Sincere question for Mormons

[Katya]

How bout some panadol for that sore head of yours.

 

[buddy mack]

I suppose it is a matter of semantics. When I refer to 'begotten', I regard it as carrying a physical connotation. Jesus is the 'only begotten', yet all of us are sons and daughters, just not 'begotten' - which is why I added 'in the flesh'.

who said you can't spiritual connotation of the u no what?

 

[Ran77]

Rather than respond directly, I will simply use "reversal of the invective" on your post to demonstrate that it works just as well in reverse:



Now, as for the rest of your post: ad hominem remarks and insults are a poor substitute for rational discussion. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you become secure enough in your own faith so that you don't feel the need to use insulting and denigrating remarks whilst re-interpreting our theology for us.

We don't believe God has "eternal sex" in order to "spiritually procreate". Deal with it. Find something we really believe in and discuss that rather than inventing these straw man arguments. All it does is expose how shallow your argumentation is.

This is the pattern I see from some of our critics: Lot's of cut-and-paste from anti-mormon websites, but no real substance to discuss. When challenged that this is not what we believe, the critic becomes strident and rigid and seeks to "prove" what we believe so their strawman won't be demolished. When that doesn't succeed, we see the critic resorting to ad hominem abuse. This is usually punctuated with poor grammar and basic spelling mistakes which usually marks the point at which the cut-and-paste has dried up and the critic is forced to rely on their own wit and wisdom to get by.

You got that right Bro.

 

[Ran77]

If you insist that Jesus was begotten physically by the Father, then that in itself suggests sex between Mary and the LDS Father.

Only to those of limited imagination and understanding of even todays methods of fertilization. Shouldn't a God of unlimited power and ability be able to do what mankind is currently capable of through advanced science?

Unless you think God is limited in what He can do? Is there a reason you believe that Heavenly Father is incapable of siring Jesus without resorting to sex with a mortal? Why would you want to limit Him in that way?

 

[unbound]

Only to those of limited imagination and understanding of even todays methods of fertilization. Shouldn't a God of unlimited power and ability be able to do what mankind is currently capable of through advanced science?

Unless you think God is limited in what He can do? Is there a reason you believe that Heavenly Father is incapable of siring Jesus without resorting to sex with a mortal? Why would you want to limit Him in that way?

I wouldnt limit Him in ANY way, much less limit Him to something as fleshly as sperm donation.

If God can change water into wine, feed hungry men from a couple of fishes in a basket, make the dial af Ahaz move backwards, then I dont think he would have any trouble causing Jesus to be miraculously concieved without resorting to some kind of sperm implantation.

 

[Rescued One]

Only to those of limited imagination and understanding of even todays methods of fertilization. Shouldn't a God of unlimited power and ability be able to do what mankind is currently capable of through advanced science?

Unless you think God is limited in what He can do? Is there a reason you believe that Heavenly Father is incapable of siring Jesus without resorting to sex with a mortal? Why would you want to limit Him in that way?

How disgusting! I would not want my Dad's sperm put inside my body even if sexual intercourse did not take place!

 

[Deren]

Only to those of limited imagination and understanding of even todays methods of fertilization. Shouldn't a God of unlimited power and ability be able to do what mankind is currently capable of through advanced science?

This is a demeaning question, given that it lowers God to the point of a creature, and it further ignores what God had revealed in Scripture about the relationship that was not to take place between a man and a betrothed woman. But, then again, I'm not surprised that a Mormon would be asking such a thing, given the perverse naturalism that undergirds its theology.

Unless you think God is limited in what He can do?

God is only limited by that which is contrary to his holy character and being. Therefore, God could no more inseminate a woman artificially than he could create a square circle. Furthermore, He could no more genuinely inseminate a woman, as the LDS leadership say that he did, than He could lie. So, your limitation question reveals an overabiding ignorance of just who God is.

Is there a reason you believe that Heavenly Father is incapable of siring Jesus without resorting to sex with a mortal? Why would you want to limit Him in that way?

No human limits God in any way. It is humans like yourself that do the limiting by asserting that unless God acts like created beings, then He must not be God. As a result, by limiting God to acts of naturalism, you dismiss the supernatural elements which make God who He is, and God ends up being nothing more than a sinner Himself in need of redemption. And just what kind of "God" is that?

