Vivaporous Birth Control
Posted by Matt W. on April 15th, 2007Some people wonder how I can believe that we have a literal relationship with God the Father and literally have his attributes without Vivaporous Birth. This is an attempt to answer.
Is Divine fatherhood in any sense similar to human fatherhood?
The analogues are more profound than any Christian writer since the first century has dared to examine. For our purpose one all-important likeness must be named. It is unequivocally taught by the Prophet.
In mortal birth, inherent physical and personality traits of the father and mother are transmitted to their son or daughter. (A thimbleful of chromosomes accounts for the physical makeup and qualities of the billions who have so far inhabited this globe.) More, one’s bodily inheritance and then his environment mold him and largely condition his destiny.
It is exactly so with man’s spirit. Long before mortality, in a process of actual transmission, there were forged into man’s spirit the embryonic traits, attributes, and powers of God Himself! And in the surroundings of that realm man was nurtured in the Divine image.
(Truman G. Madsen, Eternal Man, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1966], 34.)
hmmm.
I’m confused. I’ve read your quote three times. Are you agreeing with me or arguing?
For the record, I don’t know whether there was a viviparous spirit birth or not. I am simply not opposed to the idea. I do want to maintain a belief in our being offspring literally of God that is reproductive in some way. I feel this is not only important in our relationship with God, but also in our understanding of what our own exaltation and eternal life will be like.
Your quote uses some weasel words. When we talk of actual transmission and embryonic traits this seems it could make the case for spirit birth, not against it. I think I would be more likely to use this quote than someone opposed to spirit birth.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on April 16th, 2007
[apologies from the original author of this post. It should be noted no one in particular is being singled out or attacked personally by this brief thought.]
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on April 16th, 2007
An excellent point Eric. It could go either way on this quote. I updated my post in an atempt to clarify that this is meant more as a statement of what I think and believe, and not as a way to discount your thoughts, feelings, or beliefs.
Comment # 3 left by Matt W. on April 16th, 2007
The more I read this quote the more I think it makes a case for literal offspring by some reproductive type act similar to what we observe in mortality. Actual transmission. He expresses that mortal reproduction is exactly the same with man’s spirit.
And thanks for making this more general.
Comment # 4 left by Eric Nielson on April 16th, 2007
Matt W.,
President Romney once gave a whole talk about this in general conference. I recommend the entire talk. Here are two small excerpts:
When I first heard that talk, I was a young married man with three small children of my own, and it seemed pretty plain to me. A few years later, President Kimball confirmed the idea for me in these words:
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states:
Not all Latter-day Saints believe this, as I’ve noticed while reading some of the previous discussions on this topic. But personally, I believe it.
Comment # 5 left by R. Gary on April 18th, 2007
Gary, can I first say how much I appreciate your participation. Second, I agree with all of the above, I am not not sure that spirits being born just as earthly children are born means intercourse and a nine-month gestation period followed by vaginal delivery. (It doesn’t even mean this in the world, where there is artificial insemenation, C-Sections, etc.)
I wouldn’t be hurt or offended if that ended up being the way it was, I just personally believe it wasn’t that way.
While there are some who disagree with the concept of tripartite existance, I’m not one of them. (I do prefer the way Widtsoe discusses it to the way Roberts does, but that is a matter of personal preference.)
Comment # 6 left by Matt W. on April 18th, 2007
Excellent quotes R.Gary! Thanks for stopping by.
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on April 18th, 2007
Second, I agree with all of the above, I am not not sure that spirits being born just as earthly children are born means intercourse and a nine-month gestation period followed by vaginal delivery.
I think that we don’t have to believe in all the specifics (for example, a time-defined gestation period) to believe that some sort of creative process that involves and binds husband and wife together as one would be the pattern for the next life. I can’t imagine any other general pattern, and I think that is what Eric seeks to get at whenever this is brought up. I have never heard him declare that he believes it’s an exact replica of what happens in this life. Anyone who wants to put time limits AT ALL on God has a long, uphill battle to climb.
Comment # 8 left by Michelle on April 18th, 2007
Matt W.,
I keep thinking about the Truman Madsen statement you’ve quoted above: “It is exactly so with man’s spirit.”
Isn’t he saying that just as mortal parents transmit traits to their mortal children, in the same way Heavenly Parents transmit traits to their spirit children?
I think he is. And whether or not we choose to believe it, I believe that is what the Church teaches. I invite you to consider the following. But first some definitions.
From the dictionary
born: “Brought into life by birth.”
birth: “The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.”
begotten: “A past participle of beget.”
beget: “To father; sire.”
child: “A son or daughter; an offspring.”
offspring: “A child of particular parentage.”
From Guide To The Scriptures
begotten: “To be born. To beget is to give birth, to procreate, or to call into being.” (Guide To The Scriptures.)
spirit: “Every person is literally a son or a daughter of God, having been born as a spirit to Heavenly Parents before being born to mortal parents on the earth.” (Guide To The Scriptures.)
