Chromosones. Where did they come from?

[MacG]

Seebok,

Greetings. I am wondering if you'd take a shot at these questions:

Where did Adam get his chromosones?

Because Eve was taken out of Adam did he have only 46 or 92?

Blessings,

MacG

[seebok]

Seebok,

Greetings. I am wondering if you'd take a shot at these questions:

Where did Adam get his chromosones?

Because Eve was taken out of Adam did he have only 46 or 92?

Blessings,

MacG

Hi MacG

If you are able to read the creation account literally, then Adam got all 46 of his chromosomes directly from God.

Your question about Adam having 46 or 92 chromosomes really makes no genetic sense. Since males are xy and females xx, theoretically a female (i.e., Eve) could be created from two 23 chromosome x "bundles" from a male, no extra chromosomes needed.

Now this is important, you can't get xy (male) from xx (female), no matter how you p**** it. So in the case of Christ's conception, the "y" clearly came from somewhere external to Mary. According to Luke, that candidate would be the Father.

I hope this primer has helped you.

Best

s.

[MacG]

Hi MacG

If you are able to read the creation account literally, then Adam got all 46 of his chromosomes directly from God.

Your question about Adam having 46 or 92 chromosomes really makes no genetic sense. Since males are xy and females xx, theoretically a female (i.e., Eve) could be created from two 23 chromosome x "bundles" from a male, no extra chromosomes needed.

Now this is important, you can't get xy (male) from xx (female), no matter how you p**** it. So in the case of Christ's conception, the "y" clearly came from somewhere external to Mary. According to Luke, that candidate would be the Father.

I hope this primer has helped you.

Best

s.

According to Luke then, the Father provided the "y" (though Luke says it was the Holy Spirit, you seem to know bettter, stupid Luke.:eek:). It seems to me in the past that you have reputiated the Mormon publications that teach physical union as we humans have (again you seem to have more discernment than various Mormon Apostles, Prophets and Presidents;) ), so the "primer" may be just too basline level knowledge for me. Do you have more information to offer to clear this up? How did the Father provide the extra chromosones?

Thanks,

MacG

[Leslie]

Hi MacG

If you are able to read the creation account literally, then Adam got all 46 of his chromosomes directly from God.

Your question about Adam having 46 or 92 chromosomes really makes no genetic sense. Since males are xy and females xx, theoretically a female (i.e., Eve) could be created from two 23 chromosome x "bundles" from a male, no extra chromosomes needed.

Now this is important, you can't get xy (male) from xx (female), no matter how you p**** it. So in the case of Christ's conception, the "y" clearly came from somewhere external to Mary. According to Luke, that candidate would be the Father.

I hope this primer has helped you.

Best

s.

So God couldn't have done the same thing for Christ as he did for Adam? He IS the second Adam you know.

[nrajeff]

Mac, I don't know what your church has taught you regarding the Bible's teachings on this issue, but LDS believe that the Bible does not quote Jesus as stating that His Father is the Holy Spirit--it has Jesus saying that His Father is the Person of the Father. So LDS believe that Jesus' father is the Person of the Father. Based on what the Bible says, LDS don't believe that the Holy Spirit is the source of Jesus' chromosomes, 'cause otherwise Jesus would have said THAT was His Father in Heaven.

[MacG]

So LDS believe that Jesus' father is the Person of the Father.


NRAjeff,

I really do not want to get too far off the chromosome path but since you bring it up,

1) Who is the the father of Jesus?

2) How did he get Jesus his chromosones?

Blessings,

MacG

[seebok]

So God couldn't have done the same thing for Christ as he did for Adam? He IS the second Adam you know.

Hi Leslie

I think you are saying that the Father could have waved His metaphorical hand, said abracadabra and poof, 23 chromosomes. O.k. The point is that even in your belief system these chromosomes were inserted into Mary to combine with her 23 chromosomes. And that's sexual reproduction. You apparently believe Christ's incarnation came about as a result of sex, ***uming you don't like the othe candidate alternatives you have, mentioned above.

Best

s.

[seebok]

According to Luke then, the Father provided the "y" (though Luke says it was the Holy Spirit, you seem to know bettter, stupid Luke.:eek:).

Yikes, MacG believes the Holy Ghost is the Father. Are you still Oneness? Or are you redefining terms again? I encourage you to read Luke better. If you do so, you will see that the Bible need not be telling a lie every time it calls the Father, Father.


How did the Father provide the extra chromosones?

O.k. So you believe God created the 23 "y" chromosomes "poof". Since the 23 "y" chromosomes were clearly physical, at some point your understanding of God's space intersected with our physical space. Clearly you believe in both magic and an incestuous violation. :( This intervention of yours is not helping me lean favorably toward the Evangelical religion.

[Leslie]

Hi Leslie

I think you are saying that the Father could have waved His metaphorical hand, said abracadabra and poof, 23 chromosomes. O.k. The point is that even in your belief system these chromosomes were inserted into Mary to combine with her 23 chromosomes. And that's sexual reproduction. You apparently believe Christ's incarnation came about as a result of sex, ***uming you don't like the othe candidate alternatives you have, mentioned above.

Best

s.

How can it be sexual reproduction when there is no sex involved at all? There's no semen, there is no coupling, nothing, nada.

[seebok]

How can it be sexual reproduction when there is no sex involved at all? There's no semen, there is no coupling, nothing, nada.

You are confusing sex with the delivery system, as of course our sexually fixated society is prone to do. I encourage to you think less salaciously and more precisely in this delicate dialog. :(

s.

[MacG]

Yikes, MacG believes the Holy Ghost is the Father. Are you still Oneness? Or are you redefining terms again? I encourage you to read Luke better. If you do so, you will see that the Bible need not be telling a lie every time it calls the Father, Father.



O.k. So you believe God created the 23 "y" chromosomes "poof". Since the 23 "y" chromosomes were clearly physical, at some point your understanding of God's space intersected with our physical space. Clearly you believe in both magic and an incestuous violation. :( This intervention of yours is not helping me lean favorably toward the Evangelical religion.

Thanks,

MacG

Don't ya just hate when someone tells ya what you believe? I am just wanting to know what you believe and since you already "know" what I believe, what I'd say is moot, no?

Since there is nothing to read into my posts I really thought you'd just answer the question: How did the Father provide the extra chromosones?

