James White, Beating That Poor Deadhorse Yet Again.

[Avatar4321]

This conversation simply demonstrates that our critics have to read sex into the comments to falsely claim we believe in this.

[JimmieD]

Mr. White is a liar, there is no truth in him.

Ad hominem. No content.

[Bill Hamblin]

So, CK, are you saying that you don't believe the Father is the literal father of Jesus?

Or are you only saying that when LDS say "God is the literal father of Jesus" that it must always mean by sexual intercourse, but when Evangelicals say it, it can't ever mean by sexual intercourse.

BTW, to "sire" simply means to be the male parent of. Nothing more.

[juliann]

Is "the most literal sense" of "siring" equivalent to artificial insemination? To in vitro fertilization?

How disgusting. I know two families who have "sired" through the miracle of in vitro. Both had twins. And they as well as any decent person I know consider them to be literal parents who sired those children. Try to tell them or anyone else they are not. This continued obsession with sex has turned from merely poor taste to pathological.

[Hick Preacher]

I have found that those who once had the light and then sinned against the light become even more darkened in their mind and know less about the Mormon religion than those who were never members.

Thanks for bringing out this LDS idea on this thread-

My Comment:

Actually this is part of the LDS gnosiology. In the LDS system of knowledge, a person comes to know valuable sacred knowledge by obedience- or looses it by rebellion. ( Again see D&C 130 on this LDS principle) This LDS gnosiology is more than just verbal knowledge- it is considered the sum total of all thoughts, feeling and part of a person's inner subconscious- and what could be called insight. The rebel (apostate) in this LDS gnosiology looses the basic LDS instincts and personal insights and falls in to a kind of mental Incontinence. This principle of LDS gnosiology is of a more fundamental order than even rational function.

Because of this LDS gnosiology any non-LDS person ex- or never a member can never be given complete credit for even the most rational explanation of LDS beliefs.

And truly much of LDS beliefs are based on the exercise of living an LDS gospel principle. That is an LDS person can never understand the truth of a gospel principle until it is lived, and a testimony of it is gained.

So even when the LDS talk or discuss about a gospel principle, a full understanding can never be communicated by only a description in words. That is, only by living and doing is the principle understood in the heart of the LDS person.

Therefore any non-LDS persons explanation of an LDS principle is never truly an accurate representation-- and justly viewed by LDS as a distortion of what LDS truly believe in their hearts.

[HanClinto]

Did I miss something, or are we not talking about JoD 8:115

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.

Do Mormons not believe this anymore?

--clint

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did I miss something, or are we not talking about JoD 8:115

Do Mormons not believe this anymore?

--clint

Did you miss everything Daniel Peterson said in this thread?

[thesometimesaint]

HanClinto:

LDS believe the Jesus was born of a virgin birth. The Scriptures are silent on the means it was accomplished. LDS or anyone else is perfectly free to SPECULATE on the means as long as we they abide with the scriptures.

[Hick Preacher]

David W mentions-

Hi ck,

You wrote:

>>I assume that White will reference the 1916 proclamation and work backwards from there to the JoD passages, rather than forward to modern clarifications by the brethren (though, to be honest, I have no idea if the brethren have issued any such qualifications or whether they felt it necessary to do so). On the other hand, one could perhaps read the 1916 document as the clarification.>>

Me: Two quick points; first, I think the Harold B. Lee quote I provided earlier in this very thread is an excellent example of a â??modern clarification by the brethrenâ?; and second, since one of the basic tenants of Mormonism is continuing revelation, a methodology of â??working backwardsâ? seems quite faulty.

The Beachbum

When considering LDS teachings, traditional Christian analyists usually work from the original LDS assertion that the earliest/original teachings of Christianity and the original Apostles of Jesus are the purest, and the later ammendments such as creeds contain departures from the original pure and perfect restored teachings.

This restorationist idea ends-up transfered and applied into evaluations of early LDS teachings.

The idea is that if the doctines were the purest in the beginnings of a religion, such as in the founding of ancient Christianity by the original 12 apostles- then the same idealogy should be applied to Mormonism's beginnings.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't think we should shift the goalposts mid-game.

I agree. We should stick to the ordinary meanings of words.

That's what I'm doing.

I'm wondering about what Benson meant by "the most literal sense" of "siring." Your question(s) as to what is "not literal" about artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization is wide of the mark in terms of that question--it's the difference between a periphrastic superlative and something that simply adequately meets your definition of "literal."

So, in your view, the literal sense of a word is detachable from the meaning of the word?

This is a new doctrine to me.

Is "the most literal sense" of "siring" equivalent to artificial insemination? To in vitro fertilization?

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it's not.

I assume that Benson had no contact with the Federation of Animal Science Societies before issuing his teaching.

