Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes. Biological. I'm not sure our limited understand fully comprehends that biology, however.

Can you biologically explain how a man can go 40 days and nights without food or water, and still survive? How about walking across a lake? Coming back to life? Shall I rattle off another 20 miracles? That's what a virgin conception is, no?

A portion of the divine was literally ... biologically ... in Jesus. How that translates to genomes and chromosomes, I don't know, but I do not limit God to a single method of accomplishing this design.



(1) Did you really ask me this? Really? Do you actually believe there is only ONE possible way for Mary to conceive? God can create entire worlds, nay ... galaxies, but in order for Jesus to be his literal son, well, it's GOTTA be SEX, son!

(2) I'm forced to ask again: did you really just ask me this? Do you not see some of the inherent difficulties the possibility raises?

I think you are missing the obvious point. Nobody here is debating that God COULD have used an infinite number of means to impregnate Mary. What we are debating is what JFS said DID happen, and I don't think his words are ambiguous at all.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmm, I think that's exactly what's being said. I think JF.S's statement is being interpreted that way. He says that Jesus was begotten just like anyone is begotten ... ok. Does that mean a sperm and an egg joined together, each with 23 chromosomes? Did Jesus get his blue eyes from his Father and his dark completion from his mother?

We're parsing the statement too much. I think the talk was meant to emphasize how much like us, and how much like God, Jesus was. The perfect union of two competing and incompatible worlds. This sex stuff is entirely ancillary to what his point was, IMO.

It isn't "parsing" of his statement that is leading to Dan's question. It is reading the statement in context in the full. Parsing would be what you are trying to do.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

He did state it! WHat do you expect him to say, in the onctext of this meeting (with children present) and the mores and attitudes of the time? He could not have been much more clear than he was and I have little doubt that every adult listneing knew EXACTLY what he meant by his ocmments.

Which, by the way, is clearly why he went out of his way to reference the older children present.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Methinks this is an instance of Tex being deliberately obstinate.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you are missing the obvious point. Nobody here is debating that God COULD have used an infinite number of means to impregnate Mary. What we are debating is what JFS said DID happen, and I don't think his words are ambiguous at all.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't "parsing" of his statement that is leading to Dan's question. It is reading the statement in context in the full. Parsing would be what you are trying to do.

You could try responding to all my posts in one.

Smith left the exact methodology vague, probably (my extrapolation, here) because he had no clue how it actually happened. It seems the key false doctrine he was fighting is the decorporealization (is that word? ) of the Father. Prevalent Christian attitudes of the day, including our own, is a bodyless, passionless God who "fathered" Jesus via the Holy Ghost.

In contrast, the prophet emphasizes the very real physical nature of God, both the Father and Jesus, and their very real physical (biological) connection. Why that has to be reduced to God and Mary having intercourse is beyond me, but never seems to be beyond CG.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I believe the genetic matter of God combined with the genetic matter with Mary. That belief does not require it to be the result of sexual intercourse. Certainly, a Supreme Being who can create an entire universe can utilize any number of ways to accomplish the task.

I'm open to UtahDan's assertion, but I'm not sure it's that ironclad, even given the many quotes he provided.

Can I add that in some ways I think this chracterization is much more intriguing than the quesiton of the mechanics of the delvery of the genetic matter. If God the Father has genetic matter in his present state thta cna be combined with human genetic matter doesn't this make for rather interesting speculaiton on the topics of evolution and the nature of creation?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You could try responding to all my posts in one.

Smith left the exact methodology vague, probably (my extrapolation, here) because he had no clue how it actually happened. It seems the key false doctrine he was fighting is the decorporealization (is that word? ) of the Father. Prevalent Christian attitudes of the day, including our own, is a bodyless, passionless God who "fathered" Jesus via the Holy Ghost.

In contrast, the prophet emphasizes the very real physical nature of God, both the Father and Jesus, and their very real physical (biological) connection. Why that has to be reduced to God and Mary having intercourse is beyond me, but never seems to be beyond CG.

You're losing this one, Tex. The problem for you is that you are contending that JFS didn't say "X" - you say that the quote is out of context - he posted the entire talk. He then posted numerous quotes from other prophets which (assuming they're accurate, and we have no reason to believe they aren't) also say "X".