Blessings,

MacG

[seebok]

Since there is nothing to read into my posts I really thought you'd just answer the question: How did the Father provide the extra chromosones?

You need to think before you post. It would save you from all that strain pointing fingers. You originally asked a "from where" question, which I answered, not a "how" question. ;)

If you decide now that you really meant "how", like Evangelicals contemplate that a pseudo male part from God trancended dimensions like the false foot of an ameoba to deliver 23 "y" chromosomes to Mary's more private of places, there has also been conjecture in the Church of Jesus Christ, the operative word being conjecture. As President Harold B. Lee said during His presidency, we neither know nor is this kinda conjecture beneficial. But Evangelicals think it is and that tends to interest me in learning all their sordid mechanics.

Best

s.

[nrajeff]

NRAjeff,
I really do not want to get too far off the chromosome path but since you bring it up,
1) Who is the the father of Jesus?

---The Person of the Father, according to the New Testament.


2) How did he get Jesus his chromosones?

---The Bible doesn't give us many details on HOW it happened--the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, whatever that means, and the next thing you know, Mary is pregnant and her baby's father is the Person Jesus would later call "My Father in Heaven." Even thought the details on HOW it happened are few, and vague, one thing that seems clear is WHO Jesus' Father is. And it ain't the Holy Ghost.

[Leslie]

You need to think before you post. It would save you from all that strain pointing fingers. You originally asked a "from where" question, which I answered, not a "how" question. ;)

If you decide now that you really meant "how", like Evangelicals contemplate that a pseudo male part from God trancended dimensions like the false foot of an ameoba to deliver 23 "y" chromosomes to Mary's more private of places, there has also been conjecture in the Church of Jesus Christ, the operative word being conjecture. As President Harold B. Lee said during His presidency, we neither know nor is this kinda conjecture beneficial. But Evangelicals think it is and that tends to interest me in learning all their sordid mechanics.

Best

s.


We don't believe that a pseudo male part from God impregnanted Mary.

[seebok]

We don't believe that a pseudo male part from God impregnanted Mary.

You contemplate it though -- in your theology, when His Wispfullness transcended His dimension to touch ours, placing physical, tangible chromosomes into Mary's most private of places.

s.

[Leslie]

You contemplate it though -- in your theology, when His Wispfullness transcended His dimension to touch ours, placing physical, tangible chromosomes into Mary's most private of places.

s.

I don't think it had anything to do with her "most private of places" as you so elegantly put it. I think the Holy Ghost came upon her, and created what needed to be greated. If he can created a body for Adam from scratch, why could he not do the same for the second Adam?

Then again, you think God is nothing more than an exalted man, so you probably don't buy that explanation.

[seebok]

I don't think it had anything to do with her "most private of places" as you so elegantly put it. I think the Holy Ghost came upon her, and created what needed to be greated. If he can created a body for Adam from scratch, why could he not do the same for the second Adam?

Then again, you think God is nothing more than an exalted man, so you probably don't buy that explanation.

Leslie

Sorry you believe God is merely a ubiquitous wisp from another dimension.:(

So the Father both created and positioned in our physical universe Christ's 23 male chromosomes. The alternative is God does magic. Most Evangelicals who think about these things reject magic, and try to understand the mechanism, contemplating that God in is and through all things literally or via an inter-dimensional ability and so can be and act everywhere instantaneously. So either you believe in 1) magic, which isn't very comforting, 2) you believe God literally is everywhere (if He is everywhere He must be everything), or 3) God's dimension shadows every point in our time and space and so He can open a window if you will, to act.

So which do you choose?

Any way you p**** it, you believe there was an incestuous encounter -- Father gets daughter pregnant. Sorry. But you're interest in mechanisms so I encourage you to fill us all in since mechanism is paramount to you and not the reality of the Godly lineage of Christ.

Evangelicals need to get their minds off salacious things.

s.

[Leslie]

Seebok.

I'm sorry you believe that God is nothing more than an exalted man.

[seebok]

Seebok.

I'm sorry you believe that God is nothing more than an exalted man.

As long as you invite the lowest common denominator, I take man over wisp anyday!

s.

[Libby]

As long as you invite the lowest common denominator, I take man over wisp anyday!

s.

Is that what the Holy Spirit is to you, Seebok? Just a mere wisp?

[seebok]

Is that what the Holy Spirit is to you, Seebok? Just a mere wisp?

Apparently you didn't have a clue about the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ when you aligned with it. And now you've abandoned it for a wisp. :(

s.

[Libby]

Apparently you didn't have a clue about the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ when you aligned with it. And now you've abandoned it for a wisp. :(

s.

Well, I keep hoping to get an actual answer out of you, instead of ad homs, Seebok, but it appears that's all you really have.

[seebok]

Well, I keep hoping to get an actual answer out of you, instead of ad homs, Seebok, but it appears that's all you really have.

Sorry Libs -- when your fangs come out, I tend to give direct answers. that's the way it will always be -- you set the rules, you invite a tone. BTW: I'm still waiting on you all over this board. Time for you to actually answer some questions and justify your recent religious choice.

s.

[Libby]

Sorry Libs -- when your fangs come out, I tend to give direct answers. that's the way it will always be -- you set the rules, you invite a tone. BTW: I'm still waiting on you all over this board. Time for you to actually answer some questions and justify your recent religious choice.

s.

I don't feel obliged to knock down strawmen of your making, Seebok. I've actually given you many answers and you simply ignore them and ask questions from your own presumptions. You may as well talk to yourself, as you are certainly not listening to anything I say.

No "fangs" here. Just simple truth.

[Libby]

So, IS the Holy Spirit (who is spirit without a body, even in LDS theology) just a "mere wisp" to you?

An honest answer would be welcome and most refreshing.

P.S. Hint: This question has nothing to do with "my" knowledge of the LDS holy spirit. You are the one who is making the claim that a spirit without a body is a mere "wisp" or something less than a God WITH a body. So, defend your statement and tell us how this is not denigrating to the holy ghost, as it is understood in LDS theology.

[seebok]

So, IS the Holy Spirit (who is spirit without a body, even in LDS theology) just a "mere wisp" to you?

BTW: I'm still waiting for you to justify the metaphysics of your wisp God. Once you do that and convince me of what is "correct", I suspect my "old" beliefs will naturally fall by the wayside.

s

[Libby]

BTW: I'm still waiting for you to justify the metaphysics of your wisp God. Once you do that and convince me of what is "correct", I suspect my "old" beliefs will naturally fall by the wayside.

s

No, I think you will cling to your beliefs, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Far be it from me to interfere.

