How do the Mormons do it?

[CopticChristian]

Miriam,

They aren’t gyrations. I am letting your beliefs be “literal”, like SteveVH said we should all do. If He generated His own Y chromosome, as the words you chose put it, then that scientifically would mean He was the Son of Himself, literally.

Also, if He was the son of Mary and she was the only contributor to His DNA for His physical body, then that was the most basic of non-scientific and illogical ways to describe how He was conceived.

This discussion arises because of the comment by RebeccaJ, which she has repeatedly made on threads about Latter-day Saint beliefs that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God.

If Jesus only had the physical body He had because of Mary, then when He said He was the Son of God and knew what that meant to others, He was being misleading in saying that.

This whole DNA thing has gotten us nowhere. To throw another wrench in the mix of conversation research “chimerism” maternal and fetal. Pubmed is a good place to go.

Jesus had Mary’s cells and Mary had Jesus’s cells in her body. The fetal cells mingle and persist. Mary lived her life while pregnant with Jesus blood and cells mingling in her body. If The incarnate Jesus was fully Man/God then all of his cells were human/divine. This means that after birth Mary retained human/divine cells long after the birth. This also means that the body of Jesus was crucified with Mary’s cells in His body.

I can imagine this might cause Protestants to get a charley horse between the ears more so than Mormons.

The Church has always said Mary is full of grace. The Church teaches Mary is blessed. The Church had no notion of maternal or fetal chimerism in teaching these things. This creates some thought as to the relationship of Mary and Jesus.

 

[Miriam1947]

Wait there’s this!

everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/forget-diamonds-fetal-cells-are-forever/

Forget Diamonds - Fetal Cells Are Forever!

A few months ago, I heard a fascinating report on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition by Robert Krulwich, a well-regarded science reporter, and I’ve saved it just for today.
If you are a mother, it is quite likely that you have cells in your body that are not yours, but were given to you by your baby before it was born! It turns out that during pregnancy, cells from the fetus circulate in the mother’s blood, and at 36 weeks gestation, 100 percent of pregnant women have fetal cells in their circulation. After delivery, the number of fetal cells declines rapidly, but using sophisticated tests, researchers have detected fetal cells in as many as 90 percent of women as long as decades after pregnancy, sometimes for life.
It’s the ultimate gift that keeps on giving!
Technically speaking, this phenomenon is known as microchimerism. In mythology, a chimera was a fire-breathing monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. In medical science, a chimera is an individual that has more than one genetically distinct population of cells. If the different types of cells were present throughout the body, a true chimera would be created, such as when scientists combined a sheep embryo with a goat embryo and made something they called a “geep.” But in mothers, the number of fetal cells is extremely small, hence the name microchimerism was coined.

There’s a lot more.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Wait there’s this!

everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/forget-diamonds-fetal-cells-are-forever/

Forget Diamonds - Fetal Cells Are Forever!

A few months ago, I heard a fascinating report on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition by Robert Krulwich, a well-regarded science reporter, and I’ve saved it just for today.
If you are a mother, it is quite likely that you have cells in your body that are not yours, but were given to you by your baby before it was born! It turns out that during pregnancy, cells from the fetus circulate in the mother’s blood, and at 36 weeks gestation, 100 percent of pregnant women have fetal cells in their circulation. After delivery, the number of fetal cells declines rapidly, but using sophisticated tests, researchers have detected fetal cells in as many as 90 percent of women as long as decades after pregnancy, sometimes for life.
It’s the ultimate gift that keeps on giving!
Technically speaking, this phenomenon is known as microchimerism. In mythology, a chimera was a fire-breathing monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. In medical science, a chimera is an individual that has more than one genetically distinct population of cells. If the different types of cells were present throughout the body, a true chimera would be created, such as when scientists combined a sheep embryo with a goat embryo and made something they called a “geep.” But in mothers, the number of fetal cells is extremely small, hence the name microchimerism was coined.

There’s a lot more.

So that’s why I see my babies when I look at my teens

 

[CopticChristian]

Wait there’s this!

everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/forget-diamonds-fetal-cells-are-forever/

Forget Diamonds - Fetal Cells Are Forever!

