Why Christianity is the truth

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God.

Not just Jesus. It teaches that Adam was the son of God, too. And it mentions the sons of God doing things. You believe it teaches that you are a son of God, too. So what makes Jesus different from all other sons of God? How is Jesus unique? The Bible says that of all the sons of God, only Jesus was begotten by Him, and only Jesus is like Him in every way, so closely resembling His Father that the 2 are virtually one. Sounds like how one would describe a clone, an exact copy.

Just how does the doctrine that we have the Gods not contradict with those p***ages?

Your doctrine says that Jesus is the Son of the only True God, which is biblical, but your doctrine also says that Jesus is the son of the Holy Spirit, which is false. When Jesus talked about His Father in Heaven, He was referring, every time, to God the Father, not to the Holy Spirit.

I don't know how you know we are confusing conception with birth.

It's easy to know that. I just look at how you use quotes referring to Jesus' birth to attack what you believe to be LDS doctrine regarding His conception.

Mormonism teaches that Elohim has physical sex with His daughter Mary..

You just made a false statement.

That is what he said now LOOK at it "it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers".

"It"? What is the "it"?

"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers,"

Mary gave birth to Jesus the same way all women give a natural birth..

See? Even you should see your problem now.

The problem come in how Jesus was begotten.. Was it the same way all fathers beget their children or was that a supernatural event.. A miracle of God when God created the physical body in the womb of Mary to develop and grow into a viable baby..

Did Young teach that the conception of Jesus was NOT a miracle?

Jeff you can't disregard Matthew because you don't like what is taught there..

I like what is taught there. It supports LDS doctrine.

How does the Biblical truth fit into the LDS theory of of the conception of Jesus being begotten by the VISIBLE and TANGIBLE Glorified man?

It fits LDS doctrine better than it does with Trinitarianism.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit was the Person were by Mary was made to be with Child and I believe that He was at the Birth of the Lord but still the Birth was a natural event.

If the Holy Spirit was the ONLY person who was involved with Mary's pregnancy, then WHY did Jesus claim that His Father was ANOTHER person?

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;148914]Not just Jesus. It teaches that Adam was the son of God, too. And it mentions the sons of God doing things. You believe it teaches that you are a son of God, too. So what makes Jesus different from all other sons of God? How is Jesus unique? The Bible says that of all the sons of God, only Jesus was begotten by Him, and only Jesus is like Him in every way, so closely resembling His Father that the 2 are virtually one. Sounds like how one would describe a clone, an exact copy.

The Bible does teach that Adam was the son of God.. It never teaches that He was the only begotten Son of God.. That is a distinction only for Jesus.. All of the angelic host are called son of God, but they too are not the only begotten Sons of God.. That is what makes Jesus unique. The Bible does not teach that all men are the sons of God.. If it does you have a great opportunity to instruct me.. I know of one place it comes close, but it adds that only those who hold faith in Jesus are sons of God.. I think you are wrong AGAIN.. But that is quite a common occurrence when you post..

Is Jesus a copy of the Father, NO! Jesus is God, the Father is God, and because there in only One God they are one in their divinity. Jesus is the image of the INVISIBLE GOD.. Jesus was NOT INVISIBLE. Therefore He does not look like the Father.. He must be the image in other ways than in how He looks..

Your doctrine says that Jesus is the Son of the only True God, which is biblical, but your doctrine also says that Jesus is the son of the Holy Spirit, which is false. When Jesus talked about His Father in Heaven, He was referring, every time, to God the Father, not to the Holy Spirit.

What is this? Do I hear you denying the Holy Spirit? Is He not refereed to as God in the Bible (Acts 5:3-4)? How many Gods does the Bible teach are true Gods? ONE! Since the Holy Spirit is called God in the scripture He must be the one true God as the Father and the Son are God.. Is not He is a false God and I really don't believe you want to go there. Remember the Bible teaches that Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. You can deny that but that is also a denial of the Holy Spirit in saying that He caused the writers of the scripture to record lies, or that Jesus lied in saying that His word was perverted (DIED) when he promised that heaven and earth would die before His word does.. In short The Holy Spirit is God and therefore the Child Mary was found to carry is indeed the Son of God..

It's easy to know that. I just look at how you use quotes referring to Jesus' birth to attack what you believe to be LDS doctrine regarding His conception.