You say "X" doesn't mean "X".

Problem is, your intellectual dishonesty won't let you read these things as they are.

The other problem is that your intellectual dishonesty is exposed, because all of the quotes are pretty straightforward. Or do you believe that you have special insight that trumps what the prophets have said?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You're losing this one, Tex. The problem for you is that you are contending that JFS didn't say "X" - you say that the quote is out of context - he posted the entire talk. He then posted numerous quotes from other prophets which (assuming they're accurate, and we have no reason to believe they aren't) also say "X".

I didn't say the JF.S quote was out of context ... at least, not after the context was fully posted, so I don't really know what you're arguing with me about.

JF.S did NOT say "God and Mary had sex." He just didn't. You, Dan, Cali, or whoever is making an interpretation. Though I think it's a wrong-headed interpretation, I don't blame y'all for making it. Smith is clearly making a strong case for the corporeal fatherhood of the Savior, and I can see how you might think that's what he meant. I repeat: I can see how you come to that conclusion, but I still think it's fundamentally unsound.

Meanwhile, I am offering an alternative explanation, one every bit as legitimate as yours. In context, the quote clearly is a part of a larger dissertation on the physical nature of God, particularly in contrast to the Christian version of Him. It seems to me the question of HOW the Savior was sired is entirely ancillary, except that it was done literally. If after this life, all is revealed, and we learn God had his one night stand with Mary, I will gladly re-appear on CG and say I was wrong. Until then (or until more explicit explanation of this issue), I choose to interpret it as I have stated.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't say the JF.S quote was out of context ... at least, not after the context was fully posted, so I don't really know what you're arguing with me about.

JF.S did NOT say "God and Mary had sex." He just didn't. You, Dan, Cali, or whoever is making an interpretation. Though I think it's a wrong-headed interpretation, I don't blame y'all for making it. Smith is clearly making a strong case for the corporeal fatherhood of the Savior, and I can see how you might think that's what he meant. I repeat: I can see how you come to that conclusion, but I still think it's fundamentally unsound.

Meanwhile, I am offering an alternative explanation, one every bit as legitimate as yours. In context, the quote clearly is a part of a larger dissertation on the physical nature of God, particularly in contrast to the Christian version of Him. It seems to me the question of HOW the Savior was sired is entirely ancillary, except that it was done literally. If after this life, all is revealed, and we learn God had his one night stand with Mary, I will gladly re-appear on CG and say I was wrong. Until then (or until more explicit explanation of this issue), I choose to interpret it as I have stated.

But this is the problem: you continue to want to tell us what you believe when the debate isn't about that at all. It is about what JFS SAID. Whether what he said comports with what you believe isn't at all relevant to the discussion, except that it apparently is causing you some severe cognitive dissonance that you must resolve by inserting ambiguity where there is none.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't say the JF.S quote was out of context ... at least, not after the context was fully posted, so I don't really know what you're arguing with me about.

JF.S did NOT say "God and Mary had sex." He just didn't. You, Dan, Cali, or whoever is making an interpretation. Though I think it's a wrong-headed interpretation, I don't blame y'all for making it. Smith is clearly making a strong case for the corporeal fatherhood of the Savior, and I can see how you might think that's what he meant. I repeat: I can see how you come to that conclusion, but I still think it's fundamentally unsound.

Meanwhile, I am offering an alternative explanation, one every bit as legitimate as yours. In context, the quote clearly is a part of a larger dissertation on the physical nature of God, particularly in contrast to the Christian version of Him. It seems to me the question of HOW the Savior was sired is entirely ancillary, except that it was done literally. If after this life, all is revealed, and we learn God had his one night stand with Mary, I will gladly re-appear on CG and say I was wrong. Until then (or until more explicit explanation of this issue), I choose to interpret it as I have stated.

Tex, you're lying if you say you believe some early church leaders didn't believe and say that God had sex with Mary. This has gone way past this issue and into your infallability concept. You're digging in illogically because you know it kills your position in many other threads.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Two main takeaways: Stop drinking beer, CGers.....and start drinking Mountain Dew!

That's what I got out of it