A few months ago, I heard a fascinating report on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition by Robert Krulwich, a well-regarded science reporter, and I’ve saved it just for today.
If you are a mother, it is quite likely that you have cells in your body that are not yours, but were given to you by your baby before it was born! It turns out that during pregnancy, cells from the fetus circulate in the mother’s blood, and at 36 weeks gestation, 100 percent of pregnant women have fetal cells in their circulation. After delivery, the number of fetal cells declines rapidly, but using sophisticated tests, researchers have detected fetal cells in as many as 90 percent of women as long as decades after pregnancy, sometimes for life.
It’s the ultimate gift that keeps on giving!
Technically speaking, this phenomenon is known as microchimerism. In mythology, a chimera was a fire-breathing monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. In medical science, a chimera is an individual that has more than one genetically distinct population of cells. If the different types of cells were present throughout the body, a true chimera would be created, such as when scientists combined a sheep embryo with a goat embryo and made something they called a “geep.” But in mothers, the number of fetal cells is extremely small, hence the name microchimerism was coined.

There’s a lot more.

Yes. There are scientific articles that provide evidence as you say.

[Microchimerism, as an inheritance from pregnancy].
[Article in Hungarian]
Nagy GR, Neducsin BP, Rigó J Jr.
Source
Semmelweis Egyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar I. Szülészeti és Nőgyógyászati Klinika Budapest Baross u. 27. 1088. nagy.gyula@noil.sote.hu
Abstract

During pregnancy, due to the bidirectional traffic through the placenta, chimera cells or DNA gets into the mother’s and her fetus’ body. This is the phenomenon of fetal and maternal microchimerism. These cells, even decades after the birth, can be detected in the host. Despite the fact that a lot of research-team deals with this phenomenon, the importance of microchimerism in health and diseases remains little known. In this article, we aimed to give an overview of the current state of science about this topic. The possible role of microchimerism studied mostly in the pathogenesis of autoimmune processes, non-autoimmune diseases and tumors, or even in the regression of them; it can be as well as a possible component of transplant immunology. The phenomenon of microchimerism could mean important opportunity in the non-invasive prenatal diagnosis, cutting off the currently associated risk of abortion. Due to the constantly developing cell identification- and enrichment procedures, it is expected to be revealed in more and more processes of the human body, that microchimera cells and DNA, as an inheritance of pregnancy, play a role in them.

This is an abstract of an article that explains this phenomenon.

you can find more at Pubmed.

 

[NewSeeker]

We see Jesus Christ as the founder of our church, and we never disagree with Him. Since we don’t see Joseph Smith as our founder, we disagree with him without hesitation. We see him as a great man, but flawed and wrong on occasion, just like Moses was.

Sounds good to me. Let’s go back to the time when I was still LDS. What if I said in response “Yes, I admire Joseph Smith, despite his failings. He was right about the evils of liquor and tobacco, but was wrong about hot drinks. He was right about doing good to all men, being a follower of Jesus, but was wrong about the Apostasy, meaning the first recorded First Vision account is authentic one, not the one contained in JS-History. Oh, and the Book of Mormon is pseudoepigraphical, not a true historical account. It contains spiritual truths, but there were no such thing as Nephites. Joseph Smith saw Moroni and the Golden Plates with his ‘spiritual eyes’, the same as Martin Harris said about his own vision of the plates. The spirit bore witness to me about all of these things.”

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Sounds good to me. Let’s go back to the time when I was still LDS. What if I said in response "Yes, I admire Joseph Smith, despite his failings. He was right about the evils of liquor and tobacco, but was wrong about hot drinks.

At this point you’re OK, so long as you can stay away from tea and coffee, despite your opinions. If you drink tea and coffee, then you eventually lose your temple recommend. You ever notice that in the text of section 88, that Beer isn’t prohibited? That prohibition came later under Brigham Young.

He was right about doing good to all men, being a follower of Jesus, but was wrong about the Apostasy, meaning the first recorded First Vision account is authentic one, not the one contained in JS-History.

At that point, you get in an argument with someone in Sunday School. Big deal.

Oh, and the Book of Mormon is pseudoepigraphical, not a true historical account. It contains spiritual truths, but there were no such thing as Nephites. Joseph Smith saw Moroni and the Golden Plates with his ‘spiritual eyes’, the same as Martin Harris said about his own vision of the plates.

At this point, you don’t get assigned to teach Sunday School, or to talk in church, and if you’ve got a job with the Church Education System, kiss it goodbye. But no action against your membership unless you hit the talk show circuit.

The spirit bore witness to me about all of these things."

At that point, you would probably be taken for either an apostate or a crackpot.

But that’s a foolish analogy, since everything you just said attacks writings that the LDS consider scripture. Nothing that I said creates any such conflict.

But if you are what you say you are, then you know that already.