What that makes no sense at all.. I have used quotes from the Bible that prove that God is one Lord both from Moses and from Jesus as He confirmed the doctrine (Deut 6:4. Mark 12:29).. I have supported that doctrine in the the teaching of God though the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 43:10, 44:8).. I have seen the LDS try to justify their doctrine by saying that these teachings are "Only for this world". But wait, The Father, Son , and Holy Spirit are the God of this world. According to mormonism that makes three Gods not one as the Bible teaches (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473).. How else can I use the quotes from your "prophets" other than to post what they actually communicate?

You just made a false statement.

Oh yes I have seen many a mormon deny that point but sexual relations is the natural way that a baby is begotten, By your own admission that is just the way that the LDS church has been taught by it's prophets that Jesus was begotten.. So is my statement false? Only if you play fast and loose with what your leaders have taught as to how and who Fathered Jesus..

"It"? What is the "it"?

"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers,"

I was going to quote that same statement but you have so let's take a close look at what it says.. The "It" you question is the Birth of Jesus, I agree. But Young teaches that that Jesus' birth was the result of the NATURAL ACTION of partaking of flesh and blood. That He was begotten sired, procreated, by the Father as we were begotten of our fathers.. Tell me what does a father have to do with the birth of His child other than to be the cause for the conception of the child in the first place? NOTHING.. A|t that time all the father can do is stand back and watch. It is totally out of his hands. Other than the way God created our natural world; the Birth of Jesus had nothing to do with divine intervention.. It was natural. The conception of His body in the womb of Mary was where Jesus was begotten and that was by God, the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18)..

See? Even you should see your problem now.

I do see the problem. You believe that begetting is birth when begetting is the method by with conception takes place.. Yes the problem is you see Young's statement as speaking of just the birth of Jesus while ignoring the time He was begotten.. No one is begotten at birth. That takes place 9 months before birth..

Did Young teach that the conception of Jesus was NOT a miracle?

Yes he did.. That is the problem.. He denies that the Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit.. He denies the scripture that teaches that God is Spirit, that He is invisible. He created his own God in his image instead of allowing that God created us in His image.. So yes Young taught that the conception of Jesus was not a miracle but instead as natural as the way we were begotten of our fathers..

I like what is taught there. It supports LDS doctrine.

If you believe that the Father having sexual relations with Mary is LDS doctrine then yes it supports that claim.. Is that what you really believe LDS doctrine is?

It fits LDS doctrine better than it does with Trinitarianism.

I agree Young Statements does fit better with LDS doctrine than it fits with Trinitarianism. Some how I would except a mormon prophets teaching to match with what his church teaches better than with what his church calls a lie..

If the Holy Spirit was the ONLY person who was involved with Mary's pregnancy, then WHY did Jesus claim that His Father was ANOTHER person?

Good question and the answer is found in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is the same Being as the Holy Spirit. Yes, they are separate persons but they are the same essence. The same God.. What is done by the Holy Spirit is done by the Father, and the Son.. Because they are One God.. Because Jesus has always existed as God, He was also there at His own conception as much as the Father was. Still the actual creation of His flesh was the action of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).. The ONLY way you can teach different is to deny the Scripture, and in so doing deny the promises of Jesus that His word would never die. As you do that you call Jesus a liar and therefore deny that He is God.. Denial that the scripture as the truth is a slippery slope.. I am concerned that you have taken steps to slide down that slope.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

How do you know the Holy Ghost didn't play a part in the conception? If the Bible says He did, then I believe it.
But the Bible does not say that Jesus is the son of the Holy Ghost. It says that Jesus is the Son of God the Father.


How do you know everyone understood what he meant? Anyway, you are confusing conception with birth. The 2 are not the same.


The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

(... when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by his Father, who is also our Father-the Father of our spirits-and he was born of his mother Mary.


Have you figured out yet that you are mixing terms? It is entirely possible to be conceived through cloning, and be born like most babies are born.

I like to mix bourbon and coke too, but that doesn't change the fact that bourbon is still bourbon and coke is still coke even after you mixed them together. The same why natural and begotten when mixed together, if you believe Brigham Young was your prophet and he was the LDSinc. spokesman for the mormon god, then yes if you are begotten by your father the same way the mormon jesus was begotten by his father, yes sex was used to procreate you, and your mormon jesus.

