Foxnews: 21 Questions Answered About Mormonism

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Tex, you're lying if you say you believe some early church leaders didn't believe and say that God had sex with Mary. This has gone way past this issue and into your infallability concept. You're digging in illogically because you know it kills your position in many other threads.

That's precisely what I got out of it too. If he admits that JFS said what he clearly said, and then he disagrees with it, then he can't also claim that he holds prophets to be infallible when speaking as a prophet (which, he claims, is always entirely clear).

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Can I add that in some ways I think this chracterization is much more intriguing than the quesiton of the mechanics of the delvery of the genetic matter. If God the Father has genetic matter in his present state thta cna be combined with human genetic matter doesn't this make for rather interesting speculaiton on the topics of evolution and the nature of creation?

Ever wonder why so much of our genetic code is viewed as filler? What if that filler got filled in with something non-fillerlike?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

But this is the problem: you continue to want to tell us what you believe when the debate isn't about that at all. It is about what JFS SAID. Whether what he said comports with what you believe isn't at all relevant to the discussion, except that it apparently is causing you some severe cognitive dissonance that you must resolve by inserting ambiguity where there is none.

It seems the debate is about what you think he said.

JF.S: "God is the physical father of Jesus, just like you are the physical son of your father."
CG: "He said God had sex with Mary! Woo-hoo!"

This is so like CG, I don't know why I'm surprised.

Originally Posted by jay santos

Tex, you're lying if you say you believe some early church leaders didn't believe and say that God had sex with Mary. This has gone way past this issue and into your infallability concept. You're digging in illogically because you know it kills your position in many other threads.

LOL. Yeah, let's dig up that old argument again.

I think this horse is long dead. You can go on thinking I'm a fundamentalist wacko in denial, and I will consider you all doctrinal harlots. Not much changes.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think this horse is long dead. You can go on thinking I'm a fundamentalist wacko in denial, and I will consider you all doctrinal harlots. Not much changes.

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.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by marsupial

You didn't ask me this, but I am going to respond anyway. If God literally had intercourse with Mary without her permission, then essentially you are saying God raped her. Even with her permission, given God's ultimate position of authority, it is akin to rape. So, that is why it bothers me. I have no clue what Tex thinks.

You have no problem with Joseph Smith doing the same?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by hyrum

You have no problem with Joseph Smith doing the same?

I think marsupial has been clear on this issue in the past. Why are you assuming that she doesn't have any problem with Joseph Smith's deeds? Because she's a Mormon? Someday you'll realize that there are plenty of Mormons who accept the result of Joseph Smith's "revelations" without accepting his sins.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

You can go on thinking I'm a fundamentalist wacko in denial, and I will consider you all doctrinal harlots. Not much changes.

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hyrum

You have no problem with Joseph Smith doing the same?

Are you related to Fanny Alger or one of the other described wives? Seriously, what is your conenection that makes you care? DO you patronize boards for catholics and remind them of the behavior of priests that you find offensive? Do you go hang out on Buddhist boards and point out the many buddhist leaders accused of sexual improprieties? Why are we so lucky to have you here to be our little Jiminy Cricket?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Are you related to Fanny Alger or one of the other described wives? Seriously, what is your conenection that makes you care? DO you patronize boards for catholics and remind them of the behavior of priests that you find offensive? Do you go hang out on Buddhist boards and point out the many buddhist leaders accused of sexual improprieties? Why are we so lucky to have you here to be our little Jiminy Cricket?

His comments reek of bigotry, with the ludicrous assumption that Mormons must endorse a prophet's sin in order to accept the religion itself.

[Insensitive PAP]

Sounds to me that JFS got his biology degree from the U.