# Latter-day Saint Theology- Mono-, Poly- or Heno- Theistic?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latter-day-saint-theology-mono-poly-or-heno-theistic/300735>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 23, 2005, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latter-day-saint-theology-mono-poly-or-heno-theistic/300735 "2005-04-23T06:07:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\
**Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latter-day-saint-theology-mono-poly-or-heno-theistic/300735/21 "2005-04-25T05:20:01Z")

</div>

> [@emarkp](#):
>
> I’m familiar with all those quotes. None of them say what you claim they say. Even today, we are capable of artificial insemination–where a child can have a father without there ever having been sexual relations.

I didn’t claim they say anything. All I said was that FriarTed was correct in saying that “Brigham Young did indeed say something to that effect,” in that you can reasonably interpret the quotes that way. Or you can interpret it the way you do, and say that quotes like “begotten … the same way mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” and “[T]he Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of husband and wife” definitely do not refer to sexual relations. I personally think it’s a rather untenable interpretation given the comments about them having to be married and the conception of Jesus being “as a result of natural action” and “in the normal and natural course of events,” but I’m not about to proclaim that such quotes mean what I and I alone say they mean and that nobody else’s interpretation is valid.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latter-day-saint-theology-mono-poly-or-heno-theistic/300735.md?page=1)