[James Banta]

I am amazed. We have had LDS posters here condemn Christianity for teaching the truth as it is recorded in the Bible.. That is why Christianity is the truth, because it conforms to completely to the Bible.. We believe that the Bible is God's message to man and that God doesn't lie.. Here the LDS have shown us that they DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE, yet they claim to posses the only true and complete truth.. How can they hold the whole truth when they excommunicate men for taking more than one wife. A teaching that Joseph Smith taught was an eternal principle. How can they be teaching the truth when a prophet of God proclaimed Him to be Adam. At least that he is all the God whom we have to do.. The LDS church today also excommunicates those that hold and teach that doctrine.. A church that excommunicates it's members for believing principles that were taught by a prophet of God is like saying Jesus can't be the Lord because he agreed with Moses that the Lord our God in one Lord..

The LDS have not shown any Biblical doctrine that calls into question any part of the Christian doctrines I have presented here. All they have done is just called them wrong without any reference that they are wrong.. I don't believe they can come up with any scriptural evidence that these things are wrong, or that their doctrines that disagree with these points is in anyway Biblical.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

The Bible does teach that Adam was the son of God.. It never teaches that He was the only begotten Son of God.. That is a distinction only for Jesus.. All of the angelic host are called son of God, but they too are not the only begotten Sons of God.. That is what makes Jesus unique.

That all agrees with LDS doctrine, so why are you stating it as a re****al?

The Bible does not teach that all men are the sons of God.. If it does you have a great opportunity to instruct me.. I know of one place it comes close, but it adds that only those who hold faith in Jesus are sons of God.. I think you are wrong AGAIN.. But that is quite a common occurrence when you post..

Did I claim that the Bible teaches that all men are the sons of God? No. So you are wrong AGAIN by claiming that I did. And that is quite a common occurrence when you post.

Is Jesus a copy of the Father, NO!

Is Jesus the express image of His person? Think before you say "NO!" because I quoted from the Bible.

What is this? Do I hear you denying the Holy Spirit?

No. Maybe you should get your hearing checked.

Is He not refereed to as God in the Bible (Acts 5:3-4)? How many Gods does the Bible teach are true Gods? ONE!

Jesus identified only His Father as the Only True God. That leaves out Jesus and the Holy Spirit from having that ti tle. Sorry, but that's what the Bible says, and you claim to believe every word of the Bible.

Since the Holy Spirit is called God in the scripture He must be the one true God as the Father and the Son are God..

You are wrong.

Is not He is a false God and I really don't believe you want to go there.

I do want to go there, because your incorrect beliefs about the Godhead deserve to be corrected.

Remember the Bible teaches that Mary was found to be with Child of the Holy Spirit..

Some Bibles put into a context that prevent misunderstandings like yours:

"...she was found to be pregnant [through the power] of the Holy Spirit." (AMP)

"...she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit." (CEB)

"...she was found to be pregnant from the Ruach HaKodesh." (CJB)

"... she learned that she was going to have a baby by God’s Holy Spirit." (CEV)

"...he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.)" (ERV)

And at least TEN OTHER Bibles use words like "of" or "from" or "By the power of" instead of "child of the Holy Spirit" so people like you won't jump to the wrong conclusion and think that Jesus is the Holy Spirit's child.

Here is a simple ****ogy to help you see your mistake: Suppose you and your wife wanted to have a baby, but the only way she could get pregnant was through in vitro fertilization. So you ask a fertility specialist named Dr. Jones to do the procedure. When the baby is born and people ask how this was able to happen, you answered "My wife was made pregnant by Dr. Jones." Can you see how some people might jump to the wrong conclusion?

Suppose your answer was "It was thanks to the abilities of Dr. Jones that my wife became pregnant" some people might correctly understand, but some might not.

If you said it like the some Bibles say it, "One day my wife was found to be with child of Dr. Jones," then some people might do exactly what you did, and jump to the conclusion that Dr. Jones is the father of your baby, when in fact YOU were the father, and Dr. Jones only helped her to become pregnant. Don't be like those people, Jim.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That all agrees with LDS doctrine, so why are you stating it as a re****al?


Did I claim that the Bible teaches that all men are the sons of God? No. So you are wrong AGAIN by claiming that I did. And that is quite a common occurrence when you post.


Is Jesus the express image of His person? Think before you say "NO!" because I quoted from the Bible.


