If intelligence is the same as spirit Christ would have had to have been the Only Begotten Son as an intelligence. The whole point of the term “Begotten” in Christianity with regards to Christ is that it happens outside of time and space. We don’t become begotten sons and daughters of God in a theological sense until we are baptized:Bart Burk,
Thanks for pointing out a subject I was quite unfamiliar with as to the distinction made by those such as C.S. Lewis.
The LDS scriptures certainly support that the “Only Begotten Son” was so from the beginning, and not just from the time of His gaining a physical body. He was the Only Begotten Son during His time in the pre-mortal life as the Spirit Son of God who was Jehovah.
I tend to agree that the distinction is important, in that the Only Begotten Son of God, Jehovah, had absolute qualities no other spirit had, and I can comprehend that some of those qualities were inherited by virtue of His being “the Only Begotten Son” in the spirit. He was the only perfect Spirit in the pre-mortal realm where we associated with Him. He was supremely gifted by divine inheritance as well as by His own innate goodness from His intelligence.
I disagree with Lewis’ description that about the time frame of the Son being the Son versus the time frame of the Father being the Father–since that does not possibly flow from the logic of “Begotten”.
But again, thanks for raising an area that I was glad to gain more familiarity with, to understand others’ beliefs better.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Bart Burk,God never had to learn to be God. God is just God. I appreciate Ezra Taft Benson’s talk and suspect he was much closer to the truth than McConkie. Benson was also an admirer of C. S. Lewis from what I understand. Perhaps his time in the Eisenhower administration did him some good since I understand J. Willard Marriott and Billy Graham were good friends and that Benson had contact with Graham through him. You have shown from the Book of Mormon there is no reason to accept McConkie’s idea. I don’t think there is any way to square McConkie’s idea with what is taught in the Book of Mormon. Of course Joseph Smith’s King Follet sermon suggests that God had to learn to be God. It would have saved the Mormons a lot of trouble if he had never given that sermon as well as the one in the temple grove area he gave right before he was shot.
It puzzles me that after spending as much time as you have reading this board you seem to have gained not even a hair’s breadth of understanding of our beliefs. Both Robert and Bart have given you answers that should help clear up your puzzlement if you spend some time really thinking about what they say.Bart Burk,
What puzzles me during a conversation such as this (although I am heartily glad to have been pointed toward the C.S. Lewis chapter where “Only Begotten Son” is discussed), is why it is such a sensitive point to think that Christ could and would learn by observation, by instruction from His perfect Father, and thus in short order from having become a Spirit, gain the attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, unconditional love for all spirits and all intelligences, love of all truth, and love of the exercise of free will and choice) of God.
Since I view God the Father as truly, completely omnipotent and omniscient, I look at such a process as being totally consistent with His character and attributes–that He could have such a Son, a Separate Person and with such a highly sensitized brightness of teachableness that His Only Begotten Son would be able to become God through being instructed by His Father, through observation, and through His own innate ability. Then, when He had become God, it would be a completely understandable and true statement that He is unchangeable, and that is how we would have viewed Him from our perspective as spirits. (We weren’t there when He was “becoming”–we were only there after He had “become” and our eternity as a spirit began.)
The moment you say there was a time when Jesus was less than the Father you in essence are declaring Jesus is not God. That’s the short answer. The long answer would take way too long – C. S. Lewis’ discussion on the Trinity in “Mere Christianity” is the best I can do.Bart Burk,
What puzzles me during a conversation such as this (although I am heartily glad to have been pointed toward the C.S. Lewis chapter where “Only Begotten Son” is discussed), is why it is such a sensitive point to think that Christ could and would learn by observation, by instruction from His perfect Father, and thus in short order from having become a Spirit, gain the attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, unconditional love for all spirits and all intelligences, love of all truth, and love of the exercise of free will and choice) of God.
Since I view God the Father as truly, completely omnipotent and omniscient, I look at such a process as being totally consistent with His character and attributes–that He could have such a Son, a Separate Person and with such a highly sensitized brightness of teachableness that His Only Begotten Son would be able to become God through being instructed by His Father, through observation, and through His own innate ability. Then, when He had become God, it would be a completely understandable and true statement that He is unchangeable, and that is how we would have viewed Him from our perspective as spirits. (We weren’t there when He was “becoming”–we were only there after He had “become” and our eternity as a spirit began.)
BartBurk,The moment you say there was a time when Jesus was less than the Father you in essence are declaring Jesus is not God. That’s the short answer. The long answer would take way too long – C. S. Lewis’ discussion on the Trinity in “Mere Christianity” is the best I can do.
We can’t do this without Him, ParkerD.BartBurk,
As I had noted, I read C.S. Lewis’ discussion and I didn’t agree with it on this particular point.
From my view (not yours, clearly, but from mine), it means ultimately that God the Father is not viewed as omnipotent that He could have such a Son who could learn by being instructed and by observation. So we just have extremely different points of view.