 

[Ran77]

How disgusting! I would not want my Dad's sperm put inside my body even if sexual intercourse did not take place!

I think this amply proves what I said about limited imagination.

You have painted this picture - not I. I have not limited God's power to such a point that "Dad's sperm" is the image I choose to run through my mind when thinking about the Savior. I find it sad that anyone would sully the image of the Savior in such a manner. It is especially tragic because it is being done to falsely represent the LDS beliefs. I don't see the LDS refer to the sacred birth of the Savior in this manner; here or in real life. The sickness involved comes from those that create that image in their mind and the minds of others.

 

[Ran77]

This is a demeaning question, given that it lowers God to the point of a creature, and it further ignores what God had revealed in Scripture about the relationship that was not to take place between a man and a betrothed woman. But, then again, I'm not surprised that a Mormon would be asking such a thing, given the perverse naturalism that undergirds its theology.

From your response it appears that you did not understand what I wrote. I have not lowered God to any point (those who insist God had sex with Mary are doing that) and I have not indicated that any relationship took place in this situation. Accusations of preversion are being cast at the LDS, but oddly enough it is not us who continue to picture God, the Savior, and Mary in such a manner. Who keeps painting this picture? Not the LDS!

God is only limited by that which is contrary to his holy character and being. Therefore, God could no more inseminate a woman artificially than he could create a square circle. Furthermore, He could no more genuinely inseminate a woman, as the LDS leadership say that he did, than He could lie. So, your limitation question reveals an overabiding ignorance of just who God is.

I didn't know that you had God-like knowledge to be able to authoratively state what is and is not beyond God's "character and being."

Of course, this argument is based on the premise that God artificially inseminated Mary. I have stated that the science of man is capable of doing that - I have not stated that it is the method God used.

No human limits God in any way. It is humans like yourself that do the limiting by asserting that unless God acts like created beings, then He must not be God. As a result, by limiting God to acts of naturalism, you dismiss the supernatural elements which make God who He is, and God ends up being nothing more than a sinner Himself in need of redemption. And just what kind of "God" is that?

This is why I don't respond to you. You make claims that are not true. I have not stated that God acts like created beings: perhaps you can point out where I have said that - and not your creative interpretation of my words. I am not sure what you mean by acts of naturalism so I have no response to that. I have not dismissed supernatural elements of God: again, point out where I have made such a statement. I also have not said anything about God being a sinner.

In order to have a discussion you really need to stick to what people actually say and not invent words out of thin-air. It really is a very poor method of debate. If you have to make stuff up in order to prove me wrong, then you have already failed.

My point has been that God is not limited by man's meager progress. That what man can do with science He can most assuredly do via His almighty power. Only those who insist that sex must be involved for Mary to become pregnant are the ones who limit Him. If you understood what I said you would have realized that you are only supporting my argument with your words.

 

[Rescued One]

I think this amply proves what I said about limited imagination.

You have painted this picture - not I. I have not limited God's power to such a point that "Dad's sperm" is the image I choose to run through my mind when thinking about the Savior. I find it sad that anyone would sully the image of the Savior in such a manner. It is especially tragic because it is being done to falsely represent the LDS beliefs. I don't see the LDS refer to the sacred birth of the Savior in this manner; here or in real life. The sickness involved comes from those that create that image in their mind and the minds of others.

"God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted immortal resurrected man!" — Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 322-23, 517, 643

Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject when I replied to this idea- "If the son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed off on the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."...But what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know but this subject? Comparatively Nothing." — Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50-51

"The birth of the Savior 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" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and "when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" —Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50

"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" — Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" — Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p.44

 

[cromis]

A couple of quick comments for wizeone, who wrote:

Big one being, the mormons dont see the Godhead as the same as christians, ie you believe that God the father son and holy spirit are three seperate people.

