Comments on: The Sexual Generation of Jesus

By: jonathan

jonathan — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:48:51 +0000

I think this topic for Latter-day Saints often serves as a kind of Rorschach test, allowing us to project our own thoughts, discomforts, wishes, and understandings regarding sexual intimacy. It’s revealing and reflects the extent to which we Latter-day Saint Christians (unnecessarily) retain a negative, inherently sinful view of sexuality that has been carefully crafted, maintained, and exploited by Christianity at least since Augustine.

Would it be too bold to say that the negative sexual baggage that we hold on to with our other Christian brothers and sisters is a part of the apostasy that we are unwilling to let go of?

With an emphasis on the embodiment of God, and a firm belief in the importance of physical (material) resurrection, the Restoration invites us to jettison such baggage and unflinchingly affirm the godliness of sexuality. Of course the context of sexual expression is crucial (something important enough to God that he allows us to participate in covenant making concerning this thing); but in its most fundamental form, shouldn’t we teach that sexuality and sexual expression is holy and pure, preparing us for a life with God? It seems to me that the abhorrence (or anything similar to it) of understanding God as, in some sense, sexual is unbecoming of Mormon Christians.

Thanks, Kevin, for daring to broach the topic.

By: Kelly Knight

Kelly Knight — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:05:42 +0000

First, I believe the current edition of Mormon Doctrine has retracted the “sexual intercourse” idea. I may be wrong and as always, open to correction.

Second, matrimony between the Father and Mary seems absurd. I think that the Father would no sooner marry His daughter than I would mine.

Third, adultery is less the concern, incest is the best description, and a violation of God’s own law.

Fourth, the only doctrine taught in the Church is that Mary was moved upon by the Holy Spirit, and conceived a child. God, with powers we yet do not know, has no doubt the power of some heavenly artificial insemenation.

By: charlene

charlene — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:37:41 +0000

Not to flog a dead-and-somewhat-blasphemous horse, but I *finally* understand what bothers me so much about this! Usually when we talk about God, we envision him as the limit of a parent (or other caretaker/loving figure) as the goodness and maturity and wisdom of the parent relative to the child becomes very very large (goes to infinity). God asks for certain things from us that would not be acceptable for mortals to ask because of this. For example, in my example in #32, it would not (normally) be acceptable for a parent of adult children to ask them to obey him/her in all things without hesitation. A parent of toddlers, on the other hand, has a *much* better justification for requiring a strict standard of obedience, even when the child may not understand why. And the limit of this sequence is God, who can ask anything from us (e.g. Abraham).

Now, sexual activity between parent (or other loving figure) and child becomes much *less* acceptable to us as the relative goodness/maturity/wisdom of the parent gets larger. So we might reasonably think that in this limit, we would not expect such from God as regards Mary. This is what bothers me.

Now, it is certainly also true that the the limit of f(x) as x->b does not HAVE to be the same as f(b), and similarly God may be different from the infinite limit of what we can imagine with our puny finite brains. It’s just that as a physicist I don’t like discontinuities :)

By: John W. Redelfs

John W. Redelfs — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:32:06 +0000

I believe that the idea that Jesus was born of natural sexual intercourse between the Father and Mary is widespread in the Church, and will not die away any time soon. Both my wife and I are converts to the Church, she from a Roman Catholic background, and me from a Baptist background; and we both believe that sexual procreation is the way that Gods “organize” or father new tabernacles or bodies for spirits. Where did we get this idea? I’m not sure, but it must be ingrained in the culture or we wouldn’t have picked it up.

So what is wrong with sexual intercourse? What better way could there be to make a person?

By: a random John

a random John — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:41:31 +0000

Eric Soderlund,

You really should read the talk first. Even if you disagree with it I think it is very interesting and worth your time. I believe that:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:k0d7QuezrQAJ:www.mormontheology.com/Forms/trilogy.aspx+%22cleon+skousen%22++%22things+to+act+and+things+to+be+acted+upon%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Is either the talk that was intended or very similar to it. The idea isn’t so much about physical laws as it is about matter having agency and respecting God because it knows that He is righteous. Therefore it will obey Him. If he were no longer righteous it would not obey him. I would go on but this is off topic.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:33:21 +0000

Heather O., I posted something similar to this over at Jeffrey’s site. Anyway, to address your question:

It seems that our theology requires that Jesus had a purely human genome. Why else would he come to mortality. He had to be “human” to be able to succor his people (a la Alma 7).

As too the genetics of God:We believe that God has no blood. We can infer that he does not need oxygen. From there we can reasonably assert that he has no immune system, heart, lungs, pancreas, etc. We can basically say that God does not have a protein based physiology or in other words, he does not have DNA as we concieve of it.

Then if go for 19th century Utah theology’s take on where celestial beings are hanging out (in giant balls of fussion), it is obvious that God does not have a protein based physiology (and hence no DNA).

By: Sheri Lynn

Sheri Lynn — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:42:40 +0000

I feel about this thread about the same way I felt when I saw an elder in my previous ward working in his front yard wearing jeans and his garment top. I guess it was a hot day. Who am I to judge anybody for what they feel is sacred or not sacred, I guess.

I will not read or post on this thread again. I think my opinion is clear and obviously it’s making some people defensive.

By: Steve L

Steve L — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:33:31 +0000

Are you trying to imply that, Shawn, that BY did not have an “ability to keep things to oneself?” Surely what you say applies to much of personal revelation, but not to matters of common knowledge in the public domain taught on several occasions by church authorities. Not agreeing is one thing. Stopping the discussion, well. . . you ARE free not to read this. And Sheri Lynn, let me know about all those Gentiles who won’t be joining the church because they’ve read this thread. (As if this thread is so much more far gone than alot of other stuff on T&S)

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:10:31 +0000

Brigham Young probably didn’t give talks on this topic where any Gentile could hear.

How else did that lovely 9 April 1952 sermon get such wide distribution.

By: Shawn Dowler

Shawn Dowler — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:04:45 +0000

As a followup to my previous post and as a response to objections to the “it’s not necessary for our salvation” line (as Matt Bowman put it in #75) I submit the following as my position on the subject of knowledge of mysteries.

If one seeks to know any mystery and does so righteously one will at some point be granted access to the knowledge one seeks. The mystery is no longer a mystery to that individual. However, the Father, it seems, only trusts his mysteries to those who are prepared for them. One prerequisite seems to be an ability to keep things to oneself. We all have the ability to know these things, but certain things are to be taught by the Spirit and once learned not communicated to others thereby allowing everyone who is prepared to learn by that same process, namely, by the Spirit.