Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter

[Dave]

Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave,   Do you have any references from the D&C about the nature of the conception of Jesus? DAVEH:  No. 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. DAVEH:   So does it still bother you that I do not believe in the literal sex between God and Mary?  Nor that LDS theology does not teach such?   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. DAVEH:   And you are surprised?!?!?!   LDS folks quickly learn not to talk to anti-Mormons about pretty much anything religious.  As you've probably noticed here on TT....Anti-Mormons sometimes tend to get rather excited....to put it mildly!  (BTW....I'm a slow learner...)   :-) 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? DAVEH:   I'm surprised you Mum-in-Law would even suspicion that is what LDS folks believe.  Perhaps she should chat with some LDS folks instead of anti-Mormon people to see what the Church teaches about that.  From what little I know about her from this post, she does not sound very knowledgeable about this matter.      And to answer your question, Perry....No...incest is not acceptable in LDS theology.   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, DAVEH:  As you said above....case closed. but that some of your prophets and leaders are fantastic speculators. DAVEH:   Some are....some aren't.  They are human. 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.) DAVEH:   I feel comfortable with the above comments.  They fit into my belief paradigm, and do not cause me the consternation that they apparently cause you and other anti-Mormons who want to spin them into something they are not saying or even (IMO) suggesting....literal sex.      FWIW....BRM was also reprimanded for some of the material he published in MD, though the above comments did not bring any criticism from the Church of which I am aware. 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. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.