Only Begotten in the Flesh

As far as I can tell, the construction “only begotten,” “in the flesh” isn’t popularized until the 1880s. While “only begotten” is found throughout Mormon scripture, it never has the “in the flesh” qualifier. In Utah as analogical theology prevailed, Church leaders frequently reformed traditional terminology – much as Brigham Young critiqued Paul on adoption.

For Brigham Young, divinization wasn’t just a part of the atonement, it was genealogy. With his ultra-literal perspective on Adam, the family of God became something far different than for early 19th century Protestants. This perspective, though with many details abandoned, has continued to strongly influence Latter-day Saints into the late 20th century.

“The question still remains of what is Jesus’ relationship to God physically? And why does it matter?”

Not that it matters to me, but I think the reason it matters to others is that you have to explain how Mary ended up with a fetus in her womb. Since Mormons reject ex nihilo creation we can’t explain it as a snap of God’s fingers. So some (mostly 19th Century, as you say) go for the “easiest” explanation of normal reproduction. Others like the materialism of that approach but balk at its…moral implications and go for some sort of IVF. An alternative is that Joseph (or some other human, mortal male) was the father—but that doesn’t work if you accept Mary’s virginity.

J Stapley: “Take out the need for blood, and virtually all DNA isn’t necessary.” I’m really not sure what this means.

Okay, you’ve identified why I couldn’t make sense of your statement: as long as something in a resurrected body fills the role of blood, then most of our DNA can stay just as it is—only the small amount that actually codes for blood cells, etc. would be useless.

Another reason is that even if we switched to something other than oxidative metabolism, I don’t see major changes required in kinases, phosphatases, transcription factors, cell-surface receptors, hormones, neurotransmitters, ion channels, cytoskeleton, etc.

I take the precept that Jesus Christ did not have a mortal father as a matter of faith. However, I don’t think that by itself could make him sinless (as a matter of free will).

Full communion, at-one-ment, or reconcilation with God requires the participants to arrive at a sinless state. I do not see how an extended period of prior sinlessness has anything to do with the Atonement.

I cannot disallow the possibility that Jesus Christ likewise arrived at a sinless state, and cannot see any reason to require that he be sinless for all eternity prior to that event. In fact if he was, he would be remarkably inferior as a real example for us than if he was not.

Clark, I know you’re familiar with the current speech that suggests Jesus inherited mortality from Mary, immortality from God. In it’s most literal form, I suppose modern Mormons mean this to say that Jesus could have lived forever as a Mortal. No aging, etc. So he *chose* to be able to suffer, and then die. Moreover, and this is a little OT, but isn’t there a strain that suggests that Jesus could have done just that, perhaps even without repercussion?

But the idea of inheritance is strong in the Mormon mythology of Jesus.

The spirit/blood business was a popular Protestant solution to 1 Cor. 15 as well.

Brian, I think it’s more than just the issue of blood. That’s the main item people point to as a difference in LDS theology due to assertions in the 19th century that resurrected beings don’t have blood. But it goes further than that. What about hormones? Does the digestive system work the same way (along with its partial dependence upon bacteria?) What about the immune system. For that matter what about cell replication and death? Further how on earth do you get rid of blood and maintain the body chemistry? I don’t just mean the issue of the immune system but how cells get energy. At what point do you just have to say DNA is pointless?

Beyond that, how do you deal with people with problems in DNA? Say Downs Syndrome kids?

I think the scriptures that talk about the resurrection can at most be marshaled to say the resurrection is a materialist resurrection; that we’ll have a life fairly similar to ours (although the differences aren’t clear); that our bodies will resemble our current bodies. Going much beyond that and I really think the burden of proof is on those making the claims.

Mark, while I agree there is a docetist streak in LDS theology, I don’t think it is quite so dominant that one could argue it’s the contemporary view. For one, it doesn’t just lack scriptural support but contradicts most scriptures. For an other a lot of fairly significant figures argue against it. (Many outright call docetism a sign of apostasy)

It seems to me that the only docetist streak that is really prominent in LDS thought is the idea that Jesus had power to resurrect while the rest of us don’t. But I think the view of this in LDS thought isn’t about body or nature of Christ but the keys and authority he had. That is I think all of this has to be taken in terms closer to semi-Pelegianism where each of us could not sin but only Christ did.