No. Maybe you should get your hearing checked.


Jesus identified only His Father as the Only True God. That leaves out Jesus and the Holy Spirit from having that ti tle. Sorry, but that's what the Bible says, and you claim to believe every word of the Bible.


You are wrong.


I do want to go there, because your incorrect beliefs about the Godhead deserve to be corrected.


Some Bibles put into a context that prevent misunderstandings like yours:

"...she was found to be pregnant [through the power] of the Holy Spirit." (AMP)

"...she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit." (CEB)

"...she was found to be pregnant from the Ruach HaKodesh." (CJB)

"... she learned that she was going to have a baby by God’s Holy Spirit." (CEV)

"...he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.)" (ERV)

And at least TEN OTHER Bibles use words like "of" or "from" or "By the power of" instead of "child of the Holy Spirit" so people like you won't jump to the wrong conclusion and think that Jesus is the Holy Spirit's child.

Here is a simple ****ogy to help you see your mistake: Suppose you and your wife wanted to have a baby, but the only way she could get pregnant was through in vitro fertilization. So you ask a fertility specialist named Dr. Jones to do the procedure. When the baby is born and people ask how this was able to happen, you answered "My wife was made pregnant by Dr. Jones." Can you see how some people might jump to the wrong conclusion?

Suppose your answer was "It was thanks to the abilities of Dr. Jones that my wife became pregnant" some people might correctly understand, but some might not.

If you said it like the some Bibles say it, "One day my wife was found to be with child of Dr. Jones," then some people might do exactly what you did, and jump to the conclusion that Dr. Jones is the father of your baby, when in fact YOU were the father, and Dr. Jones only helped her to become pregnant. Don't be like those people, Jim.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why your prophets when out of their way to contradict the Holy Bible when they said the mormon jesus ws begotten the same way you were begotten by your father?
Once again you have no answer because the answer is so none-21 centry LDSinc. It's not the Christian's fault we bring it to your attention the fact, and yes it is a fact; Brigham Young, taught your mormon god had physcial relations with his earthly daughter Mary. Why else would your mormon god need to come down to earth if he didn't have sex with Mary. He could have air-mailed his seed to her and had the mormon holy spirit injected her, but no your prophets when out of their way to say he the mormon god came and delivered it himself.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by James Banta

The Bible does teach that Adam was the son of God.. It never teaches that He was the only begotten Son of God.. That is a distinction only for Jesus.. All of the angelic host are called son of God, but they too are not the only begotten Sons of God.. That is what makes Jesus unique.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That all agrees with LDS doctrine. . .

Brigham Young
"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).

Why did one of your prophets teach that Adam was "our Father and our God"?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Have you ever stopped to wonder why your prophets when out of their way to contradict the Holy Bible when they said the mormon jesus ws begotten the same way you were begotten by your father?

I don't stop to wonder why people do things that they actually DIDN'T do, because that would be illogical.

Once again you have no answer

Once again I DID answer your ridiculous, fallacious "question."

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I don't stop to wonder why people do things that they actually DIDN'T do, because that would be illogical.


Once again I DID answer your ridiculous, fallacious "question."

We have shown you the quote and the reference.. And you still deny it? You have used the quote in your own post, but you now deny it? Do you deny that the LDS version of the Father is a glorified man? Do you deny that the NATURAL way of procreation is sexual intercourse? Will you again dismiss these questions as ridiculous, or will you finally face the truth of the teaching of both Smith, Young and even more modern GAs like McConkie. Are you still reluctant to admit to yourself that LDS men changed the Bible to suite their private doctrines all based in sex? Denying that Mary was with Child of the Holy Spirit? Are you ready to see that Young was a false teacher of false Gods, teaching that Adam was his God and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? When will questions that have an effect on your eternal destiny become serious to you and not just ridiculous, and fallacious questions? IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Have you ever stopped to wonder why your prophets when out of their way to contradict the Holy Bible when they said the mormon jesus ws begotten the same way you were begotten by your father?

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Once again I DID answer your ridiculous, fallacious "question."

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Didn't Brigham Young say that Jesus was begotten by his Father as we were of our fathers?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Didn't Brigham Young say that Jesus was begotten by his Father as we were of our fathers?

