Was Jesus truly born of a virgin in LDS theology?

[Sparko]

Yeah, SPARKO!!! Forget the Bible and REAL prophets and REASON and INTELLECT and PREVIOUS things Mormons have said! What's wrong with you, POOPIEHEAD! Take the BLINDERS off and stop listening to the teachings of MEN! You pharisee!

(did I miss anything?)

you forgot: "That's not OFFICIAL doctrine!! It's just opinion and my opinion counts more than the opinion of current and former Prophets and Apostles cuz I say so! But if I want to give support to my opinions then any source will do just fine!"

[Cow Poke]

you forgot: "That's not OFFICIAL doctrine!! It's just opinion and my opinion counts more than the opinion of current and former Prophets and Apostles cuz I say so! But if I want to give support to my opinions then any source will do just fine!"

Well, you can always scour the various versions of the Bible to find one that's a whole lot easier to "adapt" to your argument than the one you officially endorse!

[Sparko]

Well, you can always scour the various versions of the Bible to find one that's a whole lot easier to "adapt" to your argument than the one you officially endorse!

Joseph Smith did one even better. He just wrote his OWN version.

[Cow Poke]

Joseph Smith did one even better. He just wrote his OWN version.

Evidently, in effect, it didn't say what Jeff wanted it to say, nevertheless.

[OtherCheek]

yes it is OC. The scribd pages are scanned two up. If you go to page 45 in the document and look under "Celebacy" you will find the quote.

I figured that out. You were referring to scanned web pages, and I was referring to book pages.

well then ignore the whole 10 words or whatever that were not from Mormon sources. I would have figured that you can tell what was quoted by seeing the QUOTE marks around it, but I guess not. sucks to be you.

You are losing your cool, aren't you. It sure is easy to tell.

Here let me quote it again and fix the part you don't like...

Those who choose to remain single or do not enter into the covenant of celestial marriage while on earth are no longer in obedience to God or to LDS authorities. They will not advance to Godhood, but will be given menial tasks as angels for all eternity. "Many who practice celibacy do so out of an excessive religious devotion and with the idea in mind that they are serving their Maker. In reality, they are forsaking some of the most important purposes of their creation…" (Mormon Doctrine pg. 119). "Therefore, when they are out of the world they… are appointed angels in heaven… to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law" (Doctrine and Covenants 132:16-17).

wow. amazingly, it says the SAME THING!!!

No, it doesn't.
Look, Sparko, there are a lot of people who don't want the responsibility of having offspring beyond this life. But the highest heaven entails continued offspring forever. Like the sands of the sea, or the stars of heaven. Innumerable to man. You are not held accountable for this covenant until you enter into it, and if you never want to enter into it, no one will force you. You can still be quite content w/o the responsibility and stewardship that a Celestial Marriage would require of you.

As for Jesus, we are not told whether he was married or not. The Bible does not speak out on many questions. But it is my strong opinion, based on the doctrine that Jesus gave to Joseph Smith, that he is married and willing to bear the responsibility and stewardship of eternal offspring of his own, instead of eternal bachelorhood.

And that is supposed to be evidence? You can't show me one official Mormon source that says that someone who deliberately chooses not to get married is still eligible for Proxy sealing? Really? And you have the gall to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about and to question my official mormon sources as unreliable?

Sparko, I would say that in cases where a person does not want to bear the responsibility and stewardship of marriage and children, he will not want that responsibility in the hereafter either. In that sense, I would say that those who refuse marriage, will likely refuse it in the hereafter as well. But I hesitate to dictate to God how he must judge the heart of a person. The moment I say something, you seem to take it as though there are no exceptions. The fact is, that the God does not judge according to a stone carving somewhere. There are laws and then there are exceptions according to the Lord's understanding, and His justice and His mercy. He does not list all of his judgment considerations for us to mull over ahead of time. OK?

I take your last comment as an admission of defeat. That according to the LDS, not even Jesus is exalted because he was unmarried when he died when he had every opportunity to be married.

Why do you assume that Jesus is unmarried? The Bible doesn't say that.

[Cow Poke]

Why do you assume that Jesus is unmarried? The Bible doesn't say that.

But it DOES say He whipped people?

OC, you are SO INCREDIBLY inconsistent in your view of the Bible.

It ALSO does not say that Jesus' former followers TURNED on Him, but you're perfectly fine ASSUMING that!

Now, to deal with your question --- we have FOUR GOSPEL AUTHORS who were with Jesus for much of his (relatively short) Ministry. They recorded his casting of the money changers out of the temple, cursing the fig tree, attending the wedding at Caana.... do you think Jesus had a SECRET wedding?

[Sparko]

I figured that out. You were referring to scanned web pages, and I was referring to book pages.


You are losing your cool, aren't you. It sure is easy to tell.

No I am not losing my cool, OC. You are projecting again.

No, it doesn't.
Look, Sparko, there are a lot of people who don't want the responsibility of having offspring beyond this life. But the highest heaven entails continued offspring forever. Like the sands of the sea, or the stars of heaven. Innumerable to man. You are not held accountable for this covenant until you enter into it, and if you never want to enter into it, no one will force you. You can still be quite content w/o the responsibility and stewardship that a Celestial Marriage would require of you.

and yet you can't provide any evidence that someone who is single on purpose will be eligible for proxy sealing. It's just your OPINION again. I gave you actual LDS sources. Guess which one trumps the other?

