srm Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Mar 4 2004, 12:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 4 2004, 12:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Winnie G@Mar 4 2004, 12:23 PM Some one will have to show me that in writing to prove the church teaches that. Then again you have to remember the times early church leaders were in as well.Some how intercourse was probably not a hot topic for learning in the early days of the church. I don't think that the church still teaches this, but here's one quote from Brigham Young that was expanded upon by subsequent church leaders:(Q)We first begin to read that Jesus came in the flesh...But suppose I examine that, a moment. The New Testament tells me that the Father gave His onlybegotten Son a ransom for the sins of the world. Do you believe that, brother B.? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the onlybegotten Son of the Father? "Yes." Do you believe the Son was begotten by the Father, as the Apostles said he was? Here I shall have to disagree with you, to begin with; for I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, [5] and begot the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLYbegotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 1:237238, July 24, 1853) where in there does it say that sexual intercourse took place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 No, we do not teach that.http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...virgin_mary.htmhttp://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/GodMary.pdfhttp://www.lightplanet.com/response/answer...rs/begotten.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 4 2004, 11:06 AM The only time I've seen any sort of imagination or creativity from you is when recalling your military record.If you have never served in a SOF unit, what makes you think you know what goes on?You don't impress me, and never haveThat's because you've never met me. I supported Task Force 20 and 5th Group Special Forces in Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and discussed some of your claims with the SEALs and Delta boys there. They thought it was pretty funny. By the way, for clarification, I don't believe you ever served in any "SOF" units, either.I DO know what goes on, since I've actually been there. (makes one of us!) Somehow I doubt that meeting you would serve to impress me any more than your posts have. But if it makes you feel better to think so........ -Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Mar 4 2004, 12:55 PM where in there does it say that sexual intercourse took place? As Winnie said, intercourse was not a "hot topic' in the early church. It's obvious though that the brethren have taught this in varying degrees. Intercourse is the natural way to beget children. This seems to be the only way some earlier LDS leaders could comprehend: Brigham Young said, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115). Apostle Bruce R McConkie wrote:"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.) "And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.) Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211) It seems that these guys just couldn't understand that God works in mysterious ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Bruce R. McConkie also said: "teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely false and apostate." -"Mormon Doctrine", under the subject "virgin birth"...... Mary was indeed a virgin. God, who created an entire universe, can certainly make a woman conceive a child without need of any method we understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 In fact, if you read the quotes above, none mention sex, but paternity. This was a hot issue. In fact, BY was trying to make the point that the Holy Ghost was not Christ's father, but that the Father was. Reading these snippets in context, you can add the sex part in your mind, or do without it, and they make sense. I personally just believe these men were talking about paternity, not sex. And that's what I think..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 4 2004, 02:34 PM Bruce R. McConkie also said: "teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely false and apostate." -"Mormon Doctrine", under the subject "virgin birth"......Mary was indeed a virgin. God, who created an entire universe, can certainly make a woman conceive a child without need of any method we understand. Well then he most certainly contradicts himself." he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father."All mortal sons are born to mortal fathers through sexual intercourse. If they were trying to teach that the virgin birth was accomplished through non sexual means, why would they say all those other things?I completely disagree with their statements. I certainly see how Jenda and many, many others believe that this is an LDS teaching. They taught it in gospel doctrine class for goodness sake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 As Winnie said, intercourse was not a "hot topic' in the early church. It's obvious though that the brethren have taught this in varying degrees. Intercourse is the natural way to beget children. This seems to be the only way some earlier LDS leaders could comprehend:I couple of years ago on the fringe some one made this claim. I went through just the first two volumes of JoD. There were several (over 1/2 dozen if I recall) where intercourse was mentioned. I don't think that if that were the doctrine they would hesitate to say it.All those quotes do speak to our theology...That Jesus was literally the son of God the Father and that Mary was a virgin. that is our doctrine. anything else is speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Mar 4 2004, 04:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 4 2004, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Mar 4 2004, 02:34 PM Bruce R. McConkie also said: "teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely false and apostate." -"Mormon Doctrine", under the subject "virgin birth"...... Well then he most certainly contradicts himself." he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father."All mortal sons are born to mortal fathers through sexual intercourse. If they were trying to teach that the virgin birth was accomplished through non sexual means, why would they say all those other things?I completely disagree with their statements. I certainly see how Jenda and many, many others believe that this is an LDS teaching. They taught it in gospel doctrine class for goodness sake! I disagree. "he was born" does not say