LDS: Jesus is the "son" of God?

[zerinus]

I’m using the term “biological” to distinguish from the Catholic notion that God the Son is not a “son” in the sense Mormons are thinking.

If God the Father has a literal body of flesh and was the literal father of Jesus, JUST AS Mary is the literal Mother, that makes God the “biological” father by definition. God the Father’s DNA plus Mary’s DNA, resulting in a son, Jesus.

No, not necessarily. We do not know how the bodies of glorified and resurrected beings are constructed to conclude that they can transmit “biological material” to a mortal offspring. In fact ressurected and immortal beings cannot mate with and produce a biological offspring with mortal beings. Neiher could God the Father do such a thing. That is why the birth of Jesus Christ was brought about as a miracle, not by the natural process.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

In fact ressurected and immortal beings cannot mate with and produce a biological offspring with mortal beings.
zerinus

Citation please.

 

[zerinus]

But BDawg said basically the same thing as Paul, although with more vagueness: that the Holy Spirit’s role was to help (in whatever way) with her nebulous encounter with the Father, in which He somehow impregnated her. Why are you correcting Paul but not BDawg?

That is his opinion, and he is entitled to that opinion. But there is nothing in LDS scripture that says that is what happened; and that is what I go by.

zerinus

 

[BDawg]

I differ with Z on this.

“But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my bnatural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have ebeheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.” (Moses 1:11)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Guess z is having trouble digesting some of that meat.

 

[ibkc]

That is his opinion, and he is entitled to that opinion. But there is nothing in LDS scripture that says that is what happened; and that is what I go by.

He posted a cite from Moses 1:11 that pretty clearly states it.

 

[zerinus]

He posted a cite from Moses 1:11 that pretty clearly states it.

Okay, let’s have a look:

Moses 1:

11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Where does it say in there that Mary was brought into the presence of God so that she could have sex with Him—or that such a thing was even possible?

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

Okay, let’s have a look:
Moses 1:

11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.Where does it say in there that Mary was brought into the presence of God so that she could have sex with Him—or that such a thing was even possible?

That’s not what was under discussion.

 

[zerinus]

That’s not what was under discussion.

It was.

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

It was.

No, it wasn’t. We were discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’s conception according to the Mormon view. You posted verses from Luke which support the orthodox Christian notion that the Holy Spirit enabled Mary to conceive, thus allowing her to remain a virgin. This is contrary to the LDS teaching that Mary conceived by the Father. Paul and BDawg explained that the Holy Spirit was involved in the process according to the Mormon view, by protecting her so that being in the presence of the Father would not hurt or kill her. The exact way the Father conceived Jesus with Mary was not under discussion. Paul mentioned it in very brief passing, but no one else talked about it.

 

[zerinus]

No, it wasn’t. We were discussing the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’s conception according to the Mormon view. You posted verses from Luke which support the orthodox Christian notion that the Holy Spirit enabled Mary to conceive, thus allowing her to remain a virgin. This is contrary to the LDS teaching that Mary conceived by the Father. Paul and BDawg explained that the Holy Spirit was involved in the process according to the Mormon view, by protecting her so that being in the presence of the Father would not hurt or kill her. The exact way the Father conceived Jesus with Mary was not under discussion. Paul mentioned it in very brief passing, but no one else talked about it.

No, that is not what we were discussing. The question was whether Jesus had inherited “biological material” from the Father by virtue of being the Son of God through Mary or not. I had stated that LDS doctrine of the literal Sonship of Jesus Christ does not necessitate that such a “biological transfer” should have been made.

zerinus

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Okay, let me ask you a question now. You posted this list of questions:

Do you mind telling me where you got that information from? My guess is that you obtained it from an anti-Mormon source (either a website or a publication). I could be mistaken about that of couerse. If so, do you mind telling me where you got it from? I am interested to know.

zerinus

Hi Z,
I have been away for a few hours and it looks as though you might have your hands full here, so I will just say,

Thanks again for NOT answering my questions to you, But, rather asking other questions to me that have nothing to do with the topic we were discussing. ( I am starting to see a pattern here ???)

At any rate,
God bless,
Carl

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,
I have been away for a few hours and it looks as though you might have your hands full here, so I will just say,

Thanks again for NOT answering my questions to you, But, rather asking other questions to me that have nothing to do with the topic we were discussing. ( I am starting to see a pattern here ???)

