James White, Beating That Poor Deadhorse Yet Again.

[soren]

Unless of course Mr White has been corrected on this issue by LDS yet he refuses to accept the correction. Its one thing to think that LDS might believe it but when informed that they do not accept this view and yet continue to assert as though we do, then that does make him a liar.

Actually, White has a coherent reason for not accepting correction by LDS: He says that the general authorities of the LDS Church teach his position, and that Mormons who deny that this is a teaching of the Church are in disagreement with their own authorities.

As you can see from postings I have made here and eslewhere, I don't see this issue in quite the same light that White does. I am only speaking about his honesty, not his position.

[soren]

Neither do I. I've never said that I find it disgusting.

I've never even said which way I myself lean on this topic -- though certain others, it seems, are happy to speak for me.

Lean in whatever way seems wise to you.

What I find enormously weird about the whole discussion of this topic is the way that LDS defenders give too much credit to some of Whiteâ??s presuppositions. One noticeable feature of Whiteâ??s writings on Mormonism is his tendency (not a rule, just a tendency) to call attention to those particular aspects of Mormon teaching and belief that are most provocative of prurient interest. While he isnâ??t half as extreme as others, the emphasis is still obvious. His article on Min, the very first at his websiteâ??s section on Mormonism, is a clear example. I have always thought, and even more so now, that this emphasis reflects more on his Calvinist preconceptions that on Mormon teaching. His subtextual argument is that because Mormonism involves elements that disgust Calvinists, it therefore has elements that are inherently disgusting. But this approach demands principles taken from Whiteâ??s own theology, and which are therefore not proper to a critique directed at the inner workings of LDS thought.

When Mormons respond to White by saying that the conception of Jesus could have been another way than the obvious, they seem to be granting his basic assumption, by implication at least, since they see the "embarrasing theology" as something to flee from in the same way that he does.

[Daniel Peterson]

Evidently, somewhere on this thread, I've indicated that sex is dirty and that I'm mortally embarrassed by the possibility that Jesus' conception may have occurred as a result of sexual union.

If somebody can direct my attention to the passage or passages where I said this, I would be very grateful.

Thanks.

[Zakuska]

Actually, White has a coherent reason for not accepting correction by LDS: He says that the general authorities of the LDS Church teach his position, and that Mormons who deny that this is a teaching of the Church are in disagreement with their own authorities.

As you can see from postings I have made here and eslewhere, I don't see this issue in quite the same light that White does. I am only speaking about his honesty, not his position.

His "Honesty"?

I personally like how he solves the different number of Angels... er men... er... shine fellows problem between the Gospels. He solves the differening first vision accounts issues in one swell fooop!