Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos
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.
|
I don't remember saying anything about infallability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos
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?
|
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.