 at 12:19 PM, teddyaware said:

Another question: The Son of God’s mother could only supply his body with 23 of the 46 chromosomes he needed in order to be fully human,. This being the case, where did the other 23 human chromosomes come from that completed his DNA and made him fully human?

If I were LDS and believed Heavenly Father was a man who became a God, I would speculate that the 23
other human chromosomes came from him. But exactly how this transfer from Heavenly Father occurred,
I do not know. 

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible use the phrase "literal son of God."  You may be thinking of statements by Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith, https://www.mrm.org/jesus-christ-literal .  You need to learn to specify and cite your sources, Jim.  That is the only honest way to approach such issues.  Be up front and frank in expressing your views.    

 

The 900 pound gorilla in the room is that it’s official Latter-Day Saint doctrine that God the Father is a perfected, fully human Man (presumably complete with a perfected male human reproductive system), yet somehow the Father didn’t use his own fully viable and available sacred seed (you know, like the Lord himself testified will occur throughout all eternity in the celestial kingdom [D&C 132]) to sire his Only Begotten son in the flesh? (Begotten, past participle of beget — To produce (offspring) by sexual reproduction. Used especially of a man)

Edited May 24, 2022 by teddyaware

[theplains]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph Fielding Smith published that book in 1936, when he was not LDS President.

Boyd Packer said in a speech (Follow the Rule, Brigham Young University) back in 1977:  "It isn’t a question of who
said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The 900 pound gorilla in the room is that it’s official Latter-Day Saint doctrine that God the Father is a perfected, fully human Man (presumably complete with a perfected male human reproductive system), yet somehow the Father didn’t use his own fully viable and available sacred seed (you know, like the Lord himself testified will occur throughout all eternity in the celestial kingdom [D&C 132]) to sire his Only Begotten son in the flesh. (Begotten, past participle of beget — To produce (offspring) by sexual reproduction. Used especially of a man)

Very entertaining extrapolation, Teddy, but whether all that is "official Latter-day Saint doctrine" is another matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

Boyd Packer said in a speech (Follow the Rule, Brigham Young University) back in 1977:  "It isn’t a question of who
said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

Correct.  However, a lot of things are assumed to be true which are not part of Latter-day Saint doctrine.  I hear people making what I believe to be valid statements all the time, but that does not make them correct doctrine.  Much of it is just opinion which agrees with my own preconceptions.

[Pyreaux]

I always took this "literal' sonship as a response to the Trinity. That classic Christianity said the Triune God the Father is not the literal father rather Mary was fertilized by the Holy Ghost. Even though Bible says the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, it was the "power" of the Most High God that overshadowed Mary. And the Bible never calls Christ the Son of the Holy Ghost, he is never called the Son of the Lord, only always the Son of God, and on the lips of angels and demons, always the "son of the Most High God". Which is why I think we should someday add The Gospel of Phillip to the canon,  "Some say that 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They're wrong; they don't know what they're saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?" (**Spirit [Ruah] is feminine in Hebrew.)

Edited May 24, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

If I were LDS and believed Heavenly Father was a man who became a God, I would speculate that the 23
other human chromosomes came from him. But exactly how this transfer from Heavenly Father occurred,
I do not know. 

Excellent point.  Restraint is certainly called for.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very entertaining extrapolation, Teddy, but whether all that is "official Latter-day Saint doctrine" is another matter.

Not only entertaining but also very compelling to anyone applying reason and common sense consistent with LDS doctrine. A question: Doctrine and Covenants 132 testifies that exalted men and women in the celestial kingdom will continue to have children throughout all eternity, a process which referred to as the “continuations of the seeds forever and ever.” Knowing that this claim is verified in scripture, do you believe God also has a perfected, functioning sexual reproduction system that produces seed “forever and ever?”

Edited May 24, 2022 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If I were LDS and believed Heavenly Father was a man who became a God, I would speculate that the 23
other human chromosomes came from him. But exactly how this transfer from Heavenly Father occurred,
I do not know. 