Man, Men: “Refers to all mankind, both male and female. All men and women are the literal, spiritual offspring of a Heavenly Father.” (Guide To The Scriptures.)
The Church’s doctrinal position
“All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity….
“The doctrine of the preexistence … shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.” (Official statement of the 1909 First Presidency, Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 75–81; reprinted in 2002 as “the Church’s doctrinal position,” Ensign,, Feb. 2002, pp. 26-30.)
Comment # 9 left by R. Gary on April 18th, 2007
Gary,
something to consdider:
(Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)
(Ibid., page 742)
We believe Mary was a virgin. God can literally conceive a child without intercourse.
Comment # 10 left by Matt W. on April 18th, 2007
Was Jesus concieved without procreation?
“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.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, Jesus Christ.)
According to Elder McConkie, as you’ve quoted him above, “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
Mortal men are begotten by their mortal fathers through acts of procreation.
But we don’t have to take Elder McConkie’s word on this. Here are the teachings of two Latter-day Prophets.
PRESIDENT JOSEPH F. SMITH
(In this statement, President Smith also clarifies the question of celestial Sireship versus Mary’s virginity.)
“We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son, Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known _mortal_ man, was his mother. God by her begot His Son, Jesus Christ, and He was born into the world with power and intelligence like that of His Father.” (Joseph F. Smith, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:29–30; as quoted in Ensign, Sept. 1974, p. 45.)
PRESIDENT EZRA TAFT BENSON
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by … God, our Eternal Father.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Come unto Christ (1983), p. 4; quoted in Ensign, Apr. 1997, p. 12.)
Comment # 11 left by R. Gary on April 19th, 2007
Was Jesus conceived via Sexual Intercourse?
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed.)
(Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 79.)
virgin= “A person who has no sexual intercourse.”
Guide to the Scriputres:
Virgin-
A Literal Virgin does not have sexual intercourse. Any procreation (begetting of offspring) would thus not involve sexual intercourse. If you need a defintion of sexual intercourse, please look it up on your own time.
Comment # 12 left by Matt W. on April 19th, 2007
oh, and here.
Comment # 13 left by Matt W. on April 19th, 2007
Yes Matt, I do remember a grade school rumor that kissing could cause pregnancy. When one of my cousins told me the truth, I was appalled at the thought of my parents having sex. “They don’t do that do they?” I asked him. Since then I’ve come to know that sex is the celestial power of procreation. The body is a temple and sex is its holy of holies.
There are a lot of statements by the apostles and prophets that seem to suggest (to me) that Mary’s pregnancy was the result of a celestial procreative act. You’ve even quoted some of them yourself. But if you prefer to believe it was some sort of a celestial kiss or medical procedure, that’s fine too. I’m not aware that the Church has taken an official position one way or the other on this.
Comment # 14 left by R. Gary on April 21st, 2007
Thanks for that concession Gary. I appreciate it. Now, can you also grant that the looking beyond Mary and Christ, the Church also has no official position which requires sexual intercourse for the creation of spirit children?
Comment # 15 left by Matt W. on April 21st, 2007
See “The Church’s doctrinal position” in #9 above.
Comment # 16 left by R. Gary on April 22nd, 2007
Gary. THanks, it’s good to see that #9 requires no explicit sexual intercourse…
Comment # 17 left by Matt W. on April 22nd, 2007
Matt,
It seems from this discussion that you feel the ability to exercise the power of procreation is limited to mortality. I take it you do not expect to have or use this power in the next life.
Just to clarify, I believe the power of procreation will be exercised by all those who obtain the highest heaven or degree in the celestial kingdom. (D&C 131:1-3.) I believe it will be taken away only from those who abuse it in mortality. I believe this point of view has been plainly taught in General Conference:
Do you believe the power of procreation is going to be taken away from everyone?
Comment # 18 left by R. Gary on April 23rd, 2007
R. Gary:
What I have tried to plainly express is that it is my procreation is NOT EQUAL to sexual intercourse. Sorry if I failed in that regard.
Comment # 19 left by Matt W. on April 23rd, 2007
Matt,
“God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).
Does this, or does it not, prohibit illicit sex?
Comment # 20 left by R. Gary on April 23rd, 2007
Does God obey his own commandments? I would say yes, It is clear he was not lawfully wedded to Mary, who was a “literal” virgin. While the ‘Sacred powers of procreation’ were available to him, sex was not the method he used to exercise those powers, and he exercised those powers in such a way as to not violate the commandment which you note. So while it is reasonable to assume that while our powers of procreation are limited to sexual relations, it is also reasonable to assume God’s powers of procreation are not limited to sexual intercourse.
Comment # 21 left by Matt W. on April 24th, 2007