Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Maybe the people discussing these things in congregations across the church are the ones that need to change and get in step with the church where a lot of these doctrines have never been taught by a living prophet for decades, don't appear in any church manuals or publications and have been being refuted (albeit indirectly) in recent public media interviews.

i.e. man become like God, ruling over worlds, polygamy, etc.

Is the temple ceremony refuted?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I thought they were fine. The key words there are "core doctrines and beliefs". Is Kolob a core doctrine? What about the method of Christ's conception? The church is spot on. That list of questions is straight out of anti-Mormon 101. And like most anti stuff, it focuses on esoteric stuff that are things most Mormons only ever think about when asked questions like this. They are not core to our beliefs or salvation.

Taking the "core beliefs" approach, which question(s) do you think the answers were evasive?

The question wasn't "Is Kolob a core belief or doctrine?" The question was whether we belive God lives on a planet called Kolob. The answer was completely accurate but it is not accurate to say it completely captures Mormon leaders' wriitngs on the subject. That's OK, and I understadn the context, but as someone else pointed out, the brevity seemed a little curt and added to the fact that it is somewhat less than complete makes me a little uncomfortable. OTOH, maybe I need to re-examine what I bewleve about some of htese things (the questions about Kolob really aren't that big of deal to me, btw).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is the temple ceremony refuted?

That was one that was evasive, IMHO.

Many of the answers were evasive. But at some point, Mormons have got to let go of some of their pet doctrines if they are never taught in conference or in the church manuals and answers in media seem to refute them or minimize their importance.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Maybe the people discussing these things in congregations across the church are the ones that need to change and get in step with the church where a lot of these doctrines have never been taught by a living prophet for decades, don't appear in any church manuals or publications and have been being refuted (albeit indirectly) in recent public media interviews.

i.e. man become like God, ruling over worlds, polygamy, etc.

You are making my point. Were some of these refuted or were they just slicing their answer very finely? How can you tell? That is exactly what I am talking about.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That was one that was evasive, IMHO.

Many of the answers were evasive. But at some point, Mormons have got to let go of some of their pet doctrines if they are never taught in conference or in the church manuals and answers in media seem to refute them or minimize their importance.

actually, an argument can be made that the temple ceremony is in fact refuted.

I'm just wondering if you are going to make it.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I thought the conception answer was spot on. You don't believe that BS about God having sex with Mary do you?

I know how Joseph F. Smith answered that question:

"Now we are told in Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father... We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot His son Jesus Christ. And he was born into the world with power and intelligence like that of his Father."

Stake Conference Address printed in the Box Elder Times, Sept. 22, 1914.
Also found in Messages of the First Presidency,@ vol. 4, pp. 327-332.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

actually, an argument can be made that the temple ceremony is in fact refuted.

I'm just wondering if you are going to make it.

I don't know what you mean by temple ceremony being refuted. The importance of it has never been refuted and clearly is regularly emphasized.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't know what you mean by temple ceremony being refuted. The importance of it has never been refuted and clearly is regularly emphasized.

TO really discuss MW's point you should proabbyl be in the temple. BUt in general I think he is making the same point I am making.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I know how Joseph F. Smith answered that question:

"Now we are told in Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father... We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot His son Jesus Christ. And he was born into the world with power and intelligence like that of his Father."

Stake Conference Address printed in the Box Elder Times, Sept. 22, 1914.
Also found in Messages of the First Presidency,@ vol. 4, pp. 327-332.

1. I don't accept statements from Joseph F. Smith that have not been retaught by living prophet or apostles for decades and don't appear in church publications.

2. He might have been more clear in other quotes, but that quote certainly was not clear.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by jay santos

1. I don't accept statements from Joseph F. Smith that have not been retaught by living prophet or apostles for decades and don't appear in church publications.

2. He might have been more clear in other quotes, but that quote certainly was not clear.

Oh come on Jay. I don't know how much more clear it could be and it did appear in a church publication. See my cites (the second one anyway). If you really want me to produce a string of quotes on this, I can. I'm not telling you I think it is the doctrine of the church or that it isn't. The lawyer in me tells me that recent precedent is always better, but it also tells me that old precedent is just as good even though it hasn't been ruled on in a long time so long as it hasn't been overruled.

I do think your approach that doctrines have an expiration date when they aren't mentioned for long enough is an interesting little bit of mental gymnastics, however. I don't really blame you, honestly, for taking a position here though I think several are possible. The fact that we are a church without creeds is always going to mean that "doctrine" means something very different to us than it does other religions. It is a much more fluid concept.