From my point of view also, Jesus is all the more admirable and awe-inspiring that He would truly descend from His throne divine, attained through His perfection and perfect observation as well as assimilating instruction, to provide us a perfect example here on earth and to provide us redemption while we learn to be like Him, through our repentance which He never experienced because He never needed it. I am continuously in awe of Him, of His unselfishness and His love, and of His quality of belief in us–that “we can do this, and He will help us!”
Rebecca,We can’t do this without Him, ParkerD.
I am curious of your “testimony” of Jesus Christ, that is, if it would remain intact if you found the BoM to be a fabrication.
You didn’t answer my question.Rebecca,
That is like asking, “what if truth stopped being truth, and the Holy Spirit stopped bearing witness of truth, and instead bore witness of falsehoods”. Then God would be ceasing to be God, and would be changeable, which He is not.
Truth does not change though coming from a different source than a person with limited perspective (which we all have–limited perspective, but we sometimes shortchange ourselves even given that aspect of mortality) may be expecting.
Eternal truths of the gospel do not “emanate” from the Bible alone. They “emanate” from God, and from Christ and the Holy Spirit who are One with God the Father. The Book of Mormon is consistent with the Bible, contains eternal truths, and bears witness of Them, of Their reality, and of the plan of salvation authored by God the Father.
I don’t think it’s actually done on purpose. There are just no absolutes in Mormonism that can be quickly explained. Doctrines move and change and although everyone has an opinion, what they state isn’t exactly doctrine and even if it is, it still might be just opinion later on if something else comes up that sounds better.But why? If they have the fullness of Truth they should proclaim the Truth, not be ambiguous about it.
Luke 8:16
No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth [it] under a bed; but setteth [it] on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
Tundramom,Campeador,
No doubt you are familiar that Jesus taught in parables because for one reason, He didn’t want the people to get more knowledge than they could live by. In other words, He was teaching them to lift them up at the level they were at, spiritually. He explained this to the apostles, and they asked Him to speak more plainly to them.
The Book of Abraham can be looked at in exactly the same way. You would be familiar with 1 Corinthians 2, and that spiritual knowledge comes differently than intellectual knowledge or the wisdom of the world.
What I understand is the difference between the Creator and the created. Mormon doctrine blurs this difference to the point that it is difficult to understand exactly what they believe. “God was once as we are now”. We will be as He now is". I don’t think so.Steve are you saying you actually understand the process of creation? Or is it that you choose not to ask for clarification beyond saying, “God said” and so that is all that is needed to know. What Mormons have done is attempt to offer a deeper, but still shallow, explanation for the process of creation.
Well the “world of Christianity” is made of about 1.3 billion Catholics, encompassing the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world. So which “world of Christianity” are you speaking of, the minority Christian world? Those who claim Catholicism is a cult, and there are very few that do, are speaking out of ignorance. Basically, I could care less what these fringe elements believe. They certainly do not comprise the Christian world.I see such a forced straining on specific words; never seeking understanding. Jumping from one point to the next. Never responding to comments where similarities exist and then to continues drive-by posts from those with an axe to grind. The reality is that the world of Christianity call Catholics and Mormons both cults. Pot meet kettle.
Not so. They are praying to a god of their own fabrication, one that progressed from a lesser state to a divine state, and is still progressing. They have little to no understanding of the revealed God and Jesus is secondary, at best, in the order of worship; if he is worshiped at all.At the end of the day, when both Catholics and Mormons kneel down to pray. They pray to God in the name of the Son. They both place their entire hope for salvation in Christ.
I don’t think we are trying to find out whether or not what Mormons believe is true. We are just trying to figure out what Mormons really believe. Parker’s use of the Book of Abraham makes sense if we are trying to find out what Mormons believe. It’s obvious we Catholics reject the Book of Abraham, but it is important when dealing with Mormons to understand how they interpret it.The question was raised to ParkerD, and by extension to any other LDS readers/members of this forum, to answer the original question by using Scriptural sources.
In a typical LDS manner, an answer was presented using a “scripture-like” text, e.g., the The Book of Abraham . . . . . the problem is, there is no such book anywhere in the Bible. It is not scripture, not even close.
It has been well established now, by independent scholars of ancient linguistics, that the text Joseph Smith “interpreted” to be in the book of Abraham, is actual a standard Egyptian burial manuscript, about Horus, Ra and the other customs of preparing the Egyptian dead.
Don’t believe me?? , there are multiple sources de-bunking the book of Abraham, besides this detailed one:
youtube.com/user/aaronshaf2006#p/u/138/hcyzkd_m6KE
Also ParkerD cited Lactantius writings. Aside from Lucius Lactantius’ elaborate Latin writing skills, his theology or depth of understanding of the Christian faith was not well respected. . (check out various web sources including the Catholic Encyclopedia).
