Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I find this crack to be a little annoying. I am far from a radical and tend to be very mainstream in my views and beliefs. I am also frequently annoyed (as I have expressed in this very thread) with how flip many here tend to be about matters that I think should be treated with respect and dignity, even if you are a non-believer. Even so, some things just seem obvious to me and don't really affect my testimony or the basis for my testimony. To suggest that I am somehow a 'doctrinal Harlot' because I think JF.S and other prophets, whom I generally revere, very plainly set forth a doctrine that you or others find unacceptable is unfair.

I am not bothered by the fact that you don't accept it. I think you are wrong and I think you are kidding yourself about what they said and what they meant by what they said, but I am not bothered at all that you believe differently. But why you feel the need to suggest that someone like me is a 'doctrinal harlot' is beyond me.

The comment was more directed at Cali, SoCal, and santos (to whom it is most appropriately applied), and was meant as a light-hearted exit from the debate. There's no need to get upset about it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

It's just clear that you're not interested in truth, but in fitting everything nicely into your own paradigm. So be it. It's clear where you're coming from.

It's clear that for you, the thinking's already been done.

The age old cry of the intellectual: "Everyone's a lemming but me!"

Do you notice how I'm not permitted to view these statements differently? To you, there is ONE possible meaning: yours. If I don't bow down before your superior viewpoint, I'm "not interested in truth."

Sometimes there really isn't much difference between you guys and, say ... an Evangelical.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

The comment was more directed at Cali, SoCal, and santos (to whom it is most appropriately applied), and was meant as a light-hearted exit from the debate. There's no need to get upset about it.

Light hearted exit = you guys kicked my ass again, so I'll give you one last cheap shot before I quit.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Light hearted exit = you guys kicked my ass again, so I'll give you one last cheap shot before I quit.

Gracious as ever, santos. Some of you take this place ... and yourselves ... way too seriously.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The age old cry of the intellectual: "Everyone's a lemming but me!"

Do you notice how I'm not permitted to view these statements differently? To you, there is ONE possible meaning: yours. If I don't bow down before your superior viewpoint, I'm "not interested in truth."

Sometimes there really isn't much difference between you guys and, say ... an Evangelical.

2 + 2 = 5. I'm entitled to my own opinion, after all.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

2 + 2 = 5. I'm entitled to my own opinion, after all.

C'mon now. Sure you might think the "evidence" leads to a likely conclusion, but are we discussing something here where the evidence is really that ironclad?

If not, why not be a little more intellectually honest and generous?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

C'mon now. Sure you might think the "evidence" leads to a likely conclusion, but are we discussing something here where the evidence is really that ironclad?

If not, why not be a little more intellectually honest and generous?

The JFS quote maybe there's some wiggle room. But if you look at the body of quotes made by early church leaders on the subject, there's no possible other conclusion. If you accept the quotes by Ute4ever, it's 100% clear. They're from an anti web site but SIEQ vouches for their accuracy.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

The JFS quote maybe there's some wiggle room. But if you look at the body of quotes made by early church leaders on the subject, there's no possible other conclusion. If you accept the quotes by Ute4ever, it's 100% clear. They're from an anti web site but SIEQ vouches for their accuracy.

They all say the same thing, santos. I read the quotes. There's even one from Ezra Taft Benson in there, which is pretty recent by my standards.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that some Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.”

I really have to laugh at the brain that consumes that quote and gets "God and Mary had sex" out of it. If that's what you get out of it, good for you, but it sure ain't "2+2=5".

What's really interesting here is the box you are forcing Mormonism into. Your vociferousness that these quotes MUST mean sex and nothing else makes it impossible for any prophet to speak of the Father in a literal sense, and NOT imply sex along with it. According to you, whenever we hear "God is literally Jesus' father" we're supposed to think "sexual intercourse."

Frankly, it's bizarre.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

C'mon now. Sure you might think the "evidence" leads to a likely conclusion, but are we discussing something here where the evidence is really that ironclad?

Yes, we are. Look at the quotes.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

They all say the same thing, santos. I read the quotes. There's even one from Ezra Taft Benson in there, which is pretty recent by my standards.



I really have to laugh at the brain that consumes that quote and gets "God and Mary had sex" out of it. If that's what you get out of it, good for you, but it sure ain't "2+2=5".

What's really interesting here is the box you are forcing Mormonism into. Your vociferousness that these quotes MUST mean sex and nothing else makes it impossible for any prophet to speak of the Father in a literal sense, and NOT imply sex along with it. According to you, whenever we hear "God is literally Jesus' father" we're supposed to think "sexual intercourse."

Frankly, it's bizarre.

I believe you are the one who forces Mormonism into a box by claiming infallability on all these statements. I'm also sure you're lying. You don't believe these quotes (at least a couple of them) aren't talking about sex.

“While brother Joseph was referring to the provinces of God, I was led to reflect that there is no act, no principle, no power belonging to the Deity that is purely philosophical. 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.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115

“... I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person.... I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 238

“... In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was noting unnatural about it.”

- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211

Not talking about whether or not Jesus was only begotten but HOW he was begotten.

Begotten
--a verb
--method God the father used
--method Heber's father used to create Heber
--nothing unnatural about it

“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.... The fleshy body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father.... He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 158

Can't be more clear than this.

“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.”

- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 792, 1966

Do you have an alternate definition for the word conceived, especially in light of fact it is a normal and natural course of events?