Best wishes.

[seebok]

No, I think you will cling to your beliefs, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Far be it from me to interfere.

Best wishes.

Hey, you never did tell us where you landed most recently in your musical chairs does religion initiative. Let us know.

s.

[Libby]

Hey, you never did tell us where you landed most recently in your musical chairs does religion initiative. Let us know.

s.

No thanks. :)

Have a nice evening, Seekbok.

[Vlad III]

No thanks. :)

Have a nice evening, Seekbok.

Hello,

I've been following this conversation and I was wondering the same thing, Libby. It is easy to tell who the LDS are, but what church/ denomination do you affiliate with?

[Libby]

Hi Vlad....welcome to the board.

I am currently attending an Evangelical Church called Eastside Christian. I am contemplating a move to another Christian denom that is not Evangelical. I'm not ready to discuss it, because I'm still investigating.

[Leslie]

I'm not sure if Seebok really is a Mormon because he won't tell us what his beliefs really ARE.

[seebok]

I'm not sure if Seebok really is a Mormon because he won't tell us what his beliefs really ARE.

Still waiting on a little forthrightness from you Leslie. It's about time you stopped evading and justified Your Father, who is not a father, Son who is not a son, and Spirit who is not a spirit. It's like you redefine every Christian term there is. :(

s.

[Leslie]

Still waiting on a little forthrightness from you Leslie. It's about time you stopped evading and justified Your Father, who is not a father, Son who is not a son, and Spirit who is not a spirit. It's like you redefine every Christian term there is. :(

s.

Sir, Joseph Smith was the one who redefined every Christian term there is.

[nrajeff]

So, IS the Holy Spirit (who is spirit without a body, even in LDS theology) just a "mere wisp" to you?

----No, because LDS believe the Holy Spirit to be a being and a person in His own right. An individual person with thoughts, feelings, etc. LDS believe that spirits are people, too, in other words. :)

[Leslie]

----No, because LDS believe the Holy Spirit to be a being and a person in His own right. An individual person with thoughts, feelings, etc. LDS believe that spirits are people, too, in other words. :)

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is a person too, only we fully believe that he is fully God, just as much as the Father and Son are God.

[Libby]

----No, because LDS believe the Holy Spirit to be a being and a person in His own right. An individual person with thoughts, feelings, etc. LDS believe that spirits are people, too, in other words. :)

Yes, but LDS believe that the Holy Ghost is spirit only...no body, at least, not for the time being. Seebok is trying to make some kind of bogus point about a God without a body, and how it must be some kind of a "wisp" of a God, which is silly.

[stemelbow]

Yes, but LDS believe that the Holy Ghost is spirit only...no body, at least, not for the time being. Seebok is trying to make some kind of bogus point about a God without a body, and how it must be some kind of a "wisp" of a God, which is silly.

I fail to see how seebok's point is silly. Perhaps you just misunderstand. He makes a pretty good point I'd say. The Holy Ghost in LDS belief is spirit only but spirit to LDS is made up of actual matter.

love,
stem

[Leslie]

I fail to see how seebok's point is silly. Perhaps you just misunderstand. He makes a pretty good point I'd say. The Holy Ghost in LDS belief is spirit only but spirit to LDS is made up of actual matter.

love,
stem

Ok, now prove that it's Biblical?

[stemelbow]

I have never claimed that God is limited to the Bible, Leslie.

love,
stem

[Leslie]

I have never claimed that God is limited to the Bible, Leslie.

love,
stem

But does God contradict the Bible?

[stemelbow]

No. But can He expand beyond the teachings of the Bible? of course.

love,
stem

[Leslie]

No. But can He expand beyond the teachings of the Bible? of course.

love,
stem

But the thing is, how do I know that he did that? By comparing it to what I know he DID say, right?

[stemelbow]

But the thing is, how do I know that he did that?

By the same way you know the Bible is God's word--faith given of Him and inspiration provided by the Holy Ghost.


By comparing it to what I know he DID say, right?

Sure in part. The thing is even Peter suggested people misunderstand scripture. You can't rely on scripture alone for that reason.

love,
stem

[Columcille]

Leslie

Sorry you believe God is merely a ubiquitous wisp from another dimension.:(

So the Father both created and positioned in our physical universe Christ's 23 male chromosomes. The alternative is God does magic. Most Evangelicals who think about these things reject magic, and try to understand the mechanism, contemplating that God in is and through all things literally or via an inter-dimensional ability and so can be and act everywhere instantaneously. So either you believe in 1) magic, which isn't very comforting, 2) you believe God literally is everywhere (if He is everywhere He must be everything), or 3) God's dimension shadows every point in our time and space and so He can open a window if you will, to act.

So which do you choose?

Any way you p**** it, you believe there was an incestuous encounter -- Father gets daughter pregnant. Sorry. But you're interest in mechanisms so I encourage you to fill us all in since mechanism is paramount to you and not the reality of the Godly lineage of Christ.

Evangelicals need to get their minds off salacious things.

s.


Since I believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, I would theorize that the necessary "y" chromosome for Jesus might possibly come from Mary hosting it in the mtDNA. This would satisfy a more complete fully human Christ, while still maintaining his full nature as God. Christ is the seed of David, and as such the "y" must have been maintained in Mary and the covering of the Holy Spirit was not a "y" seed of God.

If the "y" chromosome is not fully human, being provided by God the Father or by the Holy Spirit, then Christ could not have possibly died on the cross. If you think of it in terms of any parts of God being eternal, whereas the life of a human body is temporal, then any fraction or divisibility would generate an eternal body within the temporal. For instance, say "infinity" is "x," and 1 * "infinity" will be "infinity;" if 1x/46 + 45/46= 1 Christ, then the "x" factor "infinity" would give Jesus all the characteristics of Diety to include eternal life, eternal knowledge. As such, his life on earth did not give him such. So his divinity and his humanity are completely seperate, yet joined. Christ had two wills, two natures present at all times.

[Russ]

---The Person of the Father, according to the New Testament.



---The Bible doesn't give us many details on HOW it happened--the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, whatever that means, and the next thing you know, Mary is pregnant and her baby's father is the Person Jesus would later call "My Father in Heaven." Even thought the details on HOW it happened are few, and vague, one thing that seems clear is WHO Jesus' Father is. And it ain't the Holy Ghost.