Do you believe the man Jesus Christ had a human sexual reproductive system when he ministered on earth? If you do, do you also believe the Son of God’s resurrected body is an anatomically correct male human body? 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The phrase you repeatedly ask about, Jim, "literal Son of God," is likely an extrapolation from both Bible and other holy books.  As with many theological phrases used by Protestants and Catholics, extrapolation is a major source of encapsulating such concepts in order to make them understandable to ordinary people.  Whether they are ultimately correct is up for discussion.  Nearly all Latter-day Saint beliefs can be found in the Bible.  InCognitus gives us just one small indication of that fact, above.  Indeed, such concepts were already commonly available in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To make it even simpler, the sources he quoted were commentaries, not scripture 

Edited May 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not only entertaining but also very compelling to anyone applying reason and common sense consistent with LDS doctrine. A question: Doctrine and Covenants 132 testifies that exalted men and women in the celestial kingdom will continue to have children throughout all eternity, a process which referred to as the “continuations of the seeds forever and ever.” Knowing that this claim is verified in scripture, do you believe God also has a perfected, functioning sexual reproduction system that produces seed “forever and ever?”

I'm not sure that reason and logic are the only qualities needed in making those extrapolations.  We earthbound humans are so limited in purview that our imagination is truly challenged.  Brother Brigham took a similarly down-to-earth approach, but I'm not sure that the details are really within our grasp.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To make it even simpler, the sources he quoted were commentaries, not scripture 

Yes, Mormons have been creating their own midrash.

[Pyreaux]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, Mormons have been creating their own midrash.

[Pyreaux]

There are no canonized doctrines of the biophysics of miraculous conception, the spiritual birth, nor the exact nature of eternal increase.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That classic Christianity said the Triune God the Father is not the literal father rather Mary was fertilized by the Holy Ghost.

This is NOT what classic Trinitarian Christianity teaches. You’ve been wrong now a couple of times on classic (Catholic/Orthodox) Christianity. Perhaps in the future you should ask rather than state what we believe. 

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

There are no canonized doctrines of the biophysics of miraculous conception, the spiritual birth, nor the exact nature of eternal increase.

Thank God.

Scripture is not science, and is not supposed to be.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is NOT what classic Trinitarian Christianity teaches. You’ve been wrong now a couple of times on classic (Catholic/Orthodox) Christianity. Perhaps in the future you should ask rather than state what we believe. 

Correct on both counts

I believe it is virtual blasphemy to reduce this question to the level of pseudoscience; we cannot fathom it, it degrades God to question it, and besides it is irrelevant to anything.

It's like trying to be a peeping tom, and a disgusting pursuit 

Edited May 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Pyreaux]

oly G

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is NOT what classic Trinitarian Christianity teaches. You’ve been wrong now a couple of times on classic (Catholic/Orthodox) Christianity. Perhaps in the future you should ask rather than state what we believe. 

When I say things about other faiths, it is usually marked by something that indicates that I was open to being corrected, like I "think" and some such. I think that the Creeds say Jesus was;

• "conceived by the Holy Ghost" (Apostle's Creed)
• "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit" (Nicene Creed).

There have been those who believed this without qualifiers while others may see this as simply the Holy Ghost had some active role. While all I was saying was that to a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; its only crucial to an LDS Christian being they are generally not trinitarian, and that is why I assumed this is why to us Jesus being "literally" the Son of the Father is important, as it is opposed to not being the son of the Holy Ghost. Again, I assume this is what this issue is was all about, then again I could be mistaken about my own church's teachings on occasion.

Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966

• "Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says." (page 742)

Does Bruce mean "literal" to say God had sex with Mary as the critics say? No they are taking it much farther than intended, all he seems to mean is we opposed notions that the involvement of the Holy Ghost is the sole origin of Jesus' divine Parenthood. This is really a trinity issue. Because the Holy Ghost is not God the Father, so in context of the same breathe...

• "...but the Holy ghost is not the Father of Christ and when the Child was born, he was "the Son of the eternal Father." (page 743)

The Holy Ghost has helped to conceive many children, like Samuel, Sampson, John the Baptist, but Jesus is the literal/only begotten son of God. How so? Because sonship is sometimes figurative, like an adopted, a non-literal son becomes a begotten son, hence the Kings of Israel were the adopted Sons of God (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). Christ was adopted as an angelic "first born" Son of God in his pre-mortal life (Heb 1:6). However the New Testament explains that Christ is the only begotten in the flesh, a unique individual, by means of his unique familial relationship with God the Father in a way other people are not, not in these other senses.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

• "For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman (see Virgin Birth). Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title "the Only Begotten Son of God" (John 3:16; Benson, p. 3; see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). He was not the son of the Holy Ghost; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35; 1 Ne. 11:19). " (Vol.2, Jesus Christ, Fatherhood And Sonship)

Since you appear to be getting upset, please accept my apology. I'm sorry, and your church is still my second favorite...

Edited May 26, 2022 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

There are no canonized doctrines of the biophysics of miraculous conception, the spiritual birth, nor the exact nature of eternal increase.

