Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I know how Joseph F. Smith answered that question:

"Now we are told in Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father... We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot His son Jesus Christ. And he was born into the world with power and intelligence like that of his Father."

Stake Conference Address printed in the Box Elder Times, Sept. 22, 1914.
Also found in Messages of the First Presidency,@ vol. 4, pp. 327-332.

Curious, did he actually "answer that question" or was this just an excerpt from a larger discourse? I'm not sure that if you asked JF.S that specific question, you'd get that answer. He didn't answer the question with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" did he?

In other words, I think you're reading more into the quote than is there.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Oh come on Jay. I don't know how much more clear it could be and it did appear in a church publication. See my cites (the second one anyway). If you really want me to produce a string of quotes on this, I can. I'm not telling you I think it is the doctrine of the church or that it isn't. The lawyer in me tells me that recent precedent is always better, but it also tells me that old precedent is just as good even though it hasn't been ruled on in a long time so long as it hasn't been overruled.

I do think your approach that doctrines have an expiration date when they aren't mentioned for long enough is an interesting little bit of mental gymnastics, however. I don't really blame you, honestly, for taking a position here though I think several are possible. The fact that we are a church without creeds is always going to mean that "doctrine" means something very different to us than it does other religions. It is a much more fluid concept.

My definition of doctrine is what is in the canon and what is taught by a living prophet.

I don't have expiration dates for doctrine but silence can be deafening. If something is not being taught and hasn't been for decades, then I think there's a very strong chance that the original teaching was not correct.

If the church through official spokesperson said we don't know how Mary was impregnated, then I'll take that as a refuting of any quack who said God stuck his penis in Mary's vagina.

[mpfunk]

I'm more concerned about foxnews answering 50 Cent's 21 Questions.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Curious, did he actually "answer that question" or was this just an excerpt from a larger discourse? I'm not sure that if you asked JF.S that specific question, you'd get that answer. He didn't answer the question with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" did he?

In other words, I think you're reading more into the quote than is there.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you think so. What other possible interpretation of that could there be?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by jay santos

My definition of doctrine is what is in the canon and what is taught by a living prophet.

I don't have expiration dates for doctrine but silence can be deafening. If something is not being taught and hasn't been for decades, then I think there's a very strong chance that the original teaching was not correct.

If the church through official spokesperson said we don't know how Mary was impregnated, then I'll take that as a refuting of any quack who said God stuck his penis in Mary's vagina.

Come now, you just called a prophet of God a quack. You didn't mean that.

I actually do that you have articulated a tenable possible there. But it does set up an interesting discussion about whether a person working the church's PR department speaks with more authority than does a prophet speaking across a pulpit in an official capacity.

To me the interesting paradox is this: on the one hand we have a living prophet and so theoretically he could give us a definitive answer on absolutely anything. On the other hand, the giving of definitive answers by prophets in the past has led to exactly these sorts of uncomfortable statements.

Go figure.

[MikeWaters]

Having a modern prophet is like having a football game with instant replay and review--people are still going to see what they want to see.

[Indy Coug]

I'm open to any and all possibilities on how Mary became pregnant, and I fail to see how any of the possibilities really are that shocking or controversial.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm open to any and all possibilities on how Mary became pregnant, and I fail to see how any of the possibilities really are that shocking or controversial.

This is actually how I feel too. This is how I feel about most things, which then often leads me to scratch my head when I think people are going through contortions to defend some idea that doesn't need defending.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you think so. What other possible interpretation of that could there be?

Wow, flabbergasted. I'm impressed that I could flabbergast anyone.

I take it to mean that the normal biological processes involved in the gestation and birth of a mortal human life were the same for Jesus as they were for anyone else.

But we start to entry really weird territory when we speculate beyond that. I'm trying to avoid being crude here. We know God does not have blood. Does he have semen? Does he become "aroused"? What are his genes like? Could we sample his DNA, just like anyone else?

We may as well speculate on how spirits are created, because it's about as useful. Do you have the context for this quotation?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

This is actually how I feel too. This is how I feel about most things, which then often leads me to scratch my head when I think people are going through contortions to defend some idea that doesn't need defending.

We don't know how, and all that matters is that she became impregnated. Believers believe that Christ was the Son, and nonbelievers don't.