How come no Mormon has admitted to the LDS belief that God and Mother God "procreated" Jesus, Satan and all of us as "spirit siblings" in the preexistence?

Kinda seems like you're hiding the details.

[nrajeff]

How come no Mormon has admitted to the LDS belief that God and Mother God "procreated" Jesus, Satan and all of us as "spirit siblings" in the preexistence?

--I can admit that, no problem. Heck our OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION says it, and we're hardly trying to suppress that document. Do yer homework, Russ, so that you can teach your little cl*** with a semblance of credibility. But how is that on-topic with the Nativity? In case you are confused (I know it's a remote possibility), the Nativity didn't take place in the preexistence. Are you trying to hide the details of how you believe that The Holy Spirit is the real father of Jesus?

[Russ]

--I can admit that, no problem. Heck our OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION says it, and we're hardly trying to suppress that document. Do yer homework, Russ, so that you can teach your little cl*** with a semblance of credibility. But how is that on-topic with the Nativity? In case you are confused (I know it's a remote possibility), the Nativity didn't take place in the preexistence. Are you trying to hide the details of how you believe that The Holy Spirit is the real father of Jesus?

Oh, sorry. I see now that I used verbiage I shouldn't have. Rather than "why is no Mormon admitting" to the LDS concept of God, Mother God, procreation of spirit children and Eternal Progression, what I meant to ask is "why is no Mormon" introducing it here in discussion as a core LDS belief for people to inspect and then accept or reject?

You never told me about Eternal Progression. Seebok never told me. The Mormon missionaries never told me. I never heard the whole LDS story from General Conference. My Mormon neighbors didn't tell me. I've visited Temple Square, the Lion House, the Beehive House, the Joseph Smith Memorial building and none of them told me.

I've done my homework, thank you! :D

Cl*** outline on Eternal Progression:

http://www.mormondoctrine.net/outlines/week_one_eternal_progression.htm

[Russ]

You are confusing sex with the delivery system, as of course our sexually fixated society is prone to do. I encourage to you think less salaciously and more precisely in this delicate dialog. :(

s.

Some Mormons I've known point out that the mechanism of LDS procreation of spirit-babies is not known and therefore physical union should not be ***umed.

Other Mormons I've known were raised knowing that celestial sex in the eternities is a surety.

It depends on whether one is talking with an internet Mormon or a chapel Mormon. (http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm)

A chapel Mormon believes Bruce McConkie (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2389).

What does "the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" mean? McConkie has no hesitation:

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. 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.




An internet Mormon follows BYU professors, FARMS and FAIR, the more "educated," I guess, and tries to distance himself from McConkie.

[Russ]

Seebok,

Greetings. I am wondering if you'd take a shot at these questions:

Where did Adam get his chromosones?

Because Eve was taken out of Adam did he have only 46 or 92?

Blessings,

MacG

MacG,

LDS authority Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following:


These name-***les all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. -emphasis added

I like to ask Mormons: How were you begotten?

[Russ]

You are confusing sex with the delivery system, as of course our sexually fixated society is prone to do. I encourage to you think less salaciously and more precisely in this delicate dialog. :(

s.

The blame isn't to be placed on a sexually fixated society but rather squarely upon LDS shoulders.

Thinking along precise LDS lines, LDS authority, Bruce R. McConkie wrote that:


"There is nothing figurative about {Jesus'} 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."

Do you think McConkie was speaking irresponsibly?

[nrajeff]

Oh, sorry. I see now that I used verbiage I shouldn't have.
--For the 678th time, in various ways. :)


Rather than "why is no Mormon admitting" to the LDS concept of God, Mother God, procreation of spirit children and Eternal Progression, what I meant to ask is "why is no Mormon" introducing it here in discussion as a core LDS belief for people to inspect and then accept or reject?

--How is that question on-topic for this thread? Spirit children don't have DNA, Russ. It takes a corporeal, organic, mortal body before DNA comes into the picture.


You never told me about Eternal Progression.

--Need a Waaahmbulance? In any event, if you'd bothered to go to LDS.ORG or read Gospel Principles or ask the missionaries "In what way am I a child of the Father?" you should have been able to learn that LDS believe that all humans are spiritual offspring of God and have the potential to grow up to be like their Father if they want to be that obedient and submissive to Him. Or you could have read the Bible and gotten the same thing if you were sharp enough.


I've done my homework, thank you! :D

---I give you a D in the reading-comprehension dept.

[Russ]

--For the 678th time, in various ways. :)



--How is that question on-topic for this thread? Spirit children don't have DNA, Russ. It takes a corporeal, organic, mortal body before DNA comes into the picture.



--Need a Waaahmbulance? In any event, if you'd bothered to go to LDS.ORG or read Gospel Principles or ask the missionaries "In what way am I a child of the Father?" you should have been able to learn that LDS believe that all humans are spiritual offspring of God and have the potential to grow up to be like their Father if they want to be that obedient and submissive to Him. Or you could have read the Bible and gotten the same thing if you were sharp enough.



---I give you a D in the reading-comprehension dept.

"if you'd bothered to go to LDS.ORG or read Gospel Principles or ask the missionaries...."

Let me see if I understand this.

You're claiming that since people aren't asking the right questions then it's their own fault for not knowing about the LDS concept of God, Mother God, procreation of Jesus and Satan as brothers, Mormon men as Gods over their own planets, etc.

If I have you right, then the LDS critics' ***ertion that Mormonism is a Gnostic, secret religion is air-tight.

[stemelbow]

"if you'd bothered to go to LDS.ORG or read Gospel Principles or ask the missionaries...."

Let me see if I understand this.

You're claiming that since people aren't asking the right questions then it's their own fault for not knowing about the LDS concept of God, Mother God, procreation of Jesus and Satan as brothers, Mormon men as Gods over their own planets, etc.