I gave you a rep point on this one. You're right!

 

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I was saying was that to a creedal, trinitarian Christian, this might be a distinction without a difference; its only crucial to an LDS Christian being they are generally not trinitarian, and that is why I assumed this is why to us Jesus being "literally" the Son of the Father is important, as it is opposed to not being the son of the Holy Ghost. Again, I assume this is what was all about, then again I could be mistaken about my own church's teachings on occasion.

Then you seem to contradict yourself by still harping on it and saying it is "crucial" to the LDS paradigm, because we are "generally not trinitarian".

No, we are never Trinitarian.

And remember all who have had a theophany have had to be overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, Joseph's pillar of light, Moses' glowing face, etc etc.

No, the biology of all this is unfathomable, and your position seems to be also.

My suggestion is to clarify it or fergitaboutit, with emphasis on the latter.

 

[Pyreaux]

While the creeds are not accepted, there is no canonized doctrine against all aspects about the trinity. The Godhead is "one" to the point that its deemed justifiable to refer to them as a singularity as it does in the canon, even if they are not. Then there is the social trinity. I under qualify my statements, now I over qualify my statements, I can't win.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

We believe the Godhead consists of three persons, all Gods, unified in their work and glory "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of humankind.  They are unified in love and purpose as any family might be working on a project together as One God(head), though each has their own position and assignment in the family 

THAT is canon.

No "consubstantiality" no fancy rhetoric necessary.  They are one in purpose.

Simple, direct and sensible.

Edited May 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Pyreaux]

We may reject an Athanasian creedal trinity, but a God that is three but one in love and purpose is still a trinity, a social trinity. Trinity models, though not taught in the canon, can be justified in believing because one can still believe in things even when they are not in canon. I can be a member of the church and hold some trinity beliefs, all one has to do is say the Godhead is both three and one at the same time and that is a trinity. Anywhere that is in between an Arian (tritheism) and a Modelist (strict monothism) is a triune (three AND one) God. They criticize us for being tritheists, we criticize them for being modelists, but we are distorting our own theology in reaction to perceived 'errors' in their model. We are closer to these two extremes than the other, however we are both inside these lines. In the canon, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants continually refers to them as "one God", so the core of the Trinity doctrine is correct, God is three and yet one God, just no concept of a oneness that is in substance or essense.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

We may reject an Athanasian creedal trinity, but a God that is three but one in love and purpose is still a trinity, a social trinity. Trinity models, though not taught in the canon, can be justified in believing because one can still believe in things even when they are not in canon. I can be a member of the church and hold some trinity beliefs, all one has to do is say the Godhead is both three and one at the same time and that is a trinity. Anywhere that is in between an Arian (tritheism) and a Modelist (strict monothism) is a triune (three AND one) God. They criticize us for being tritheists, we criticize them for being modelists, but we are distorting our own theology in reaction to perceived 'errors' in their model. We are closer to these extreme than they are, however we are both inside these lines. In the canon, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants continually refers to them as "one God", so the core of the Trinity doctrine is correct, God is three and yet one God, just no concept of a oneness that is in substance or essense.

It's just semantics at this point.  You kept bringing up "canon" I believe, I thought that was your point.   Obviously that word in itself is ambiguous.

[CV75]

On 5/24/2022 at 12:18 PM, theplains said:

Does the Book of Mormon explain the phrase "literal Son of God" differently or more accurately than the Bible?

While verses with variations of the terms referring to Jesus as the “only begotten Son of the Father/God in the flesh” are found in both books (see John 3:16, 18, John 1:14, 18, 1 John 4:9, Alma 12:33-34, Jacob 4:5-11, Alma 13:5-9, Alma 5:48, Alma 9:26 and 2 Nephi 25:12), the Book of Mormon uniquely introduces the first person (“mine Only Begotten Son”) in Alma 12:33-34. Because this is a more direct and explicit reference to the material origin of Jesus than the Bible, it explains the conept in question – whoever is using the phrase, or how, or why -- differently and more accurately than the Bible.

Or, perhaps your question is based on a complex question fallacy since I cannot acknowledge that the Bible or Book of Mormon use this phrase. “Literal” is only used in a couple of the books in our canon to refer to genealogy (as in the right to priesthood office and order in D&C 68 and 107), the seed of the body (Abraham 2:11), and physical phenomena (Articles of Faith 10), but not in the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's just semantics at this point.  You kept bringing up "canon" I believe, I thought that was your point.   Obviously that word in itself is ambiguous.

So... Peace?