anything about any type of intercourse, and I still don't see that he meant it that way. He was crystal clear in his "virgin birth" statement, and the others are just worded so that they can be misconstrued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Mar 4 2004, 03:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 4 2004, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Mar 4 2004, 02:34 PM Bruce R. McConkie also said: "teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely false and apostate." -"Mormon Doctrine", under the subject "virgin birth"......Mary was indeed a virgin. God, who created an entire universe, can certainly make a woman conceive a child without need of any method we understand. Well then he most certainly contradicts himself." he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father."All mortal sons are born to mortal fathers through sexual intercourse. If they were trying to teach that the virgin birth was accomplished through non sexual means, why would they say all those other things?I completely disagree with their statements. I certainly see how Jenda and many, many others believe that this is an LDS teaching. They taught it in gospel doctrine class for goodness sake! UFO's and Bigfoot are also sometimes taught in Gospel Doctrine class. that means nothing. Bruce R. does state the doctrine. Mary was a Virgin, and Jesus is literally the son of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Mar 4 2004, 04:22 PM I couple of years ago on the fringe some one made this claim. I went through just the first two volumes of JoD. There were several (over 1/2 dozen if I recall) where intercourse was mentioned. I don't think that if that were the doctrine they would hesitate to say it.All those quotes do speak to our theology...That Jesus was literally the son of God the Father and that Mary was a virgin. that is our doctrine. anything else is speculation. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Mar 4 2004, 03:25 PM UFO's and Bigfoot are also sometimes taught in Gospel Doctrine class. Really? I wanna go to your ward! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 4, 2004 Report Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Mar 4 2004, 04:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 4 2004, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Mar 4 2004, 03:25 PM UFO's and Bigfoot are also sometimes taught in Gospel Doctrine class. Really? I wanna go to your ward! :) Me too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr2 Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 I supported Task Force 20 and 5th Group Special Forces in Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and discussed some of your claims with the SEALs and Delta boys there. They thought it was pretty funny. By the way, for clarification, I don't believe you ever served in any "SOF" units, either.I DO know what goes on, since I've actually been there. (makes one of us!)Somehow I doubt that meeting you would serve to impress me any more than your posts haveSo you never served in any of these units? You just listened to their operations on the radio? Supported huh? So you waited until the dangerous work was over before coming in.I do wonder what you did discuss with them. If you used the word "rucksack" a SEAL would sharply correct you, as we don't use army words. Secondly, I have never once mentioned anything about a 300 lb pack. I have mentioned a total loadout weight when we were mentioning maximum jump loads. Parachutes, weapons, ammo, food, water, communications, and extra gear. I'm sure you would have received a much different response if you told them what I actually said. But I question the validity of your claims. Were you honestly so bored in a time of active war that you'd discuss a guy you talked with on the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behunin Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 4 2004, 11:06 AM You still have not answered my questionThat is not your business. You seem so insistent on me answering this question. I am not interested as to why you are here. If you have a problem with that, well it's not my problem. Tr2,I never saw it as a problem, just curiosity. You attack LDS beliefs on a LDS website. I think it is my business because I am LDS and you are attacking my belief system. I am posting on an LDS message board to communicate and share LDS ideas with people who are not attacking my religion. These people can be non LDS. You attack the LDS religion and I want to know what your intent is in doing that.Now don't be defensive and say "it's none of your business". Why do you come here? Again, what is your intent in posting on a LDS message board when you do not like LDS people or their beliefs? What does it do for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisRuptive1 Posted March 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by srm@Mar 4 2004, 12:20 PM He was murdered...He just allowed it to happen According to what most lawyers will tell you he WAS NOT murdered. Rather it was a justifiable homicide. Like the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 5 2004, 01:19 AM According to what most lawyers will tell you he WAS NOT murdered. Rather it was a justifiable homicide. Like the death penalty. I wanna know what the lawyers say about Bigfoot...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srm Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by DisRuptive1+Mar 5 2004, 12:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DisRuptive1 @ Mar 5 2004, 12:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Mar 4 2004, 12:20 PM He was murdered...He just allowed it to happen According to what most lawyers will tell you he WAS NOT murdered. Rather it was a justifiable homicide. Like the death penalty. when you say most lawyer...what do you mean? 51%, 80%, 66.7%? can you refer me to some sites where most lawyers say that it was justifiable homicide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bizabra Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by AFDaw+Mar 4 2004, 09:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AFDaw @ Mar 4 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -bizabra@Mar 4 2004, 09:03 AMOriginally posted by -AFDaw@Mar 3 2004, 10:22 PM Originally posted by -bizabra@Mar 3 2004, 06:59 PM Originally posted by -AFDaw@Mar 3 2004, 10:17 AM <!