 

[NewSeeker]

At this point you’re OK, so long as you can stay away from tea and coffee, despite your opinions. If you drink tea and coffee, then you eventually lose your temple recommend. You ever notice that in the text of section 88, that Beer isn’t prohibited? That prohibition came later under Brigham Young.

At that point, you get in an argument with someone in Sunday School. Big deal.

At this point, you don’t get assigned to teach Sunday School, or to talk in church, and if you’ve got a job with the Church Education System, kiss it goodbye. But no action against your membership unless you hit the talk show circuit.

At that point, you would probably be taken for either an apostate or a crackpot.

But that’s a foolish analogy, since everything you just said attacks writings that the LDS consider scripture. Nothing that I said creates any such conflict.

But if you are what you say you are, then you know that already.

Lol, I guessed I was either a crackpot or apostate, though I’ve never had a private conversation with the Holy Ghost of either the burning-bosom or the still-small-voice kind. My devout LDS uncle thinks I’m both cracked and an apostate. From and LDS point of view, it’s undeniable. That’s why I journeyed to Rome! But getting back to your point, it’s true, Mormons these days like to say that Joseph Smith was flawed and sometimes made mistakes. One thing Joseph definitely got right when he penned the WoW was the delicious, beneficial character of a good beer. Too bad Emma made him take the bar out of the Nauvoo House. She was definitely a killjoy in that respect, much like Relief Society sisters today. Except, perhaps it was a just recompense (in her mind) for all the lovely lasses that Joseph foisted on her against her will. I suppose I shouldn’t judge Emma too harshly. I know my wife would throw me out of the house if I brought a teenage girl home and told her some cockamamie story like an angel with a flaming sword commanded me to take her as a wife. Yes, Joseph made many mistakes.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I’m glad my analysis amused you, NewSeeker

But getting back to your point, it’s true, Mormons these days like to say that Joseph Smith was flawed and sometimes made mistakes. One thing Joseph definitely got right when he penned the WoW was the delicious, beneficial character of a good beer.

While that flavor never did tempt me, you may be right on the health effects. Lots of vitamin B as I recall. And far from banning beer, section 89 actually recommends “mild barley drinks.”

 

[SteveVH]

This whole DNA thing has gotten us nowhere. To throw another wrench in the mix of conversation research “chimerism” maternal and fetal. Pubmed is a good place to go.

Jesus had Mary’s cells and Mary had Jesus’s cells in her body. The fetal cells mingle and persist. Mary lived her life while pregnant with Jesus blood and cells mingling in her body. If The incarnate Jesus was fully Man/God then all of his cells were human/divine. This means that after birth Mary retained human/divine cells long after the birth. This also means that the body of Jesus was crucified with Mary’s cells in His body.

I can imagine this might cause Protestants to get a charley horse between the ears more so than Mormons.

The Church has always said Mary is full of grace. The Church teaches Mary is blessed. The Church had no notion of maternal or fetal chimerism in teaching these things. This creates some thought as to the relationship of Mary and Jesus.

When we consume the Euchrist, Christ’s own blood is coursing through our veins, and his blood is Mary’s blood.

 

[BartBurk]

. . . how do Mormons keep together all these disparate, anti-factual aspects of their faith? I mean the notions about American geography, etc., long disproved by archaeology? And the big Race War in History concept?

I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

I’m a former Mormon who really kind of likes the Mormon Church. Basically, the Mormons have been handed a lemon and made lemonade out of it. The LDS Church works for them in a way Catholicism probably wouldn’t. The LDS community is much tighter than the Catholic community is. A case in point – my wife came across a Catholic woman looking for help in getting to mass, but didn’t really know how to get help from the church to get there. In the Mormon Church you would contact a home teacher and a way to church would be found for you. That’s a small example, but I think it will suffice for now. Most Mormons are more interested in trying to live like a Christian than they are interested in actually learning theology.

 

[broallenjoseph]

I’m a former Mormon who really kind of likes the Mormon Church. Basically, the Mormons have been handed a lemon and made lemonade out of it. The LDS Church works for them in a way Catholicism probably wouldn’t. The LDS community is much tighter than the Catholic community is. A case in point – my wife came across a Catholic woman looking for help in getting to mass, but didn’t really know how to get help from the church to get there. In the Mormon Church you would contact a home teacher and a way to church would be found for you. That’s a small example, but I think it will suffice for now. Most Mormons are more interested in trying to live like a Christian than they are interested in actually learning theology.