As for Jesus, we are not told whether he was married or not. The Bible does not speak out on many questions. But it is my strong opinion, based on the doctrine that Jesus gave to Joseph Smith, that he is married and willing to bear the responsibility and stewardship of eternal offspring of his own, instead of eternal bachelorhood.

Ah so now you are claiming Jesus was married after all. Funny how you were so reluctant to say that before. Who was he married to?

Sparko, I would say that in cases where a person does not want to bear the responsibility and stewardship of marriage and children, he will not want that responsibility in the hereafter either. In that sense, I would say that those who refuse marriage, will likely refuse it in the hereafter as well. But I hesitate to dictate to God how he must judge the heart of a person. The moment I say something, you seem to take it as though there are no exceptions. The fact is, that the God does not judge according to a stone carving somewhere. There are laws and then there are exceptions according to the Lord's understanding, and His justice and His mercy. He does not list all of his judgment considerations for us to mull over ahead of time. OK?

Your opinion again?

Why do you assume that Jesus is unmarried? The Bible doesn't say that.

I asked. I got the ol' dodgeroony and nobody would say they thought he was married. Yet when I show that if he wasn't married by LDS doctrines, that he would be ineligible for exaltation, why then all of a sudden you have the "strong opinion" that he WAS married after all.

[nrajeff]

Evidently, in effect, it didn't say what Jeff wanted it to say, nevertheless.

But it's the Bible, right? "God's Inerrant Word"--copyright pending? That's why I asked whether you had recently become a believer in the 8th AOF--at least the part that mentions believing the Bible to be God's word to the extent that it has been correctly translated.

If you have a problem with the Bible I DID quote from, then maybe you believe, as the LDS do, that some Bibles have more of God's words than other Bibles have. I assume you'd agree that the Sinner's Bible has slightly less of God's words than Bibles that managed to include "not" between "Thou shalt" and "commit adultery."

[Cerebrum123]

But it's the Bible, right? "God's Inerrant Word"--copyright pending? That's why I asked whether you had recently become a believer in the 8th AOF--at least the part that mentions believing the Bible to be God's word to the extent that it has been correctly translated.

If you have a problem with the Bible I DID quote from, then maybe you believe, as the LDS do, that some Bibles have more of God's words than other Bibles have. I assume you'd agree that the Sinner's Bible has slightly less of God's words than Bibles that managed to include "not" between "Thou shalt" and "commit adultery."

You do know that inerrancy only applies to the ORIGINAL manuscripts of the Biblical works, right?

[Cow Poke]

But it's the Bible, right? "God's Inerrant Word"--copyright pending? That's why I asked whether you had recently become a believer in the 8th AOF--at least the part that mentions believing the Bible to be God's word to the extent that it has been correctly translated.

Silly question, dealt with accordingly.

If you have a problem with the Bible I DID quote from, then maybe you believe, as the LDS do, that some Bible have more of God's words than other Bibles have. I assume you'd agree that the Sinner's Bible has slightly less of God's words than Bibles that managed to include "not" between "Thou shalt" and "commit adultery."

I started a thread, Jeff, where I think this discussion would be appropriate.

[Cow Poke]

You do know that inerrancy only applies to the ORIGINAL manuscripts of the Biblical works, right?

I don't think he has a clue.

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think he has a clue.

Well, we are talking about Jeff here.

[OtherCheek]

and yet you can't provide any evidence that someone who is single on purpose will be eligible for proxy sealing. It's just your OPINION again. I gave you actual LDS sources. Guess which one trumps the other?

Downs Syndrome kids may be single on purpose, though they may wish to marry. Severely maimed men or women may be single on purpose, though they may desire to marry. Some who are deceived to think that celibacy is commanded of God, may desire to marry, but don't for the sake of what they perceive to be the will of God. I can't see God denying these people the blessing which they may desire, and for which they may be worthy, simply because Sparko thinks there should be a hard-fast-stone-carved rule that fits all situations and no exceptions.

Ah so now you are claiming Jesus was married after all. Funny how you were so reluctant to say that before. Who was he married to?

I don't know who he was and is married to.

Your opinion again?

Sure. And I think it's based upon pretty sound reasoning. Was there anything in that paragraph you take issue with?

I asked. I got the ol' dodgeroony and nobody would say they thought he was married.

You were asking for something official. And the answer remains, as it was the first time you asked: "We aren't told anything about it."

Yet when I show that if he wasn't married by LDS doctrines, that he would be ineligible for exaltation, why then all of a sudden you have the "strong opinion" that he WAS married after all.

Yea, well I need to get better at spotting stupid "if" questions. "Hey Sparko, what would God think of himself IF he wasn't a Spirit after all?"

Sparko sets and springs his well-conceived trap so he can reward himself by

[OtherCheek]

Well, we are talking about Jeff here.

Back to personal attacks again, I see.

[Cerebrum123]

Back to personal attacks again, I see.

I was actually just kidding. I guess I should have put the sarcasm tag up there so that you wouldn't get so upset.