The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood- was begotten of his Father, as we are of our fathers. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:115
"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 742).
"...I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball, 8:211).
"Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.547).
"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.742).
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
cd; What do you mean(though not necessarily sexual)?
DAVEH: What I meant is that I do not know specifically how it was accomplished other than by the power of the HG, but I do think it can be accomplished via means that are not sexual in the physical sense that you are insisting it be. For instance, today artificial insemination is a very common and popular method of impregnating cattle that have never been in physical contact. As I see it, if cattle can reproduce in a natural fashion (in other words.....not needing miraculous, supernatural or black magic activity) without physically sexual contact, I don't know why you think the Lord could not do what needed to be done to alter Mary's genetic code (I know that is a bit too simplified.....or whatever needed doing to allow her to conceive as a virgin) without having a sexual experience with her.
This is very simple, Dean, and I don't know why you cannot understand what I am telling you. FTR once again: I do not believe God had physical sex with Mary. Nor does LDS theology teach such.
Dean Moore wrote:cd; What do you mean(though not necessarily sexual)? According to the English language it means that it could or could not be sexual.Now we have it as (1)Natural conception,(2) Genetic conception,(3)back to natural as Mary isn't a virgin,(4)May or may not be "necessary sexual".Full of crap!
(though not necessarily sexual) whereby
> >the genetic makeup of our Heavenly Father was combined with Mary's
genetic
> >makeup to bring forth a child in as natural a fashion as science now
> >teaches.
> >
> LDS theology teaches that Mary was a virgin.
> >
> > > >considering how LDS folks think or believe.
> >
> > Probably the most extremely opinionated person quoted was Orson
Pratt
> >in The Seer, which was a highly speculative book based on OP's opinions.
> >Despite being an LDS leader, his opinions are no substitute for official > >doctrine, which is found in the Standard Works .-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