If I have you right, then the LDS critics' ***ertion that Mormonism is a Gnostic, secret religion is air-tight.

it appears you are saying people should just be told everything without inquiry. As my life is, I learn by asking the right questions. If I ask how does a tree grow, and someone responds, "by watering it". And I leave it at that, then its my own fault for not asking more, or looking more into it. I don't blame the responder for my ignorance. But alas, that is what Russ and his partners do. Says Russ, "If someone who is LDS does not explain in every detail how I was born I will hold them accountable for my ignorance. And their religion is Gnostic, because Gnosticism was seen by many back in the day as bad, and there was some element of secrecy, or hidden knowledge, and LDS are Gnostic because they believe things that I don't know about or understand. And as long as I say that people will know I think they are heretics because we're taught in church all gnostics and all their ideas were inspired by the devil. They must have been because that's what my pastor said. <quietly to himself> I don't know how to think for myself. I hope someone holds my hand and leads me in the right direction.

love,
stem

[Russ]

it appears you are saying people should just be told everything without inquiry.

People should know about the things which are the crux of the LDS religion, that the LDS religion believes that God was once a man on another planet who grew to be a God by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles.

That the LDS religion would have them believe that they too can become Gods over their own created planets and that said planets will be populated by their spirit children having been "procreated" with celestial, polygamous wives.

That the LDS religion will require marriage before one is considered worthy to receive eternal life.

That's the short list.

Literally several thousand who have left the LDS church have complained that there were things they later found out about the LDS religion that if they had known such things before they joined that they most likely would not have joined the LDS church. Read ex-mormon.org

Genuine Christianity has nothing to hide.




As my life is, I learn by asking the right questions. If I ask how does a tree grow, and someone responds, "by watering it". And I leave it at that, then its my own fault for not asking more, or looking more into it. I don't blame the responder for my ignorance. But alas, that is what Russ and his partners do. Says Russ, "If someone who is LDS does not explain in every detail how I was born I will hold them accountable for my ignorance. And their religion is Gnostic, because Gnosticism was seen by many back in the day as bad, and there was some element of secrecy, or hidden knowledge, and LDS are Gnostic because they believe things that I don't know about or understand. And as long as I say that people will know I think they are heretics because we're taught in church all gnostics and all their ideas were inspired by the devil. They must have been because that's what my pastor said. <quietly to himself> I don't know how to think for myself. I hope someone holds my hand and leads me in the right direction.

You've quoted me as writing or saying something that I never did.

What the LDS church does, stem, is operate under the guise of "milk before the meat." Many cults do this. They reveal their core doctrines here a little, there a little, as they watch the student grow in allegiance, understanding and "faith," which is why new LDS members are only allowed to enter the LDS temple after one full year after joining the LDS religion. They have to be properly indoctrinated in LDS theology before they receive their sacred new name and be shown the sacred tokens (secret handshakes.) (http://www.mormondoctrine.net/temple/ceremony_main.htm)

Many LDS converts did not know for years after they joined the LDS church that Joseph Smith married 14 year old girls and other men's wives while they were still married to their husbands. Lyndon Lamborn is such a man. He quit after finding out many of the things the LDS church didn't tell him about. It bothered him that LDS church history was being white-washed. You may listen to it in his own words here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=lyndon+lamborn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=***le

Other ex-Mormons I've known or read about report being quite disgruntled to find out that Smith's prophecies didn't come to p*** which reveals Smith for the false prophet that he is.

Other ex-Mormons I've known or read about report they were disheartened to find out that the Book of Abraham is proven fraudulent. They did not know of the plethora of evidence against the BoA. They did not know because the LDS church didn't let them know.

When these people started asking the right questions, they felt duped.

That's their story.

[seebok]

Genuine Christianity has nothing to hide.


Perhaps the biggest secret is that you believe God's omnipotence and sovereignty mean Christ's crucifixion, as a means to atone, was unnecessary. You believe God murdered His son for nothing.

Another of your secrets says that God was lying when He told his children to love, serve, and obey. You've told us over and over again He does not want this.

The fact that you worship the Bible and not God who commissioned the Bible is also troubling.

Your religion is about "getting" as opposed to "giving". Actually, I'm sure selfish people like this aspect.

Your religion is free-for-all the self-anointed, self appointed, no-accountability set.

And lastly, your religion was founded by the spiritual father of the holocaust and perpetuated by the sanctioning of the slave trade and KKK.

The list of things Evans hide from their converts is endless.

I could never be an Evan

best

s.

[MacG]

Perhaps the biggest secret is that you believe God's omnipotence and sovereignty mean Christ's crucifixion, as a means to atone, was unnecessary. You believe God murdered His son for nothing.

Another of your secrets says that God was lying when He told his children to love, serve, and obey. You've told us over and over again He does not want this.

The fact that you worship the Bible and not God who commissioned the Bible is also troubling.

Your religion is about "getting" as opposed to "giving". Actually, I'm sure selfish people like this aspect.

Your religion is free-for-all the self-anointed, self appointed, no-accountability set.

And lastly, your religion was founded by the spiritual father of the holocaust and perpetuated by the sanctioning of the slave trade and KKK.

The list of things Evans hide from their converts is endless.

I could never be an Evan

best

s.

The thing is Seebok, that one can be an Evangelical Christian today and may not be tied to those sects (or any sect for that matter) that practiced such things, they just read the Bible and believe it so much that they become disciples of the risen Lord. But those who believe the testimony of JS have chosen to belong to a sect that set out to "restore" Christianity from it's fallen glory from it's outset, from it's higher moral plane and words of revelation from it's celestial plane above the terrestrial plane, condemned American Africans even before they were born and can therefore not escape that revelatory horrid past. When revelation comes from God how can it be so tainted?

"Your religion is about "getting" as opposed to "giving". Actually, I'm sure selfish people like this aspect."

That's a hoot. I seem to remember a thread where you were relieved that I believed that that my good works will be rewarded and that I wasn't working for nothing. We work and will be rewarded as the God who knows no other Gods sees fit after the fire burns away the wood, hay and stubble - we work knowing that we will not become something that God knows not.

Blessings,

MacG

[nrajeff]

The thing is Seebok, that one can be an Evangelical Christian today and may not be tied to those sects (or any sect for that matter) that practiced such things, they just read the Bible and believe it so much that they become disciples of the risen Lord. But those who believe the testimony of JS have chosen to belong to a sect that set out to "restore" Christianity from it's fallen glory from it's outset, from it's higher moral plane and words of revelation from it's celestial plane above the terrestrial plane, condemned American Africans even before they were born and can therefore not escape that revelatory horrid past. When revelation comes from God how can it be so tainted?