That’s not to deny in the least that what you outline is part of historical Mormon thought. I’m just skeptical it is as dominant as you suggest.

W. V. Smith, while I’ve heard that view – which I think goes back to Young’s views – I don’t think it that dominant. As I mentioned to Mark I think there is this idea that Jesus had power over death. I don’t think the dominant view is that this is due to physical inheritance. I need to break out my popular texts of the 20th century to see if any prominent figure even mentions this view.

My point though is roughly to ask what the point of inheritance is, knowing what we know today about biology. I can’t see any sense to it whatsoever. I recognize that, as J. Stapley pointed out, all of this was significant in the late Utah period. Primarily due to speculations of Brigham Young – the foundations of which have been rejected by the Church for over a century. J. Stapley is right that elements have been influential. However given that many of these elements don’t make much sense and don’t have scriptural support, shouldn’t we question them? (Ignoring how popular the idea once was and whether some still hold to it)

The idea that resurrected beings do not have blood is not a Mormon invention. 1 Cor 15:50, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. Contrast Luke 24:39, “handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”.

Brian, let me put things an other way and perhaps my point will be clearer. There are two potential models of a perfect resurrected being. One is that it’s the same body constantly being repaired automatically. The other is that while the body looks similar it is radically different composition-wise such that the body itself has different properties even if it looks like us. I think there are compelling reasons to think that the “radical different” model is correct whereas little to recommend the “it’s exactly the same.”

As I mentioned earlier part of this is due to how much is just plain bad about our bodies. But beyond that if you can’t die and are perfect much of what the body does makes little sense. Why would you keep it?

If the point is just that we’re largely ignorant of what the resurrection entails, I’d agree. I’d just note that I think despite our ignorance there are plenty of good reasons to deny the idea of our resurrected body being pretty much this same body beyond it looking the same.

Mark, certainly there are passages out of which I suspect much of the LDS view arose. I think the LDS certainly gave those passages a fairly unique twist on things. Although I’ll confess I’m not up on the history of the exegesis of those passages. Most I know uses them are arguing against there being anything but a temporary physical resurrection in preference of living as immaterial beings.

But beyond that if you can’t die and are perfect much of what the body does makes little sense. Why would you keep it?

This assumes you can get along (let alone be glorified) without a body. Check out Phillippians 3:21:

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself

Most I know uses them are arguing against there being anything but a temporary physical resurrection in preference of living as immaterial beings.

The problem is that people are pretty fast and loose with the terms “spiritual” and “physical”, and have been for a long time.

Etymologically speaking, “physical body” is redundant. “Body” implies “parts” which implies “material” which implies “physical”.

Likewise, in classical theism, “spiritual body” is a contradiction in terms, because that which is spiritual is held to be simple, eternal, and indivisible, and a “body” is generally the exact opposite: complex, temporal, and divisible.

Catholics generally come from this perspective, due to the influence of Aquinas et al., so you have the idea of resurrection as the preservation of the eternal “form” of the body, where the soul experiences a timeless vision of beatific grace. No temporality or actual material at all.

Mark D: I think Clark meant—and since I’m trying to make the same point, I know that I meant: Why would you keep [a particular function of the body]? We’re all agreed that a body—for some reason—is essential for glorification, but do we have any idea why? What purpose does a body serve, what essential functions does it perform? If a resurrected body can do just fine without a particular “biological” function, does it make any sense to retain the organs, cells, and proteins that make that function possible?

Good point about evolution: it’s what ‘designed’ our current bodies, but there’s really no way for evolution to account for immortal, resurrected bodies (at least not through natural selection, etc.)

Yes, but I’m not sure one can draw too much from that for several reasons.

1. for most resurrected beings most of the matter of their bodies will be long gone

2. removing the body was to emphasize that he was resurrected. Even though given (1) clearly a resurrected body need not use the same matter.

3. I don’t think Jesus’ wounds imply much either unless we think someone who died in a fire will be resurrected looking like Freddy Kruger.

But do we need to have a brain to have a mind? That is aren’t there other material structures that could do the same thing? Perhaps better?

As to your second point, of course I agree our bodies will be like his. The question is what that means.