Apparently DH says he is a mormon but he does not believe what the "officials" teach.
Either that or the English language just does not mean what it says!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about what DH believed. When did the subject change?Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
The mormon mary is a "virgin" in the sense that she had relations with an immortal not a mortal manAs Bruce McConkie said, "For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The answers DH has given in this post should end the matters under discussion. I would agree, that after whatever happened to Mary to bring the fetus that would be God/man into existencem the development and birth of that infant was quite natural.If DH believes more than what he said, well, he didn't say it in this post. What as been written, is clear enough.After the birth of Christ, Mary was still a virgin. Surely we all believe this !!Church leaders often speak from their personal convictions.7 ft Quakers is a part of this discussion because ....................................? I would say that whatever the reason, DH is not a co-believer in the Quaker theory.How can anyone believe in 7 Quakers? For the same reason one might believe that King James was the first Evangelical or that the KJV is inspired AS A TRANSLATION or that the Law is still in full effect as an attachment to our salvation or ....................................well , you get the point, no?In debate, one does not need to disprove something that has not been evidenced. And, certainly, not to one's "satisfaction." One of the greatest rock n roll bands of all time sings "can't get no satisfaction." And that seems to be the path taken in the Dean-o ,,.......... DH discussion.JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:05:27 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
cd 10/20: Then-pray tell me- What does the term Natural/Trational Conception mean Dave? And how can one whom produces Naturally/Tradionaly still be a virgin?
DAVEH: I explained what it means to me in a post yesterday, Dean. But I will briefly explain it again to make sure you understand it.
To me, natural is the process whereby genetic coding is used to define a person. I believe Jesus is literally the Son of both God and Mary due to his genes and/or DNA being related to their genes or DNA.....if that is the proper way to describe it. (I never was much good at biology.)
You then said.......
You are saying that the "HG" had a natural sexually act with Mary that conceived Jesus.
.........No, that is not what I am saying. While I do believe the power of the Holy Ghost was an important factor in the conception of Jesus, I do not believe that the HG conceived Jesus. To repeat.....I do not believe God (nor the HG) had physical sex with Mary, and I do believe she remained a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus. Yet I do believe there is a genetic link between our Father and Heaven and Jesus.....making him literally the Son of God. Does that make sense to you, Dean?
Now....regarding your comment.........
.And how can anyone with a reasonable mind believe a person who clai ms t here are 7 ft Quakers on the moon
.........I do not recall discussing that. You've been tossing that claim out on TT recently as if it is something I should know about, but I don't. I googled it and didn't come up with anything either. So help me out, Brother Dean....please explain what you think I should know about it.
Now Dean, the ball is in your court, as JD would say..........
Now -pray tell how am I wrong-show me to my satisfaction-and I will beg forgiveness of making this claim against your theology.
........I hope my above explanation helps you understand why I think the things you've been saying about my beliefs are misleading and not true.&nbs p; If you continue to have any questions about what I believe or why I believe such, just ask. I'll gladly answer your sincere questions.
Dean Moore wrote:
.........I did not see it. What I did see were comments by leaders that said to the effect that the conception of Mary was a natural process. To me, and other LDS folks I know, that means that the traditional conception of Mary by some magical snapping of the fingers by the HG (or some such mystical way of conceiving) is incorrect. Furthermore, the leaders making comments regarding this that I've seen were often times surmising their own beliefs (which are highly respected by other Mormons, but not necessarily considered doctrinal by official standards), rather than quoting LDS doctrine which is found in the Standard Works.
So Perry....dig out the quote that Kevin made saying........
sex between God and Mary was physical
..........and then you will have a point that bears merit. IF you cannot do that, then you or anybody e lse saying that is what I believe is simply lying.< BR>
BTW.........As I have previously explained several times on TT, not only do I not believe that (sex between God and Mary was physical), but official LDS theology teaches that Mary was a virgin, which is hardly possible IF the sex between God and Mary was physical. So, for anti-Mormons to continue to perpetuate that lie stretches the limits of incredibility.
For you to warn TTers from getting confused by anything I say.....seems to me that the blind are leading the blind, so to speak.. If you really want to exercise *Damage control* Dean, perhaps you should first consider correcting your own errors, lest you deceive them with outright lies. Otherwise, the *Damage *will be to your own credibility.
cd 10/20: Then-pray tell me- What does the term Natural/Trational Conception mean Dave? And how can one whom produces Naturally/Tradionaly still be a virgin?And what does Luke 12:10 mean when it says" And everybody wh o speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgivi ng him, but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit,it will not be forgiving him (ASV).And how can anyone with a reasonable mind believe a person who claims there are 7 ft Quakers on the moon and ignore this warning- given by Jesus himself- to help us not commit this sin of speaking against the Holy Ghost -as doing the wrong of having sex with someone they are not married to (ie.fornication)-to our own hurt.You are saying that the "HG" had a natural sexually act with Mary that conc e ived Jesus. Now -pray tell how am I wrong-show me to my satisfaction-and I will beg forgiveness of making this claim against your theology.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
