Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 165283)

I believe you are the one who forces Mormonism into a box by claiming infallability on all these statements. I'm also sure you're lying. You don't believe these quotes (at least a couple of them) aren't talking about sex.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 165283)

Not talking about whether or not Jesus was only begotten but HOW he was begotten.

Begotten
--a verb
--method God the father used
--method Heber's father used to create Heber
--nothing unnatural about it

Can't be more clear than this.

Do you have an alternate definition for the word conceived, especially in light of fact it is a normal and natural course of events?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 165292)

I don't remember saying anything about infallability.



We don't really have much context for these statements, but assuming they were delivered in a setting similar to the JF.S quote, I think the point was supposed to emphasize the literal paternity of the Father. IOW, to combat the idea that he is a partless, passionless, bodyless, nebulous entity. I think all the terms "conceived" "natural" "begotten" etc. are an emphasis to that end.

Pratt's quote is a little bit problematic, but his frequent use of the term "must have" suggests he wasn't exactly sure himself. Even then, it appears he's not talking about sex as much as he is about Mary's marital status.

As I said yesterday, we're beating a dead cliche here. If you want you can post the exact same quote 6 more times, beat your chest once or twice, and congratulate yourself on how brilliant an ass-kicker you are. But frankly, I'm ready to argue about something else.

Regards.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 165301)

Actually, it's kind of fun to see you twist in the wind, and try to come up with more and more illogical arguments for why you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 165301)

I also find it interesting how you keep arguing by saying what the prophets seem to have had in mind then they made the statements - as if you're the spokesman for what the meant, as opposed to what they said.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 165301)

Think about it - their remarks are usually intended for ordinary people with ordinary understanding - therefore, shouldn't they be subject to ordinary interpretation? You shouldn't need an interpreter for the prophets.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 165154)

The comment was more directed at Cali, SoCal, and santos (to whom it is most appropriately applied), and was meant as a light-hearted exit from the debate. There's no need to get upset about it.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug (Post 165264)

Yes, we are. Look at the quotes.

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 165311)

I didn't say upset, I said a little annoyed. Unless you were divining what I meant.