John,
If you see nothing wrong with the speculations of the mormon leaders
regarding the nature of the conception of Jesus, then perhaps you do not
regard the virgin birth as an important doctrine, or perhaps you see nothing
heretical about suggesting that jesus was conceived in the same way you were
conceived which, of course, would preclude Mary's being a virgin following
the conception of Jesus. The speculations listed below fall into line with
neither the Bible nor the mormon standard works. That means that the mormon
leaders that stated these things are heretics, both biblically and
moronically.
Perry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:32:39 -0400
I really see nothing wrong with the speculations listed below. There is
not biblical expansion concerning the virgin birth. And since DH has
spoken clearly of his personal views on this matter, why is the discussion
being pursued?
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:06:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
Dave,
Do you have any references from the D&C about the nature of the
conception of Jesus? I read the two BoM references you gave and agree that
they support, or at least do not contradict, the virgin birth as described
in Matthew.
I also called my mother-in-law to see what her take (as a mormon) is on
the virgin birth issue. Her response was, "We don't talk about that". Case
closed. But, she further said that she personally has a problem, not from a
theological, but from a personal persective, with the whole concept of the
"father" having incest with one of his literal "children" to produce
offspring. Do you consider that to be incest, the father with his literal
daughter? If so, is incest typically accepted by mormons?
So, until I get your D&C references, the position I hold is that the
standard works support (or, do not contradict) the virgin birth, but that
some of your prophets and leaders are fantastic speculators. I have
reproduced a summary from a web page the comments of several of your
respected church leaders. I don't think there is any mistake that their
position favors a physical act. Of course, as I have already learned, the
mormon prophets and leaders are not to be trusted since we see that they
speculate, teach, and preach things outside of and in contrast to the
standard works, including the Bible!
Summary of mormon "teachings" from leaders on the conception and birth
of Jesus from http://www.carm.org/lds/virginmary.htm :
1. It was the result of natural action, (Brigham Young, Journal of
Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
2. Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 1, page 51); (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 19).
3. "The Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle
instead of letting any other man do it" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4,
page 218, 1857.)
4. The birth was the result of natural action, (Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 8, p. 115).
5. "The Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well
as in the spirit." (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44)
6. "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that
mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page
547.)
7. "There is nothing figurative about his [Jesus?] paternity; he was
begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events"
(Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)
Perry
>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>DAVEH: I linked to an anti-Mormon site that gives most of the quotes I
>think to which you are referring. Like JD, I tire quickly of reading the
>garbage, hence only skim Kevin's posts to see if there is anything worth
>absorbing.
>
> No, the leaders of the LDS Church do not always speak for the Church.
>They have opinions just like everybody else. Many LDS folks believe those
>opinions can be or are inspired, but our leaders are fallible.
>Furthermore, many of them earn their living authoring books, which is a
>place where they can speculate with a larger degree of freedom than if
they >were preaching in Church. So, yes......they frequently and often
*peak >outside of what you call "official mormon doctrine"*. Even when
teaching >what they believe to be truth, it is a level (or more) down from
the >official doctrines of the Church that are included in the Standard
Works. >If it isn't in the Standard Works....it is not considered as
official >doctrine.
>Then there is the matter of context. It is very easy to find examples of
>Scripture that are seemingly contradictive IF not taken in context. I
have >found that a lot of the anti-Mormon material is simply lifted out of
>context of the official doctrines of the Church, and then spun (like the
>sex/virgin/Mary discussion we are having) to denigrate the Church without
>regard to what we actually believe.
>
>1 Nephi 11:13-21 and Alma 7:10, not to mention the Biblical passages
which >claim her virginity.....with which you are already familiar.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
