Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is the temple ceremony to be understood as a literal key to reaching Heaven, or is it merely symbolic?

A more complete answer would be.

Part 1, detailed explanation on Christian Heaven/Hell concept and how it correlates to LDS spirit paradise/Hell. Further explanation on the three glories. So it's hard to go apples to apples heaven with LDS doctrine. It probably most correlates with paradise (in which case the answer is no, since temple is for entry to celestial kingdom), but it might be a copout answer since the question was a temple reference and the word heaven was misphrased.

Part 2, explanation of temple ceremony in as much detail as church is willing to give to help answer. Comparisons to other religious rites such as Catholic baptism and prayers, what not. Explanation that we have similar rites that symbolize entry to Celestial Kingdom, however calling them passwords or codes would be incorrect. blah, blah, blah. We can't say for sure if they are symbolic to help teach us or if they are actual role playing of actual ceremonies that will take place in the hereafter. blah blah blah.

Probably the best answer is: No.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Well, I know Mary has a body. I know God has a body.

I know pretty much every child on earth was conceived similarly.

So there is the "BS" theory, as you say.....that seems to be perfectly natural and makes sense (but for our carnal take on sex).....or there is another answer, which would be.....what?

It's BS and there you have it straight from the church directed by modern prophet. It's not logical at all that God would have sex with a virgin human teenager. It's absurd. I'm glad the record is finally straight on that.

[MikeWaters]

So the casual member who doesn't go to the temple very often, and reads this article, is it ok if he says "hmm, I guess none of that stuff is really literal or required. Just nice symbolism."

Do you think anyone is going to think that?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Well, I know Mary has a body. I know God has a body.

I know pretty much every child on earth was conceived similarly.

So there is the "BS" theory, as you say.....that seems to be perfectly natural and makes sense (but for our carnal take on sex).....or there is another answer, which would be.....what?

In vitro

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

In vitro

Not covered by His insurance.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's BS and there you have it straight from the church directed by modern prophet. It's not logical at all that God would have sex with a virgin human teenager. It's absurd. I'm glad the record is finally straight on that.

I guess I didn't see where the record was set straight.

the answer was that we don't know, so at best you are only possibly correct...which also means you are possibly incorrect. Which means, we don't really know. Which means that my answer makes more sense.

PS "virgin human teenager"

[creekster]

I thought the answers were somewhat evasive. IF not then they represetn a retrenchment from some ideas that are frequently discussed in many congregations. In fact, they sounded a bit like they were written by a lawyer who wqas preparing a witness for a deposition. Truthful, but not too truthful. Complete, but not completely complete.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I thought the answers were somewhat evasive. IF not then they represetn a retrenchment from some ideas that are frequently discussed in many congregations. In fact, they sounded a bit like they were written by a lawyer who wqas preparing a witness for a deposition. Truthful, but not too truthful. Complete, but not completely complete.

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?

[MikeWaters]

Luckily, Mitt has no core beliefs, so he doesn't have to answer the questions at all.

<rimshot>

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by creekster

I thought the answers were somewhat evasive. IF not then they represetn a retrenchment from some ideas that are frequently discussed in many congregations. In fact, they sounded a bit like they were written by a lawyer who wqas preparing a witness for a deposition. Truthful, but not too truthful. Complete, but not completely complete.

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.