---That is an interesting idea, Mac: That a person can be a Reformationist without subscribing to the foundation laid by the Reformers. When Joseph Smith stated that mainstream Christendom had gone astray, this was not the first time someone had made that claim. Christians like Roger Williams and John Wesley and Thomas Muntzer and Sebastian Franck had said the same thing way before Smith was even born. So in a way, Smith was just another in a long line of Reformers. As for the idea that one can't just read the Book of Mormon and believe it so much that they become disciples of the risen Lord: I think it can be done, and has been done by some.

[MacG]

---That is an interesting idea, Mac: That a person can be a Reformationist without subscribing to the foundation laid by the Reformers. When Joseph Smith stated that mainstream Christendom had gone astray, this was not the first time someone had made that claim. Christians like Roger Williams and John Wesley and Thomas Muntzer and Sebastian Franck had said the same thing way before Smith was even born. So in a way, Smith was just another in a long line of Reformers. As for the idea that one can't just read the Book of Mormon and believe it so much that they become disciples of the risen Lord: I think it can be done, and has been done by some.

Jeff,

Nice try. You have been around long enough to know that those other "reformers" all held to the recognized "essential" base christian doctrines. JS and subsequent presidents changed several those doctrines cleverly using the same terms like Holy Trinity. If you are in need of a refresher on what the essentials are from this side of the fence erected by JS, look up Dr. Maritn's book "Essential Christianity".

Hey is Muentzer sportin' dreds in the attached .jpg? :D

Blessings,

MacG

[nrajeff]

Thanks for the reply, Mac.


Jeff,Nice try. You have been around long enough to know that those other "reformers" all held to the recognized "essential" base christian doctrines. JS and subsequent presidents changed several those doctrines cleverly using the same terms like Holy Trinity. ...
----Suppose a Reformer had said the following:

Since the time of Constantine, The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church…The Christians were turned heathens again, and earth only had a dead form left.

Would you think that Reformer was sticking to the essentials?

[Russ]

Hey is Muentzer sportin' dreds in the attached .jpg? :D

Blessings,

MacG

rofl. :D

Too funny.

[MacG]

Thanks for the reply, Mac.


----Suppose a Reformer had said the following:

Since the time of Constantine, The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church…The Christians were turned heathens again, and earth only had a dead form left.

Would you think that Reformer was sticking to the essentials?

Jeff,

This seems like a non-sequitur so I am not sure where you are going with it.

However the author shows his judgement against Christianity as a whole "...from Constantine to his present time..." in the first line by declaring that the "...Christians had no more the the Spirit of Christ than the OTHER heathens." Perhaps if he had said "...than the heathens rather than "...the OTHER heathens" he would not have given away his judgement regarding ALL Christians. The author has already equated Christians with heathens and kneaded them into the same lump of dough before he penned that line. This is the foundation to starting your own sect though, declare all others corrupt.
As to whether this author held to the "essentials" I cannot tell based on his Holiness postion alone. Most denominations expect a certain level of Holiness. To some it is a matter if you can consume alcohol in moderation or not at all. Perhaps it is whether you can dance of not. Some denominations have so many rules that they just sit and be right :rolleyes: For contrast, one denomination has no problem with active ****sexuality and yet claims some level of Holiness. Many of the people in these groups get their status in their group by negation. Recognition for what they don't do is more important than what they do do.

So the quote contains no information whether He (presumably) believes even one of the "essential " doctrines.

Get Martin's book on Amazon for a few bucks and you tell me if your author follows those essentials.

Blessings,

MacG

[nrajeff]

Jeff,This seems like a non-sequitur so I am not sure where you are going with it.

--I am just exploring the boundaries to Christianity. Apparently, if a person says things that go outside those boundaries--whatever those boundaries are--the person is no longer a Christian or something. Many of today's Reformationsts are unaware of statements the Reformers made--statements that, if Joe Smith had been the one making them, would result in his being branded a non-Christian cultist.

The author has already equated Christians with heathens and kneaded them into the same lump of dough before he penned that line. This is the foundation to starting your own sect though, declare all others corrupt.

--I get your point. Jesus, after preaching His gospel, declared all other systems of religion and worship essentially corrupt, and his words were not welcomed by many folks.


As to whether this author held to the "essentials" I cannot tell based on his Holiness postion alone. Most denominations expect a certain level of Holiness.

---I think the Reformer in question (John Wesley, if memory serves) was claiming that Christendom in general had abandoned many true doctrines and replaced them with false ones, and the result of that "apostasy" was a drastic reduction in the gifts of the Spirit that are supposed to accompany true Christianity. And I think he was urging Christians to "reform" their religion, and return to the true doctrines and true worship that the church had back in the Antenicene--or at least the Apostolic--Era

[MacG]

--I am just exploring the boundaries to Christianity. Apparently, if a person says things that go outside those boundaries--whatever those boundaries are--the person is no longer a Christian or something. Many of today's Reformationsts are unaware of statements the Reformers made--statements that, if Joe Smith had been the one making them, would result in his being branded a non-Christian cultist.


--I get your point. Jesus, after preaching His gospel, declared all other systems of religion and worship essentially corrupt, and his words were not welcomed by many folks.



---I think the Reformer in question (John Wesley, if memory serves) was claiming that Christendom in general had abandoned many true doctrines and replaced them with false ones, and the result of that "apostasy" was a drastic reduction in the gifts of the Spirit that are supposed to accompany true Christianity. And I think he was urging Christians to "reform" their religion, and return to the true doctrines and true worship that the church had back in the Antenicene--or at least the Apostolic--Era

Jeff,

It is clear that Wesley had the essentials and it is apparant that he was still a sinner needing the grace of God. So did the other reformers raging against the machine. It is clear then it is not the essentials that they were disagreeing about. JS did. For us there is but One God, who knows of no other Gods that is creator of all that has been made. JS and following clearly went out of bounds of even the reformers.


Apparently, if a person says things that go outside those boundaries--whatever those boundaries are--the person is no longer a Christian or something. Or perhaps never was, it was Jesus who warned us to be sure about being right about who He was or we would be lost in ours sins. Many who began to follow Him left after a time of His teaching proved to be too radical from them. He was and is the one and only God-man. Is God wrong when He declares in IS 45:
Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a (H)Savior;
There is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.

The reformers did not deny this. The Jews held to this and the Jewist of Jews (Jesus) said that Before Abarmham was I AM taking the divine name the One God used for himself in Exodus. The Jews knew that was what He was doing for they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy and said as much "...by making God your very own Father, making yourself equal with God.". This is something He did not deny then (how could He it was an hysterical mob), but even later He never tried to clear up the "misunderstanding" and eventually was crucified for it. This is why JS is considered outside the pale of Christianity. You may not be, however.