Yes and just because Young statement was begun with saying that the Saviors BIRTH was a natural event, didn't tie his tongue to stop speaking of the natural way he taught that he was begotten.. Being begotten is not birth. It is the very first step in the procreation process.. It is the only part of the process a father has anything physically to do with.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

I can understand why TBMs run from Brigham Young's statement, it's really embarr***ing in 21 th centry America, just as it was danggerous in 19 th centry America to say such. It was also dmbarr***ing and dangerous for Joseph Smith jr. And his hanky-panky revelation of polygamy.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

"It"? What is the "it"?

"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers,

Jeff how were you "begotten"?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff how were you "begotten"?

Just like that scripture says: I partook of a flesh and blood body that my spirit now inhabits. If your story differs from that, then: How did you manage to avoid doing that when YOU were begotten???

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff how were you "begotten"?

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

. . .I partook of a flesh and blood body that my spirit now inhabits. . .

So you would define the word "begotten" as--"I partook of a flesh and blood body that my spirit now inhabits". Is that correct?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

just like that scripture says: I partook of a flesh and blood body that my spirit now inhabits. If your story differs from that, then: How did you manage to avoid doing that when you were begotten???

bs. Alert!

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Just like that scripture says: I partook of a flesh and blood body that my spirit now inhabits. If your story differs from that, then: How did you manage to avoid doing that when YOU were begotten???

That isn't a loaded question now is it jeff? Nahh you wouldn't do that.. yeah right.. Ok remember I told you that your questions were easily answered in the scripture.. Here we go.. Jesus is God and has existed as God from everlasting and will continue to exist as God to everlasting (Psalm 90:2). For Him to enter mortality how else could that happen unless He took on flesh? Our (mankind's) spirits on the other hand were created within us (Zechariah 12:1).. A spirit is not created within a spirit is it? Isn't the LDS thinking on that, that our intelligences were clothed in a spirit body? A intelligence is not a spirit child of God is it? Isn't it an eternal (what ever it is)? It's not physical and it's not spirit so a (what ever is it) describes it best.. So when God tells us that He created the spirits of men within them, He must mean a physical body.. According to the Bible there is no preexistence..

Yes I "avoided" having my spirit partake of flesh.. My spirit was created within my flesh.. I agree with God in His word. I wished the LDS church and it's members did.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you would define the word "begotten" as--"I partook of a flesh and blood body that my spirit now inhabits". Is that correct?

No, you are incorrect as usual, since that wouldn't be a definition IMO. The question was "HOW were you begotten?" not "Define begotten."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

The question was "HOW were you begotten?" not "Define begotten."

But your statement redefines the word begotten. How did you come up with this definition?

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff how were you "begotten"?

How was Jesus, the Son, begotten of the Father? The scriptures do say that the Son is the only begotten of the Father, right?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

How was Jesus, the Son, begotten of the Father? The scriptures do say that the Son is the only begotten of the Father, right?

Yes and it says that He was begotten of the Holy Spirit too.. If we say that the Bible is the truth how do we rectify these statements? Mormonism fails to do so and instead of submitting to the word of God it calls the scripture distorted, and corrupted. I say that in the doctrine of the Trinity both statements are true.. Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit since He is God, and He was begotten of the Father, since the Father is God. It fits into the Trinity like a glove but clashes with mormonism.. The Bible must be changed to make mormonism work, but not so with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.. So the way Jesus can be the only begotten of the Father , and be begotten of the Holy Spirit, is if they are the one and only true and living God.. Anything else makes the Bible a lie. Is that what you are doing making the Bible into a lie? IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Yes and it says that He was begotten of the Holy Spirit too..

Begotten how? It seems some people here only have one interpretation of the word.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

How was Jesus, the Son, begotten of the Father? The scriptures do say that the Son is the only begotten of the Father, right?

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Brigham Young said the Jesus "was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers".

Do you agree with Brigham?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"The birth of the Saviour 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 were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Brigham Young said the Jesus "was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers".

Do you agree with Brigham?

Like the LDS do with the Bible they pick and choose what parts of B. Young's teachings they will and won't believe.. After all they ONLY believe he was a prophet of God.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Like the LDS do with the Bible they pick and choose what parts of B. Young's teachings they will and won't believe.. After all they ONLY believe he was a prophet of God.. IHS jim

If you'll answer this then it might help clear up the subject a little.

Begotten how? It seems some people here only have one interpretation of the word.