Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

I don't remember saying anything about infallability.

Originally Posted by jay santos

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

Can't be more clear than this.

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

We don't really have much context for these statements, but assuming they were delivered in a setting similar to the JF.S quote, I think the point was supposed to emphasize the literal paternity of the Father. IOW, to combat the idea that he is a partless, passionless, bodyless, nebulous entity. I think all the terms "conceived" "natural" "begotten" etc. are an emphasis to that end.

Pratt's quote is a little bit problematic, but his frequent use of the term "must have" suggests he wasn't exactly sure himself. Even then, it appears he's not talking about sex as much as he is about Mary's marital status.

As I said yesterday, we're beating a dead cliche here. If you want you can post the exact same quote 6 more times, beat your chest once or twice, and congratulate yourself on how brilliant an ass-kicker you are. But frankly, I'm ready to argue about something else.

Regards.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't remember saying anything about infallability.



We don't really have much context for these statements, but assuming they were delivered in a setting similar to the JF.S quote, I think the point was supposed to emphasize the literal paternity of the Father. IOW, to combat the idea that he is a partless, passionless, bodyless, nebulous entity. I think all the terms "conceived" "natural" "begotten" etc. are an emphasis to that end.

Pratt's quote is a little bit problematic, but his frequent use of the term "must have" suggests he wasn't exactly sure himself. Even then, it appears he's not talking about sex as much as he is about Mary's marital status.

As I said yesterday, we're beating a dead cliche here. If you want you can post the exact same quote 6 more times, beat your chest once or twice, and congratulate yourself on how brilliant an ass-kicker you are. But frankly, I'm ready to argue about something else.

Regards.

Actually, it's kind of fun to see you twist in the wind, and try to come up with more and more illogical arguments for why you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

I also find it interesting how you keep arguing by saying what the prophets seem to have had in mind then they made the statements - as if you're the spokesman for what the meant, as opposed to what they said.

Think about it - their remarks are usually intended for ordinary people with ordinary understanding - therefore, shouldn't they be subject to ordinary interpretation? You shouldn't need an interpreter for the prophets. Yet, that's exactly what you are presuming to do.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Actually, it's kind of fun to see you twist in the wind, and try to come up with more and more illogical arguments for why you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

My argument hasn't changed.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I also find it interesting how you keep arguing by saying what the prophets seem to have had in mind then they made the statements - as if you're the spokesman for what the meant, as opposed to what they said.

Aren't we both doing this?

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Think about it - their remarks are usually intended for ordinary people with ordinary understanding - therefore, shouldn't they be subject to ordinary interpretation? You shouldn't need an interpreter for the prophets.

The fact that we are even having this discussion proves that you are wrong.

[creekster]

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.

I didn't say upset, I said a little annoyed. Unless you were divining what I meant.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Yes, we are. Look at the quotes.

I don't see "intercourse" in any of those quotes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I didn't say upset, I said a little annoyed. Unless you were divining what I meant.

Ok. No need to be annoyed. Or touchy.

[MikeWaters]

Hey let's make a big boring thread about Tex.

Oh wait....