You are absolutely correct on this. I rent rooms to a Mormon couple and the way the Mormon Community reaches out, helps each other is a great example that we should all learn from.

 

[h2oplyer7]

His blood is NOT Mary’s blood. Let’s not get carried away now. We consume, or rather, Christ’s blood consumes us. Mary plays a huge part in the history of getting that blood to us, but it is Christ’s blood. Mary’s blood does not save, the blood of Christ saves.

 

[PaulDupre]

His blood is NOT Mary’s blood. Let’s not get carried away now. We consume, or rather, Christ’s blood consumes us. Mary plays a huge part in the history of getting that blood to us, but it is Christ’s blood. Mary’s blood does not save, the blood of Christ saves.

Well said. Mormons aren’t the only ones who betimes get swept up in speculation.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[SteveVH]

His blood is NOT Mary’s blood. Let’s not get carried away now. We consume, or rather, Christ’s blood consumes us. Mary plays a huge part in the history of getting that blood to us, but it is Christ’s blood. Mary’s blood does not save, the blood of Christ saves.

I was not even trying to imply that Mary’s blood saves us, so I agree, lets not get carried away.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Well said. Mormons aren’t the only ones who betimes get swept up in speculation.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul, don’t blame us for this tangent. This is an entirely Catholic speculation. I was half wondering if you were going to try to settle the argument by genetic testing of the communion wine against the Shroud of Turin. We mormons just take communion, think of Jesus paying the price of our sins, and pray for the strength to live a little more like Him

 

[Lefty0908]

Wow! Lots of stuff happens when you go away for awhile. This danged thing called “a life” keeps getting in my way.

But let’s review. The Captain originally asks what seems to be a fair question: "I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

I respond that for me, resolution is not only a matter of keeping faith in things I don’t fully understand, but also it is a matter of being open to the rational arguments that support my faith and are expressed in the works of LDS scholarship.

To which Rebecca (predictably) responds: “The problem with Mormon ‘scholarship’ is that it’s not.” Followed by the tired charge that non-LDS scholars may be OK with LDS scholarship, but not when it comments on specific, Mormon-related topics. Whenever that is the case, Rebecca wants to assure us all that non-Mormon scholars won’t give our people the time of day, informing me that “No matter how bad you want solid research to be there, it isn’t.”

The reason I label this argument as a “tired charge” is that it’s been answered for years, and in some instances, decades. Contra-Rebecca, note this 2001 presentation by John Tvedtnes (probably a non-scholar), and how some of his examples date back as far as the 80’s (when I wore spandex and Rebecca had “big hair”). Note that the precise criticisms Rebecca made are addressed here:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Scholarship_in_Mormonism_and_Mormonism_in_Scholarship.html

In a post elsewhere, I cited a paper presented by Evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, wherein they caution their fellow Evangelicals to take seriously the scholarship and apologetic capabilites of Mormon scholars. I can put the link in if you want, but I’ve already done it elsewhere and don’t think anybody will read it anyway (creates cognitive dissonance, you know).

campeador is concerned that the Hamblin article I cited has a legal disclaimer at the beginning of his paper rather than the end (aha!), and that Hamblin’s arguing a position somehow relegates him to the ranks of non-scholar. Apparently “real” scholars don’t argue their positions, nor do “real” scholars have any biases. C’mon, campy! Are you serious? The notion of total objectivity in scholarship has been pretty well discredited. Where have you been?

Meanwhile, Coptic is still mad at me because I won’t address his laundry list of cheezy anti-Mormon questions – none of which have anything to do with this thread. I’ll try to stay focused. Coptic, you stay mad.

Finally, Rebecca says something that I consider courageous (and I’m not being sarcastic here). Let me quote her: “While dissonance is a familiar aspect to many LDS, it is not familiar to Catholics. I have a LDS background, and living in SLC, come into contact with many former LDS who have converted or are in the process of converting to Christian faith. All, including myself, express relief at the reasonableness and rational faith that is Catholicism. Faith and reason are not at odds, as God is our Creator, and has made us as rational creatures and gifted us with Faith. So it should be that what God has Created is not at odds, as God is not a God of confusion.”

In my Mormon parlance, Rebecca bears me her testimony. She expresses to me her deeply held faith that obviously enriches her life and satisfies her worship. Rebecca and I will never agree, and in honesty I have met many Catholics who also deal with cognitive dissonance that is created as they forthrightly try to resolve difficult problems that they perceive in their own faith. None of us are alone in this quest. But I honor Rebecca’s faith and her hope in Christ as expressed in Catholicism and can only wish her Godspeed.

