Re: Heavenly Mother ? God angered by devotion & wor****p of the of

On Feb 21, 6:39=A0pm, "Curmudgeon" <gfuller1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In that case my response is, as it is in the case of a lot of similar
> questions, that as your question is posed, what definitions are you
using
> for father and mother? I am sure you are aware of a***ual reproduction.

:-\

The point of my injection is to indicate that speaking of
"literalness" and using a rhetorical question such as "when did . . .
ever . . . without..." is darned careless, since the boundary between
the points one wishes the metaphor/analogy to sup****t and the ones one
darned well doesn't want it to sup****t, is arbitrary. Superficially
it's an appeal to the myth of "literalness" of God's fatherhood in
Mormondom, but when pricked the flight from being TOO literal begins,
and the inadequacy of the appeal even as analogy begins to surface.

In other words, that a discussion of it can get bogged down at all is
just another indication that the literalness myth is unhelpful (though
it seems to comfort some LdS who obviously aren't motivated to move
past the myth's faith-promoting aspects).

- S