Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Yes, we are. Look at the quotes.

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

[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.