--QuoteBegin--bizabra@Mar 3 2004, 09:01 AM Imagine your geneological chart if you could trace yourself back to Jesus. God would be in there as your great great great great great great great great great grampa! LOL!!!!!! Is it really that funny? YES! Why? If you can't grasp the humor inherent in the idea of having god be someones great x 20 grandpa, then no amount of explanation by me can help you understand.Sorry.Sorry, I don't really see humor in my own beliefs and what I know to be true. What's sad if you can't see how wonderful that would be. I truly feel sorry for you Biz. You believe that Jesus was married and had kids and that they are "part god" thus, "part divine" in their bodies. You think this idea is "wonderful". I think it is amusing. I think it would make a great plot for a Monty Python skit. However, I can "see" how cool it would be, Heck, I'd like to be physically part "divine" and have an advantage over other "normal" humans. I can "see" that. You can stop feeling sorry for me now. I see your point, why can't (or won't) you see mine, eh? Sheesh, some people take the world a bit too seriously. A sense of humor is not evil, wrong, or "sad". It just makes it a lighter place and brings a smile to your face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bizabra Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 4 2004, 10:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 4 2004, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -curvette@Mar 4 2004, 10:43 AM <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 4 2004, 10:39 AM I believe that Jesus' literal body is no different than yours and mine. The difference lies in how it came to be. It came to be via spiritual means rather than human means. I believe that God (the Father) spiritually touched the unfertilized egg in Mary's womb by means of the Holy Spirit, and it became a fertilized egg. A pure home for his divine spirit to rest. He is pure because he was conceived without sin. He is divine because God's spirit rests within him. Without either of these qualities, he could not have shouldered our sins. Both were extremely necessary. And if he was not 100% human, he could not have died for our sins because he could neither comprehend them nor suffer for them.So, IMO, being pure, being divine and being 100% human could have been the only way for his purpose to be accomplished. This is hard for me to understand. I completely respect your views, but where did the Y chromosome DNA come from? Just like the three Nephites were changed in the twinkling of an eye into translated beings, God can change the nature of anything he wants. God changed the nature of the egg from unfertilized to fertilized. Part of the miracle is that it was changed from unfertilized to fertilized male. It would not have been such a great miracle if it had been changed from unfertilized to fertilized female. (I read that scientists have been able to force fertilization from two eggs, the result would, of course, have to be female.)I believe, but am not sure, that the LDS view is that God actually had some kind of sex with Mary to create Jesus. (Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to continue to carry around that impression if it is false.) I don't believe that that happened, I believe that it just took the touch of the Holy Spirit to effect that change. The angel Gabriel brought along a "turkey baster" with gods holy sperm and "artifitially" impregnated Mary with it. At least, that's the thought I had way back when I was a young mormon grasshopper and pondered the topic. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFDaw Posted March 5, 2004 Report Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by bizabra@Mar 5 2004, 09:11 AMYou believe that Jesus was married and had kids and that they are "part god" thus, "part divine" in their bodies. You think this idea is "wonderful". I think it is amusing. I think it would make a great plot for a Monty Python skit. However, I can "see" how cool it would be, Heck, I'd like to be physically part "divine" and have an advantage over other "normal" humans. I can "see" that. You can stop feeling sorry for me now. I see your point, why can't (or won't) you see mine, eh? Sheesh, some people take the world a bit too seriously. A sense of humor is not evil, wrong, or "sad". It just makes it a lighter place and brings a smile to your face. Nah...thanks though, but I will chose to continue to feel sorry for you :)As for the sense of humor, you obviously don't me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bizabra Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 SNORT! whatEVER! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 Good grief...my computer goes comput for just a few days...and crazy happens! LOL How can one be a virgin....give a baby life through a virgin birth...and still have had sex in the normal sense of the word...with God??? There was no intercourse or there was no virgin birth....take your pick people! You can't have it bothways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Behunin+Mar 4 2004, 09:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Mar 4 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@Mar 4 2004, 11:06 AM You still have not answered my questionThat is not your business. You seem so insistent on me answering this question. I am not interested as to why you are here. If you have a problem with that, well it's not my problem. Tr2,I never saw it as a problem, just curiosity. You attack LDS beliefs on a LDS website. I think it is my business because I am LDS and you are attacking my belief system. I am posting on an LDS message board to communicate and share LDS ideas with people who are not attacking my religion. These people can be non LDS. You attack the LDS religion and I want to know what your intent is in doing that.Now don't be defensive and say "it's none of your business". Why do you come here? Again, what is your intent in posting on a LDS message board when you do not like LDS people or their beliefs? What does it do for you? I have to agree with Behunin....why would someone who doesn't like Mormons or their beliefs frequent their forums?Only one thing comes to mind....you are an ex-mo and can't leave it alone...you have anger issues and haven't been able to resolve them...or....you don't have a life and must fester those who do have a life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted March 6, 2004 Report Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Mar 5 2004, 08:55 PM Only one thing comes to mind....you are an ex-mo and can't leave it alone...you have anger issues and haven't been able to resolve them...or....you don't have a life and must fester those who do have a life. I'm pretty sure that Trident is a never mo, not an ex mo. I guess that leaves option #2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.