At any rate,
God bless,
Carl

And thank you for not answering my questions. I did not answer your questions because they did not deserve any. I don’t answer questions copied from anti-Mormon websites. If you have original questions of your own, I will answer; but not those.

zerinus

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

And thank you for not answering my questions. I did not answer your questions because they did not deserve any. I don’t answer questions copied from anti-Mormon websites. If you have original questions of your own, I will answer; but not those.

zerinus

Hi Z,

I must say you are consistent,

ANOTHER accusation ( rant ) about anti- Morman websites.

I have an idea, Since you " claim " to be this Morman who loves to answer questions and shed light from the Mormon perspective.
( BUT DO NOT ANSWER THEM )
Maybe you can tell me what questions I should ask you thus you will be more inclined to not only answer them, but you would most certainly feel that they would deserve an answer.

God bless,
Carl

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

I must say you are consistent,

ANOTHER accusation ( rant ) about anti- Morman websites.

I have an idea, Since you " claim " to be this Morman who loves to answer questions and shed light from the Mormon perspective.
( BUT DO NOT ANSWER THEM )
Maybe you can tell me what questions I should ask you thus you will be more inclined to not only answer them, but you would most certainly feel that they would deserve an answer.

God bless,
Carl

I will be the judge of that! If I come to the conclusion that you have been roaming around anti-Mormon websites, and picking up anti-Mormon questions brainless, I may decide that it is not worth my while to answer.

zerinus

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

I will be the judge of that! If I come to the conclusion that you have been roaming around anti-Mormon websites, and picking up anti-Mormon questions brainless, I may decide that it is not worth my while to answer.

zerinus

Hi again Z,

I have a question ( I hope you do not feel I have taken " this " one from one of those " anti-Morman websites )

Can you please tell me were in the BoM that it encourages a Morman to call one " brainless "???

I look forward to your reply.
God bless,
Carl

 

[BDawg]

Maybe we should all just abandon this thread and move on?

The Internet is tough, because it is very difficult to argue with others with the proper “tone,” when you don’t have body language and facial expressions to help you come across how you intended. Why not just take a deep breath, assume everyone who said they didn’t mean to be offensive was telling the truth, and let the water roll under the bridge.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Maybe we should all just abandon this thread and move on?

The Internet is tough, because it is very difficult to argue with others with the proper “tone,” when you don’t have body language and facial expressions to help you come across how you intended. Why not just take a deep breath, assume everyone who said they didn’t mean to be offensive was telling the truth, and let the water roll under the bridge.

Hi BDawg,

To put it simply ( you are right )

I will take the advice you offer ( thanks for it )

I do apologize to all for my " off topic posting "

I offer my apology to you ( Z ) as well’

Hope to see your (name removed by moderator)ut on other threads BDawg.

God bless,
Carl

 

[zerinus]

Hi again Z,

I have a question ( I hope you do not feel I have taken " this " one from one of those " anti-Morman websites )

Can you please tell me were in the BoM that it encourages a Morman to call one " brainless "???

I look forward to your reply.
God bless,
Carl

I didn’t call you brainless. But some people merely roam around anti-Mormon websites and pick out anti-Mormon questions to tease Mormons with, without putting any intelligence into it themselves. I call that kind of activity brainless!

zerinus

 

[Catholic_Dude]

How many times is the Journal of Discourses cited as a source in the Gospel Principles manual? (Hint: a lot)

I didn’t know that, I was under the impression the JoD was a moment of embarrassment (eg., Adam=God) that they tried to steer clear of.

No, not necessarily. We do not know how the bodies of glorified and resurrected beings are constructed to conclude that they can transmit “biological material” to a mortal offspring. In fact ressurected and immortal beings cannot mate with and produce a biological offspring with mortal beings. Neiher could God the Father do such a thing. That is why the birth of Jesus Christ was brought about as a miracle, not by the natural process.

zerinus

What you say here actually hurts your case for claiming God was the “literal father” of Jesus because you have now stripped even the most basic requirements for “literal fatherhood.”

This also strikes at the very claim of “spirit children” which God and the so called “goddess wives” produced because you have stripped the very factors which make something a literal mother and literal father and thus a literal child.

You cant go around saying something is the “literal child” or “literal father” if no fertilization, chromosomes, etc were involved. It would be as absurd as saying Bob is the “literal builder” of a house which he never touched in any way, shape, or form.