Blessings,

MacG

[nrajeff]

Jeff, It is clear that Wesley had the essentials and it is apparant that he was still a sinner needing the grace of God.

--Are you saying that his belief that all of Christendom had gone horribly astray is no indication that he himself had gone horribly astray? And are you saying that this particular belief (that all of Christendom had gone horribly astray) only shows that he was a sinner? In other words, that it was a sin for him to believe what he believed?


So did the other reformers raging against the machine.

--Isn't it possible to describe Joe Smith as another dude raging against the machine? And maybe he deserves more slack than earlier Reformers, because he claimed that he was just repeating what Jesus had told him. In the case of his predecessors, no such claim--they either stated what they believed the state of affairs was and what needed to be done to fix things, or perhaps they claimed at most some inspiration in that regard. Smith, on the other hand, was basically saying "The Lord directly and unmistakably told me this how things are and what needs to be done." That might be less execrable a "sin" than say, Wesley's "sin" since Smith only claimed to be relaying God's messages--perhaps a reminder to not shoot the messenger is in order. :)



The reformers did not deny this. The Jews held to this and the Jewist of Jews (Jesus) said that Before Abarmham was I AM taking the divine name the One God used for himself in Exodus.

--Smith never said that p***age was wrong.


The Jews knew that was what He was doing for they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy and said as much "...by making God your very own Father, making yourself equal with God." This is something He did not deny then (how could He it was an hysterical mob), but even later He never tried to clear up the "misunderstanding" and eventually was crucified for it.

---I think that is a good summation of that account.


This is why JS is considered outside the pale of Christianity. You may not be, however.
--Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mac, but if Smith was outside the pale on this issue, then I think I am, too. IMO, the day will come when Smith's theological statements will be widely regarded as visionary and correct.

[MacG]

Jeff,

Why did you p**** all of this:

"It is clear then it is not the essentials that they were disagreeing about. JS did. For us there is but One God, who knows of no other Gods that is creator of all that has been made. JS and following clearly went out of bounds of even the reformers."

"...it was Jesus who warned us to be sure about being right about who He was or we would be lost in ours sins. Many who began to follow Him left after a time of His teaching proved to be too radical from them. He was and is the one and only God-man. Is God wrong when He declares in IS 45:
Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a (H)Savior;
There is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other."

This IS a defining difference between what Jesus taught and JS taught which is why I said that JS was out of the pale.

Maybe initially JS said there was one God but it changed a few years later. This is the danger in Paul is worried about when he issued caution about testing the spirits for not every spirit of of God. Even if an Angel presents a different gospel (Moroni) than what what was first preached let that Angel be anathama. Be sure, my friend, that the Jesus you follow matches the self described Jesus. Who thought in not robbery to be considered equal with God, would you consider Lucifer as God's equal?

Blessings,

MacG

[nrajeff]

"...it was Jesus who warned us to be sure about being right about who He was or we would be lost in ours sins. Many who began to follow Him left after a time of His teaching proved to be too radical from them.

---I don't disagree with that: Many Christians did rebel against Jesus' teachings, for various reasons. It's called apostasia.


This IS a defining difference between what Jesus taught and JS taught which is why I said that JS was out of the pale.

---IMO, there is a huge difference between what mainstream Christendom ended up teaching, and what Jesus taught. That might be what Protestant clergyman H.E. Fos**** had in mind when he said that Christendom had gone so far astray from Jesus' original teachings, that Jesus, looking at the state of modern Christendom, would wonder if He Himself were a Christian.


Maybe initially JS said there was one God but it changed a few years later. This is the danger in Paul is worried about when he issued caution about testing the spirits for not every spirit of of God.

--Wasn't it Paul himself who said that even though there are many gods, to us there is only one God (the Father), and there is only one Lord (Jesus)?
I think JS would agree with Paul.


Be sure, my friend, that the Jesus you follow matches the self described Jesus.
---I think both you and I follow that Jesus.When He returns, both of us will say "THAT is the Jesus I believe in and have been trying to follow."

[MacG]

"He was and is the one and only God-man. Is God wrong when He declares in IS 45:
Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other."

And IS 44
6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"
Rev 1:18
Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.





---IMO, there is a huge difference between what mainstream Christendom ended up teaching, and what Jesus taught. That might be what Protestant clergyman H.E. Fos**** had in mind when he said that Christendom had gone so far astray from Jesus' original teachings, that Jesus, looking at the state of modern Christendom, would wonder if He Himself were a Christian.

While there is alot of weirdness in the church but as a whole there is agreement on the essentials and as I have heard liberty in the non essentials. Just read through what Jesus has to say to the 7 churches of Asia in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to see what He thinks about some of the nonsense.


--Wasn't it Paul himself who said that even though there are many gods, to us there is only one God (the Father), and there is only one Lord (Jesus)?
I think JS would agree with Paul.

The verse before that which you paraphrase (not necessarily a bad thing) is:
"Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one."

He is talking to a polytheistic people, acknowledges said belief and that despite their beliefs, from the Christian point of view, there is but one God.


---I think both you and I follow that Jesus.When He returns, both of us will say "THAT is the Jesus I believe in and have been trying to follow."

The Jesus that I follow is of IS 44, 45 above and Revelation 1 the Alpha and Omega who once was alive then dead and alive again forevermore and the monotheistic Jesus that Paul preached to the polytheistic Corinthians, which one do you follow?

Blessings and respect,

MacG

[Russ]

[COLOR="Purple"]--Wasn't it Paul himself who said that even though there are many gods, to us there is only one God (the Father), and there is only one Lord (Jesus)?

I think JS would agree with Paul.

Paul was talking about food sacrificed to idols.

"For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him," (1 Cor. 8:5-6, NASB).

Paul repeats over and again that there is only one true and living God, for all time, for anyone.

Those who believe these other Gods exist have given themselves over to henotheism.

[nrajeff]

Mac, I don't understand what you specifically think I p****d and why my parsing was bad. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

[Trinity]

1 Corinthians 10:20
No, not at all. What I am saying is that these sacrifices are offered to demons, not to God. And I don't want any of you to be partners with demons.

The sacrifices to the gods according to Paul are sacrifices to demons. To say otherwise, that is twisting what was in his mind.