In the world of Law, when a defendant is demonstrated to issue even a minor falsehood, the judge automatically raises the credibility bar for subsequent testimony.
Senecus,The question was raised to ParkerD, and by extension to any other LDS readers/members of this forum, to answer the original question by using Scriptural sources.
In a typical LDS manner, an answer was presented using a “scripture-like” text, e.g., the The Book of Abraham . . . . . the problem is, there is no such book anywhere in the Bible. It is not scripture, not even close.
It has been well established now, by independent scholars of ancient linguistics, that the text Joseph Smith “interpreted” to be in the book of Abraham, is actual a standard Egyptian burial manuscript, about Horus, Ra and the other customs of preparing the Egyptian dead.
Don’t believe me?? , there are multiple sources de-bunking the book of Abraham, besides this detailed one:
youtube.com/user/aaronshaf2006#p/u/138/hcyzkd_m6KE
Also ParkerD cited Lactantius writings. Aside from Lucius Lactantius’ elaborate Latin writing skills, his theology or depth of understanding of the Christian faith was not well respected. . (check out various web sources including the Catholic Encyclopedia).
In the world of Law, when a defendant is demonstrated to issue even a minor falsehood, the judge automatically raises the credibility bar for subsequent testimony.
Perhaps the best LDS scripture which shows what they believe in this regard is in Doctrine and Covenants 25, 34 and 76:Senecus,
Once again, I have appreciated the post that followed yours, by BartBurk.
As far as the Book of Abraham and the people who think they have seen the characters from which the Book of Abraham was taken, they haven’t seen them, so that is a moot point.
As far as Lactantius, I was not using his writings as a source at all–I merely quoted what had been quoted in the original OP that had been taken from the LDS apologetics article. What Lactantius wrote has not the slightest bearing on anything I believe, or would write on this particular subject.
As to the original question, I had tried to get a clarification from the writer, but never did, so now that it has been established that he was differentiating (based on Catholic usages of words) using the word “create” as differentiated from the word “begat”–as in, “Only Begotten Son”–clearly, the LDS affirm the Bible to be the word of God and therefore the answer to the original question is again,
“No”–The Holy Son, Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega, who is Jehovah, was truly the “Only Begotten Son” and was begotten by God the Father, as C.S. Lewis explained and as has been referred to in this conversation. He was the Only Begotten Son in the pre-mortal world where we all were after Him, and is the Only Begotten Son today.
25:1 Hearken unto the voice of the Lord your God, while I speak unto you, Emma Smith, my daughter; for verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom.
34:1 My son Orson, hearken and hear and behold what I, the Lord God, shall say unto you, even Jesus Christ your Redeemer;
34:2 The light and the life of the world, a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not;
34:3 Who so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. Wherefore you are my son.
So at least in the early days the LDS believed we are begotten sons (or daughters) of God after we accept Christ as our Savior. I can’t find any evidence in their scriptures that we were considered begotten sons and daughters of God in the pre-existence even though Mormons believe we were organized as pre-existent spirits then. So Mormon scriptures do seem to make a distinction between Christ as the Only Begotten Son in the pre-existence and the rest of us. Individual Mormons do not seem to be very careful about maintaining that distinction.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—
76:24 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.
But this doesn’t match with The Family a Proclamation to the world, or all the explanations given for the “Jesus and Satan are brothers” thing. Then there all of those LDS I’ve read who find it so inspiring that Jesus is their older brother or tell me we are “literal offspring” of Heavenly Parents. How can Jesus be the only begotten if these same parents begat all the spirit children that have ever lived and those still waiting for their chance at mortality.Zaffiroborant,
I have read that term used in LDS teachings, but I think there is a distinction that can be drawn that I haven’t seen that really does extend to the term “Only Begotten Son”, since those words are used in describing Christ during His pre-mortal life. So I really do appreciate this conversation–to have gained a new perspective.
This whole concept of Heavenly Parents didn’t even enter the LDS faith until after the death of Joseph Smith. It entered through Eliza R. Snow’s teaching of a Heavenly Mother which Brigham Young picked up and ran with. The LDS scriptures are plain that we are begotten sons and daughters of God through Jesus Christ. When they teach the Heavenly Parents doctrine, they are in fact contradicting their own scriptures. I figured this out about ten years before I became a Catholic – it was one of the teachings that caused me to lose faith in LDS prophets.But this doesn’t match with The Family a Proclamation to the world, or all the explanations given for the “Jesus and Satan are brothers” thing. Then there all of those LDS I’ve read who find it so inspiring that Jesus is their older brother or tell me we are “literal offspring” of Heavenly Parents. How can Jesus be the only begotten if these same parents begat all the spirit children that have ever lived and those still waiting for their chance at mortality.
Trying to stuff a Catholic understanding of “Only Begotten Son” into LDS “theology” looks about as correct as spandex on a person who should not be wearing it.