In view of his service as a two-term Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower, I suspect that he knew something about cattle breeding, could understand breeders when they spoke, and could make himself understood to them.

I don't believe that the The Journal of Dairy Science, pretigious as that publication may be in its field, tells us anything particularly compelling about Benson's authorial intent.

It tells us about the generally-understood meaning of one of the crucial words in President Benson's remarks. You may have a way of divining President Benson's intent apart from what he actually said. I, alas, do not.

As I've pointed out several times, it may well be that President Benson intended to refer to sexual intercourse. But there doesn't seem to be anything in what he said that requires that interpretation.

As I've also said, I don't really care. I don't know the precise mode of Jesus' conception, and I'm serenely willing to accept whatever mode the Father chose. I'm simply trying to point out to you that what you apparently regard as clear and decisive evidence in one direction isn't.

Do Mormons not believe this anymore?

Mormons believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father. He is not merely the adopted Son of God, or the metaphorical or symbolic Son of God. Calling him the Son of God is not simply a tribute to his spirituality or moral stature. He is, really, literally, the Son of God. He has the Father's DNA.

Various people in the Church at various levels have expressed their views about the way in which the Father's DNA entered into the process by which Mary conceived Jesus.

There is not now, and has never been, an official, binding doctrine in the Church on the mode of Mary's conception.

Thus, for example, while anybody denying that Jesus was the literal Son of God the Father would be subject to Church discipline, somebody denying that God had sex with Mary in order to produce Jesus would, for that view, be subject to no Church discipline. Members of the Church are entirely free to speculate about the method by which Jesus was conceived; they are not free to speculate in analogous ways about whether Jesus was or was not literally the Son of God.

[juliann]

Did I miss something, or are we not talking about JoD 8:115

Do Mormons not believe this anymore?

--clint

The dumb newbie act is getting a bit old.

Some Mormons may spend hours salivating over this, I suspect the vast majority never have or will. You will have to stay with the anti-Mormons hopelessly stuck in their 19th century time warp if you want prolonged and titillating discussions about the possibility.

[juliann]

The idea is that if the doctines were the purest in the beginnings of a religion, such as in the founding of ancient Christianity by the original 12 apostles- then the same idealogy should be applied to Mormonism's beginnings.

Oh dear, that means we can judge conventional Christianity by the same standard. You can't afford to go there.

[Hick Preacher]

...the anti-Mormons hopelessly stuck in their 19th century time warp ...

Do not Mormons still believe that 19th century Mormonism was ancient/ original Christianity restored?

If not then what part of current Mormonism is the true Christianity?

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel Peterson:

While I also doubt that anyone would face church discipline for having the belief that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. I do believe that belief is contrary to Scripture.

[thesometimesaint]

Hick Preacher:

Yep. We are also very much a 21st Century Church. "Line upon Line".

[Daniel Peterson]

While I also doubt that anyone would face church discipline for having the belief that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary. I do believe that belief is contrary to Scripture.

I don't.

The Bible and other scriptures tell us none of the details of the conception of Jesus, but Jesus is repeatedly called God's Son, the Son of the Highest, and similar things.

That's what I know. And, while I can speculate with the best of them, I don't actually know anything about the subject beyond what the revelations say.

[juliann]

Do not Mormons still believe that 19th century Mormonism was ancient/ original Christianity restored?

If not then what part of current Mormonism is the true Christianity?

No, we believe that Mormonism is the restored gospel. We are not fundamentalists, sorry.

What decade of your brand of Christianity is the true Christianity?

[Hick Preacher]

No, we believe that Mormonism is the restored gospel. We are not fundamentalists, sorry.

Sorry but when you say restored gospel-- I am wondering what it was the original that needed restored. Unless you define the original the 'restored' has no meaning.

What decade of your brand of Christianity is the true Christianity?

The Christianity of the 21 century. Christianity in my view is a developing, progressing, and living organism. Just as an infant grows to become a small boy and then later develops, grows and eventually grows a beard, so is Christianity manifesting new attributes as it develops. Yet it started out with the same DNA.

What say you about Mormonism in from a simular view?

[Hick Preacher]

Hick Preacher:

Yep. We are also very much a 21st Century Church. "Line upon Line".

Thanks-- this is a short answer-- but says a lot.

Do your lines (line upon line) run horizontal or vertical-- or both?

What is your horizontal sacred knowledge

What is your vertical sacred knowledge

And how do you manage this knowledge?

This may better explain to the world how you are 'Christian'.

[HanClinto]

The dumb newbie act is getting a bit old.

