From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
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?
You are assuming a little too much here, Dave. I have not been bothered
about what you think regarding the virgin birth, since what you claim seems
to be in line with the Bible. I have just questioned that those who should
be speaking for the church, and from whom mormons should be able to rely on
telling the truth, but who wildly speculate about the physical nature of
Jesus' conception. Since they represent the mormon church, then why should
critcs not believe that is also what the mormn church believes? Now, on the
other hand, had you believed what your leaders have taught, that there was a
'natural' (physical) act that conceived jesus, then my argument would have
been with you, too.
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...) :-)
Again, you are reading into my statement above, making some assumptions that
are not true. My mother-in-law did not say that 'mormons' don't discuss this
with 'outsiders', or that they 'quickly learned' not to discuss it with
critics. She said that 'we' do not talk about that, that is, the mormons in
her church do not discuss it even among themselves. The 'case closed' is my
inserted comment, indicating that since she has never discussed it even with
mormons, that she had nothing more to offer on the issue.
So, yes, I am surprised that she has never discussed this with other
mormons. It is a central doctrine of the Christian faith, so since mormons
claim to be Christian I would expept them to at least present and
acknowledge the critical importance of this fact in their faith, too.
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.
Wow, your imagination is really working overtime today. She did not
"suspicion" that this (incest) is what mormons believe. I mentioned that
this was a personal issue with her, not a theological issue. She did not
attribute this to or question what mormons believe. And, I am not surprised
that she appears to not be knowledgeable about this matter since her church
does not appear to discuss it.
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.
If you feel comfortable with these comments, then perhaps you really DO
believe in sex between god and mary! I believe it is clear that these men
have physical (natural) conception in mind.
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.
The, the church, too, must not have a problem with the view that god
performed a physical (natural) act with mary to conceive jesus.
Dave, to say that you believe that it was not a physical act, and then to
see nothing wrong with statements that indicate that some of your church
leaders DO believe it was a physical (natural) act is highly inconsistent.
You can't have it both ways. Either you agree with these men or you don't.
You almost had me believing that you believe totally in the virgin
birth...now I am again wondering about it. You have such a hard time seeing
the hypocrisy in your position. Why are you trying to cover up for a few of
your heretical leaders? I would have much more respect for you if you saw
the truth in their statements and admitted such and not agreed with them.
But, I guess you are what you are...a mormon, thus blind to the hypocrisy,
lies, and deceit within your own church
Finally, on the issue of incest. If the mormon god impregnated his literal
daughter Mary ('literal' is a word you often use to describe your
relationship with your god), why would you not cinsider that incest? Do you
define it differently than the rest of the world? How do you skirt that
issue?
Perry
----------
"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.