Could you tell me then why that is a belief that is contradicted by the book of mormon
mosiah 15 1-5

Mosiah 15:1-5 is a text which is very similar in nature to the definition of faith given at Chalcedon. The Definition discusses the relationship between the two natures of Jesus Christ, and reads in part:

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

The question is how does God become human? Since Father is more regularly applied as a title to the Son (and not to God the Father) in the Book of Mormon, I simply suggest that one way to read it is to replace the phrase "the Father" with the phrase "immortal God" and the phrase "the Son" with the phrase "mortal man". The relevant part of Mosiah 15 then reads (vss 1-8):

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of [immortal God], being [immortal God and mortal man]—
3 [Immortal God], because he was conceived by the power of God; and [mortal man], because of the flesh; thus becoming [immortal God and mortal man]—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the [mortal man] to [immortal God], being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the [mortal man] being swallowed up in the will of [immortal God].
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the [mortal man] power to make intercession for the children of men—

The really interesting theological statement here is the fact that only as a mortal man (as one of us) can God make intercession for us. The divine in Him is incapable of making that intercession. This is different from the Chalcedon Definition, but it seems to me to be serving much the same purpose in terms of a theological statement - a Nephite definition of Faith at Lehi-Nephi.

This could also be viewed as rather good pre-Josian reform Old Testament theology - as in Psalm 82, where collectively, the elohim are the _bene elyon_, "sons of the Most High". The Book of Mormon has no differentiation between the various uses of "God" in English. In a hypothetical Hebrew, would we have some being YHWH, or El, or Elohim, or any of a number of other terms? If the Book of Mormon reflects at all some of the Israelite views contemporary with Lehi and Jeremiah (in pre-exilic Israel), then there isn't any issue with the future Messianic figure being both God (one of the elohim) and the Son of God (ben El or ben elyon or some other variant) at the same time. And Isaiah can certainly be read this way. Certainly the notion of the messianic figure as "eternal father" comes straight out of Isaiah 9:6 (NASB):

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

In other words, the title God, the title Eternal Father, the title Son of God, and so on - all apply here (with one or two exceptions) to the person of God the Son - the second member of the Godhead. And the discussion is about how He can be both divine and mortal, as well as the implications of His two natures in one being relative to salvation.

Later, wizeone writes:

But in Isaiah 43:10 God says

10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

It kind of wipes out this idea that mormon males can achieve Godhood

Not really. This reading requires being destructive to the Biblical text as you interpret it. Isaiah 43:10 is a comparison between YHWH and the Canaanite divinity (also worshipped by many in Israel at the time) Ba'al. Ba'al achieved his status as chief among the elohim - as top God - by defeating Ya'am. This led to speculation that Ba'al himself could be replaced (as seen in the 'Athtar myth cycle). Which takes us back to Isaiah:

before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

There are two ways to read this text, and one of them is relatively incoherent. Both ways deal with a temporal issue. "Before me" - given the context, this either refers to before God [was formed] or before God [exists]. "After me" - this can be read as either being after God [ceases to exist] or after God [was formed]. Since your theology denies that God "was formed" or created, this cannot be the interpretation. So we are left with a temporal statement discussing the non-existence of a before God and an after God. And there is nothing in the passage which refers to the "now" - the "during God". And to read the passage in this way is largely incoherent. It makes no sense for your theology.

From Isaiah's perspective, this passage declares that YHWH did not become God by replacing someone else, nor can YHWH be replaced - a disagreement - not with a view like that of the LDS with a separation of substance in the Godhead, but rather a disagreement with the then current problem of the worship of Canaanite divinities by Israel - a practice that would not end until the Josian reform (622 BC) when Ba'al worship would be eliminated from the temple in Jerusalem.

Ben

 

[Ran77]

"God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted immortal resurrected man!" — Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 322-23, 517, 643

Definately no mention of sex here.

Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject when I replied to this idea- "If the son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed off on the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."...But what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know but this subject? Comparatively Nothing." — Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50-51

The focus of this quote is that the Savior is not the child of the Holy Ghost. Nowhere in here do I see anything that could be twisted into meaning - sex.

"The birth of the Savior 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" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and "when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" —Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50

Again, the focus of the verse is to show Jesus to be the Son of God and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. It explains the Savior's divine lineage.

The word begotten is used to describe the "natural action" that resulted in the Savior's conception. Obviously you want to picture this as an act of sex. Bringham Young may have also, but his opinion has not become doctrine that would reflect that the LDS Church accepts this concept.