And after all this, I have one question: Hey, Captain America, you still out there???

I will now return to my cave.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Lefty, thanks for seeing what most Mormons I know never see.

As for “scholarship”, I appreciate that you get something form Mormon scholarship. Sites like FairLDS have never answered anything when I have read them. Innuendo, large leaps of logic, attacking authors who don’t agree with Mormonism, etc. I can’t take them seriously, but I know that true believing Mormons do.

I’ve also started to hear rumors (yeah I know) that LDS leaders aren’t fond of how FairLDS, and others like them, attempt to steer Mormon doctrine. But my own opinion is, that will always be a problem in Mormonism, because there is no such thing as orthodoxy.

That is one of the absolute strengths of Catholicism, the faith handed on once and for all, and changing doctrine by anyone, is never accepted.

 

[CopticChristian]

Wow! Lots of stuff happens when you go away for awhile. This danged thing called “a life” keeps getting in my way.

internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.

rational arguments that support my faith and are expressed in the works of LDS scholarship.

“No matter how bad you want solid research to be there, it isn’t.”

Note that the precise criticisms Rebecca made are addressed here:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Scholarship_in_Mormonism_and_Mormonism_in_Scholarship.html

In a post elsewhere, I cited a paper presented by Evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen

The notion of total objectivity in scholarship has been pretty well discredited. Where have you been?

Meanwhile, Coptic is still mad at me because I won’t address his laundry list of cheezy anti-Mormon questions – none of which have anything to do with this thread. I’ll try to stay focused. Coptic, you stay mad.

Catholicism. Faith and reason are not at odds, as God is our Creator, and has made us as rational creatures and gifted us with Faith. So it should be that what God has Created is not at odds, as God is not a God of confusion."

None of us are alone in this quest. But I honor Rebecca’s faith and her hope in Christ as expressed in Catholicism and can only wish her Godspeed.

And after all this, I have one question: Hey, Captain America, you still out there???

I will now return to my cave.

Meanwhile, Coptic is still mad at me because I won’t address his laundry list of cheezy anti-Mormon questions – none of which have anything to do with this thread. I’ll try to stay focused. Coptic, you stay mad.

You are enigma. I suggest you join the thread, Alpha and Omega, the nature of God. Cowboy Pete has been honest, without any attempt to talk around the issues as you do.

Dogs get mad. People get angry. I get angry because I choose to get angry. No one makes me angry. You believe you read minds and that may something queer to you, I do not impute that to Mormonism. Your summary of me is way off as has been your approach by dancing around the topics with words. Don’t give us milk, give us meat.

You may be aware that what you call cognitive dissonance increases with the importance of the subject to you, how strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict for you and your inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict. This is certainly your problem as I see it and any dissonance you experience is remedied only by you.

You can resolve this dissonance and change your behavior, justify your behavior by changing the conflicting cognition or justify your behavior by adding new cognitions. You may want to reflect and respond clearly, succintly, and engage in dialogue with an open mind and earnest sincere desire to share what it is you know and believe about the Mormonism you have practiced as Cowboy Pete has or not. You may want to ask questions about what it is you do not understand about Catholicism to minimize your dissonance. This is Catholic Answers ya know. :thumbsup:You may find less words will suffice.:

You have read that there is no cognitive dissonance within the Catholic paradigm and that may be something you consider.

I surmise that you will do something and since I don’t read minds that is the best I can offer.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

in Mormonism … there is no such thing as orthodoxy.

Wowzers.

Rebecca just said something accurate about my religion.

 

[banarick]

ParkerD, Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father. God from God, light from light, true God from true God.

Your DNA fixation is odd ParkerD. The Father has no DNA, Jesus is not the Father of Himself. Please, think rationally, and stop speculating. Go with what God has Revealed about Himself.

   Rebecca:  I think the DNA fixation is a sign of a huge weakness in the BOM.  Science, through DNA proves American Indians from South to North are descendants of Asia who crossed over the ice between the continents between 30K-15k years ago.  They are not decendants of Semitic Jews of 600 BC who recieved a curse of dark skin 2 Nephi 5:21-23.   Science disproves their theological racism.  See Evidence of Molecular Genetics Disprove the Book of Mormon   [www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html](www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html)

Like a defense attorney he tries to confuse the issues to hide Mormonisms greatest weakness. Yet, DNA usually convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case it is clear the BOM is contrary to science.