Jason Bourne wrote:Well Charity, Brigham Young taught God has sex with Mary, one of his wives, in order to make baby Jesus.
Brigham Young taught some things that were not scriptural. The JD amply demonstrates this. If you want to know what Mormon doctrine is, then your first resource should be the scriptures - not books like MD, or even the JD. Speculation is the cause of misunderstanding. There is nothing in the scriptures which explain or detail how Jesus was conceived. If the leaders had followed the Book of Mormon in the first place (as McConkie later reflected on), the black ban would never have occurred.
Kind of a moot point, Ray, since some things which are "doctrinal" are not scriptural. The WoW, for example, in practice involves things which are cultural rather than strictly scriptural. Also, I would be interested in seeing the scripture which supports the ban on two earrings. Further, the fact that other of the Brethren echoed BY's teaching most definitely suggests that, on the whole, Church leaders felt this teaching to be, on some level, "doctrinal."
Mormons agree to the following facts: Mary was not married when she got pregnant and she had not "known" (in the biblical sense) a mortal man when she conceived and bare Jesus.
Well, HF is hardly a "mortal man."
Exactly. I hold it as a possibility that it occurred naturally--so-to-speak.
This miraculous birth allowed Jesus to be fully God and fully man. The rest of the question about how precisely Jesus was conceived seems unnecessary and counter-productive. I hold as a possibility that God could fertilize eggs without even using sperm. However, I don't care how he did it.
Obviously, you care enough about it to try and pooh-pooh away the notion that physical intercourse took place. Why not accept the Brethren's earlier pronouncements on this subject? Why opt for the "Gee, we don't know! It was just magic!" theory?
Because I don't whether I understand them correctly just as I am unsure about the Adam-God thing (I'm sure Adam wasn't our Heavenly Father, but I don't know just what was meant--same with Heavenly Father "siring" Jesus).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Mister Scratch wrote:Obviously, you care enough about it to try and pooh-pooh away the notion that physical intercourse took place. Why not accept the Brethren's earlier pronouncements on this subject? Why opt for the "Gee, we don't know! It was just magic!" theory?
Because I don't whether I understand them correctly just as I am unsure about the Adam-God thing (I'm sure Adam wasn't our Heavenly Father, but I don't know just what was meant--same with Heavenly Father "siring" Jesus).
Well, unless I am mistaken, the Adam-God doctrine was limited to BY, whereas the "siring" was embraced by multiple GAs. I think it's fairly safe to treat the "siring" as being more or less "doctrinal."
Mister Scratch wrote:Further, the fact that other of the Brethren echoed BY's teaching most definitely suggests that, on the whole, Church leaders felt this teaching to be, on some level, "doctrinal."
On the face of it, BY's teaching seems logical. It is, however, unsettling to many of us when we wonder how Mary could be the wife of both Joseph and Heavenly Father. Actually, just being the wife of Heavenly Father would be weird enough. A Father marrying His own daughter? Maybe it's really not so bad though. I mean, We all marry our spiritual siblings (at least if we marry anyone).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, unless I am mistaken, the Adam-God doctrine was limited to BY, whereas the "siring" was embraced by multiple GAs. I think it's fairly safe to treat the "siring" as being more or less "doctrinal."
Nope, Scratch. Others picked it up too. And it was taught in some temples in the Lecture at the Veil.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
asbestosman wrote:On the face of it, BY's teaching seems logical. It is, however, unsettling to many of us when we wonder how Mary could be the wife of both Joseph and Heavenly Father.
Easy, look to the example of Joseph Smith.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Mister Scratch wrote:Obviously, you care enough about it to try and pooh-pooh away the notion that physical intercourse took place. Why not accept the Brethren's earlier pronouncements on this subject? Why opt for the "Gee, we don't know! It was just magic!" theory?
Because I don't whether I understand them correctly just as I am unsure about the Adam-God thing (I'm sure Adam wasn't our Heavenly Father, but I don't know just what was meant--same with Heavenly Father "siring" Jesus).
Well, unless I am mistaken, the Adam-God doctrine was limited to BY, whereas the "siring" was embraced by multiple GAs. I think it's fairly safe to treat the "siring" as being more or less "doctrinal."
Can one still sire without intercourse? I would answer yes, modern biology already does it and has already made advances with creating artificial sperm from stem cells. Does it matter if it was artificial or "natural"? Not at all. I just think it wise to admit our ignorance on the matter.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Scottie wrote:If God and Mary did "do it" in the traditional sense, do you think Mary had an orgasm?
I doubt it. God doesn't strike me as a very attentive lover. Odds are he's almost invisible between the sheets. ;)
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07