I don't believe that "begotten" must be equated to sex. If a woman were to be artificial inseminated with my seed that child would still have been begotten by me and assisted by the doctor. There would be no sex involved. I suspect that the power God wields allows Him to have "Begotten" a child in a natural way that is beyond our ability to understand at this time. I also see that in place of a doctor the Holy Ghost assisted with this process.

"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" — Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51

Another quote which is endevoring to explain that Jesus is not born of the Holy Ghost. And I have already addressed the "begotten" issue.

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" — Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p.44

A quote explaining the divine lineage of the Savior.


The JoD. I find it interesting that christians who accept nothing but the Bible as official doctrine continue to operate under a double standard where they must present non-doctrinal sources to attack the LDS. Such methods display the weakness of your position. An argument that requires a person to use a different set of rules for the opposition amounts to a handicap. For those unfamiliar with the term - it allows those with less skill to compete in games with their superiors.

A debating handicap; how amusing.

 

[Rescued One]

The JoD. I find it interesting that christians who accept nothing but the Bible as official doctrine continue to operate under a double standard where they must present non-doctrinal sources to attack the LDS. Such methods display the weakness of your position. An argument that requires a person to use a different set of rules for the opposition amounts to a handicap. For those unfamiliar with the term - it allows those with less skill to compete in games with their superiors.

A debating handicap; how amusing.

I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders. The problem is LDS follow leaders who believed differently than Ran77 and taught what they believed to others. Now if you want to talk about double standards, let's examine why LDS add 3 "standard works" as authoritative for followers of Christ.

 

[Ran77]

I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders.

I'm glad you don't criticize the LDS on this forum.

The problem is LDS follow leaders who believed differently than Ran77 and taught what they believed to others.

The LDS follow the prophet. I don't recall that President Hinckley has made any referrence to a sexual relationship between God and Mary. If the LDS on this forum were to be asked I feel confident that none of them believe in what you claim we believe; I'm pretty sure they believe along the lines of what I have stated. To attempt to claim that my comments are not typical of LDS belief is incorrect and perhaps dishonest.

You have chosen to emphasize statements made in a document of which the Church has chosen not to support as doctrine. Brigham Young explained something based on the knowledge he had about such matters. I have no doubt that Heavenly Father has not chosen to share with any prophet the precise method by which Mary became pregnant. If you want to take exception with Brigham for speculating - please do. Since the Church has already decided not to accept it as doctrine your argument will have to be with Brigham.

Perhaps if the early Church leaders would have known that people would scour through old documents looking for anything they could take exception with in order to attack the Church they would have been more careful in what they presented. Alas, they did not and later Church leadership took the task and declared the JoD as non-doctrinal teachings.

Now if you want to talk about double standards, let's examine why LDS add 3 "standard works" as authoritative for followers of Christ.

I fail to see how this qualifies as a double standard. It is consistent with our belief in continuing prophecy. We believe more doctrine has been written to which we don't have access and still more will be written. Where is the double standard here? I suspect that you are grasping at straws here in order to turn the tables on me. Just stating it doesn't make it so.

 

[Deren]

I think this amply proves what I said about limited imagination.

You have painted this picture - not I. I have not limited God's power to such a point that "Dad's sperm" is the image I choose to run through my mind when thinking about the Savior. I find it sad that anyone would sully the image of the Savior in such a manner. It is especially tragic because it is being done to falsely represent the LDS beliefs. I don't see the LDS refer to the sacred birth of the Savior in this manner; here or in real life. The sickness involved comes from those that create that image in their mind and the minds of others.

But, what GWiT said doesn't sully image of Jesus. The image, which comes from Mormon theology, sullies the image of God. God inseminating his daughter. How disgusting!

 

[Ran77]

The problem is LDS follow leaders who believed differently than Ran77 and taught what they believed to others.

I thought about this a little more and I realized that I didn't touch upon the continued double standard that your statement makes. I will illustrate in your words.

The problem is christians follow leaders who believed differently than GWiT and taught what they believed to others.

In this instance I can think of the teachings of Justin Martyr, and others, whose teachings are not accepted as Doctrine - just as the teachings in the JoD are not considered Doctrine by the LDS. Some of the "christians" on this forum are very quick to point out that anything by these early leaders are not binding upon the Christians of today. These same people will then take the JoD and attempt to argue how it must be accepted as Doctrine and the LDS of today be bound by what was taught in it. That is a double standard.