Any other gods for him are demons.

Trinity

[MacG]

Mac, I don't understand what you specifically think I p****d and why my parsing was bad. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

Jeff,

Our discussion was dancing around the differences between who Jesus says He is and who JS said He is or that there is only one God vs what JS went to calrify what was meant by the One God comments in the BOM. The two testaments that we have contain verses which signify this difference. These are the verses that I was refering to as being p****d. Please let me know what you think they say.

"Or perhaps never was, it was Jesus who warned us to be sure, about being right about who He was or we would be lost in ours sins. Many who began to follow Him left after a time of His teaching proved to be too radical from them. (Your p**** started here when you omitted the following)He was and is the one and only God-man. Is God wrong when He declares in IS 45:
Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a (H)Savior;
There is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.

And IS 44
6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"

Rev 1:18
Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."


And for good measure IS 43:
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me."

To me this is God saying "If I told ya once, I told ya a thousand times! There is no God besides me!"

This is really curious because God said the man was made in His image but yet no Gods will be formed after Him neither were there any before Him. How is then that man can become God according to JS when God says no.

Blessings,

MacG

[nrajeff]

Thanks, Mac. I agree with some of your conclusions, and I may only quote those parts I agree with. Or, there may be parts that I don't have an opinion on. That may be why I only quoted selected parts of your post. As for the Shema: I think it was Israel's God speaking to Israel. The New Testament makes it clear (to me) that the God of Christianity is not (supposed to be) the God of Israel. Jesus and at least one NT disciple said that it's the Person of the Father who is the God of Christians. This puts you in a dilemma if you are a Christian and you believe that the God of Israel (Yahweh) is the God you are supposed to pray to. Your God is supposed to be the same Person Jesus' God is.

As for who our leaders have declared Jesus to be, here is an answer:
http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/the-only-true-god/video/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent

[BigJulie]

Don't ya just hate when someone tells ya what you believe? I am just wanting to know what you believe and since you already "know" what I believe, what I'd say is moot, no?

Since there is nothing to read into my posts I really thought you'd just answer the question: How did the Father provide the extra chromosones?

Blessings,

MacG I am curious about this too. I don't see Jesus Christ as another Adam where God created Adam and created Adam's genes too; I see Christ as the Son of God. How is Christ different from Adam if both got their genes the same way? I mean, Christ had to have chromosomes, right?, since he has a body? What is the difference that makes Christ the only son of God?

[alanmolstad]

Hi MacG

If you are able to read the creation account literally, then Adam got all 46 of his chromosomes directly from God.

Your question about Adam having 46 or 92 chromosomes really makes no genetic sense. Since males are xy and females xx, theoretically a female (i.e., Eve) could be created from two 23 chromosome x "bundles" from a male, no extra chromosomes needed.

Now this is important, you can't get xy (male) from xx (female), no matter how you p**** it. So in the case of Christ's conception, the "y" clearly came from somewhere external to Mary. According to Luke, that candidate would be the Father.

I hope this primer has helped you.

Best

s.
I tend to disagree.
But the truth is that the Bible simply does not tell us clearly the answer to the "how?" question.

yet if I were to make a guess, then I have to say that I do not think we can hold too tight to the idea that the "Father gave Jesus part of his humanity"
I think it would be more correct in saying that Jesus got ALL of his humanity from his mother,

Let us keep in mind that Jesus was fully 100% human just as we are,
And fully 100% God as is the father.

If the Father had to supply Jesus with half his humanity then regardless of how closely it looked or acted to my humanity, it still would be different.
And if I knew that the humanity of Christ was different than my own then I could never trust that the Resurrection of the humanity of Christ was the same as my own, ,,,,and so there would always be some doubt in my resurrection.

On the other hand,
If the humanity of Christ was the very same as my own, then I could trust that as God raised Jesus and his humanity from the grave so to could he raise my own humanity from the grave...for Jesus and i would be truly "brothers"


So I think that the answer to this question has to be that Jesus had 2 natures...
One fully God
the other fully human.

and it was his full humanity that Jesus got from his mother...even if we don't understand the "how?" question.

[alanmolstad]

Seebok,

Greetings. I am wondering if you'd take a shot at these questions:

Where did Adam get his chromosones?

Because Eve was taken out of Adam did he have only 46 or 92?

Blessings,

MacG
see my answer above...

[alanmolstad]

---The Person of the Father, according to the New Testament.



---The Bible doesn't give us many details on HOW it happened--the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, whatever that means, and the next thing you know, Mary is pregnant and her baby's father is the Person Jesus would later call "My Father in Heaven." Even thought the details on HOW it happened are few, and vague, one thing that seems clear is WHO Jesus' Father is. And it ain't the Holy Ghost.
The trinity was listed as all members being fully involved in the birth of Christ...

In other words the birth came about though the work of the Trinity, and was not the result of the father doing something that the Holy Spirit and the Son not being also just as much part of fully and equally...

[alanmolstad]

But does God contradict the Bible?
he cant...

Nothing that God migh say now can add to or replace what is already given us in the Bible...
Even if an angel from Heaven shows up and tries to teach something else, we should not listen...

For the faith was "once for all given"....

[alanmolstad]

I tend to disagree.
But the truth is that the Bible simply does not tell us clearly the answer to the "how?" question.

yet if I were to make a guess, then I have to say that I do not think we can hold too tight to the idea that the "Father gave Jesus part of his humanity"
I think it would be more correct in saying that Jesus got ALL of his humanity from his mother,

Let us keep in mind that Jesus was fully 100% human just as we are,
And fully 100% God as is the father.

If the Father had to supply Jesus with half his humanity then regardless of how closely it looked or acted to my humanity, it still would be different.
And if I knew that the humanity of Christ was different than my own then I could never trust that the Resurrection of the humanity of Christ was the same as my own, ,,,,and so there would always be some doubt in my resurrection.

On the other hand,
If the humanity of Christ was the very same as my own, then I could trust that as God raised Jesus and his humanity from the grave so to could he raise my own humanity from the grave...for Jesus and i would be truly "brothers"


So I think that the answer to this question has to be that Jesus had 2 natures...
One fully God
the other fully human.

and it was his full humanity that Jesus got from his mother...even if we don't understand the "how?" question.

this is the correct answer....

[alanmolstad]

so when I claim that Jesus is fully human, I mean that he is part of the human family tree...that he shares what we are and is part of the human chain of life.