I'm sorry that you feel my ignorance is an act -- I can assure you that it's not. I'm relatively new to Mormon theology, having briefly looked into it a couple of years ago, and then only much more seriously in the past several months. I've been pretty up front and honest about what I've read and how I've done it, and I don't register sock puppet usernames. As I briefly mentioned in my introduction thread, I've been a bit shocked by much of what I've read in old Mormon sermons, but I'm trying to be reasonable enough that not all Mormons believe such things anymore. I know that OSC doesn't believe in the PoGP or the seer-stone-in-the-hat, and so I've been trying to balance things out and find out what Mormons (in general) still teach and believe about such things.

I spent a bit of time searching for more references, but I can't find it at the moment. I seem to recall reading a sermon by either B. Young or J. F. Smith where he said that Mary most certainly conceived through normal action of the Father, for if Mary had conceived through the Holy Spirit, then every time they baptised a young woman she would get pregnant, and the church would be overloaded having to care for children without earthly fathers.

But alas, I'm unable to find the quote.

I showed the sermon to the Mormons missionaries who have been visiting us, but they were very sketchy about it and hemmed and hawed around it. That's where I got the impression that Mormons don't believe this anymore. I'm sorry if I made too great a generalization in my guess.

Oh dear, that means we can judge conventional Christianity by the same standard. You can't afford to go there.

Why not? Conventional Christianity (outside of Catholicism) doesn't believe we have a prophet who can speak authoritatively. In conventional Christianity, the Bible is the only absolute authority (sola scriptura). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what Mormonism teaches is the huge advantage of having a prophet around -- so as to provide strong and trustworthy guidance rather than a bunch of blind conflicting teachers leading blind congregants.

It's no problem to say that a conventional Christian church father was wrong on something -- we chalk that up to them misunderstanding the scriptures, and we expect that sort of thing to happen, because they are not inspired prophets.

However, if we can't trust Mormon prophets any more than Calvin or Luther or Augustine, then of what significance is the office of "prophet" -- particularly if we no longer expect to be able to trust what they teach?

--clint

[thesometimesaint]

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

ST LUKE

CHAPTER 1:34

34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

I am sure you are familiar with the Biblical meaning of "know". I believe that using this Scripture would eliminate to possibility that sexual intercourse with God was involved in the conception of Jesus.

[juliann]

I showed the sermon to the Mormons missionaries who have been visiting us, but they were very sketchy about it and hemmed and hawed around it. That's where I got the impression that Mormons don't believe this anymore.

So a sermon is so obscure that you can't even find it, missionaries are "sketchy" about it....but you infer that this was somehow a Mormon belief? Don't you think you have a responsibility to provide evidence that it was a general "Mormon belief"? If it was, it would be all over the place. Do you really think we are that interested in talking... let alone teaching... about Mary's sex life?

It's no problem to say that a conventional Christian church father was wrong on something -- we chalk that up to them misunderstanding the scriptures, and we expect that sort of thing to happen, because they are not inspired prophets.

However, if we can't trust Mormon prophets any more than Calvin or Luther or Augustine, then of what significance is the office of "prophet" -- particularly if we no longer expect to be able to trust what they teach?

So you are saying that your leaders aren't inspired? If not, why do you trust them to begin with? You aren't going to make much headway here trying to claim that such leaders haven't decided the course of conventional Christianity.

In Mormonism the idea that everything will be laid out for us so that we will never have to make a decision or make a mistake is called "Satan's plan".

[thesometimesaint]

Hick Preacher:

I don't claim to know even the smallest of fractions of a fraction of the Restored Gospel. Everything I know about what has been revealed is in the Standard Works of the Church, and I don't even know much of those.

[juliann]

Sorry but when you say restored gospel-- I am wondering what it was the original that needed restored. Unless you define the original the 'restored' has no meaning.

The Christianity of the 21 century. Christianity in my view is a developing, progressing, and living organism. Just as an infant grows to become a small boy and then later develops, grows and eventually grows a beard, so is Christianity manifesting new attributes as it develops. Yet it started out with the same DNA.

What say you about Mormonism in from a simular view?

That your DNA analogy is unbiblical. The double standards here are shocking enough...but the complete unawareness of them is downright frightening. The blinders you and others wear with the idea that you are somehow less obligated to provide the perfection that you demand of others is what turns so many from Christianity.

[cksalmon]

So, CK, are you saying that you don't believe the Father is the literal father of Jesus?

I don't know that I'd use that term. I don't know what term I'd use in its stead, though.

(1) Or are you only saying that when LDS say "God is the literal father of Jesus" that it must always mean by sexual intercourse, but (2) when Evangelicals say it, it can't ever mean by sexual intercourse.

(1) No, I'm not saying this (and, if I were, some of the LDS responses in this thread would disprove my proposition)

(2) I wouldn't say that they never can, nor that they never do, but merely that they never should.

CKS