The early Christian church held a council and decided which teachings of it's early leaders were to be accepted as doctrine and that became the Bible. The leadership of the LDS Church has met and decided which teachings of it's early leaders are to be accepted as doctrine and that has become our Standard Works. "Christians" of today stick with that which is known to be the word of God - the Bible. LDS of today are instructed to stick with that which is known to be the word of God - Scripture. "Christians" to today reject the usage of non-doctrinal sources to support a point of religious debate among the Christian sects. The LDS today reject the usage of non-doctrinal sources to support a point of religious debate among the Christian sects.

That is how it is. The other is a debating handicap, as I have previously said.

 

[Ran77]

But, what GWiT said doesn't sully image of Jesus. The image, which comes from from theology, sullies the image of God. God inseminating his daughter. How disgusting!

Hmmm...I see you still are not getting it. That is why I normally don't bother responding to you. I think it will be best if I go back to that.

 

[Deren]

From your response it appears that you did not understand what I wrote. I have not lowered God to any point (those who insist God had sex with Mary are doing that) and I have not indicated that any relationship took place in this situation. Accusations of preversion are being cast at the LDS, but oddly enough it is not us who continue to picture God, the Savior, and Mary in such a manner. Who keeps painting this picture? Not the LDS!

Then if God didn't have sex with Mary, then what took place between them?

I didn't know that you had God-like knowledge to be able to authoratively state what is and is not beyond God's "character and being."

The Bible says that I have the "mind of Christ," and God has given us His infallible revelation whereby the Christian is capable of judging righteous judgment. Therefore, when it comes to things like God inseminating women, and creating square circles, all one has to do is resort to what God has revealed about himself to know that those are not possible with God. Why do you object to that?

Of course, this argument is based on the premise that God artificially inseminated Mary. I have stated that the science of man is capable of doing that - I have not stated that it is the method God used.

Then what method did God use, given that your god is a man and Mary was a woman, and god wanted to sire children with Mary? In fact, given that your god was supposedly perfect, implying physical perfection, then why would your god want to sire children in any other way, than the "old fashion way?"

This is why I don't respond to you. You make claims that are not true. I have not stated that God acts like created beings: perhaps you can point out where I have said that - and not your creative interpretation of my words. I am not sure what you mean by acts of naturalism so I have no response to that. I have not dismissed supernatural elements of God: again, point out where I have made such a statement. I also have not said anything about God being a sinner.

If your god is a created being, and had to go through all the same events that all humans do to become a god, then what is going to preclude him from acting as a human when it comes to siring children with a human?

In order to have a discussion you really need to stick to what people actually say and not invent words out of thin-air. It really is a very poor method of debate. If you have to make stuff up in order to prove me wrong, then you have already failed.

Nothing was made up that cannot be substantiated from what your leaders have said. Therefore, it is equally poor to accuse someone of doing something that is not already common knowledge, that persons in your camp dreamed up, not in my camp.

My point has been that God is not limited by man's meager progress. That what man can do with science He can most assuredly do via His almighty power. Only those who insist that sex must be involved for Mary to become pregnant are the ones who limit Him. If you understood what I said you would have realized that you are only supporting my argument with your words.

It is not the non-Mormon, though, who ever concluded that God had sex with Mary. It is the Mormons who have made that claim, and are now backpeddling on the issue, thinking that the non-Mormon critic is too stupid to understand what the likes of the McConkie's, Benson's, Pratt's, and others, were saying when they made their tawdrey explanations. So don't blame us. We're just going on what you're leaders have said.

 

[Ran77]

Can anyone tell me what "christians" think happened in order for Mary to become pregnant? Also, is Christ the Son of God - or not?

 

[Deren]

Hmmm...I see you still are not getting it. That is why I normally don't bother responding to you. I think it will be best if I go back to that.

Suit yourself. But I think the real reason that you and your Mormon buddies don't want to "bother responding to [me]" has nothing to do with my not "getting it." It's that you don't want to be held accountable for what you believe. You want to play games, and you know it won't work with me. So, do whatever you want to do, because I'll still be around for the benefit of others, regardless of what you do.