Satans job is to" ware out" the
brethern with trash talk
DAVEH: You've illustrated the principle well, Dean.
The sad part is that these type
on foolish street people think they serve God and actually know him.
DAVEH: Truer words were never spoken.
What do you think-by the way
keep this quite.
DAVEH: OK Brother Dean.....Now I think you're cooking with bean
gas. Sure....I'll try to keep it quiet....We don't want others to
know where the smell is coming from, eh! :-D :-D :-D
Dean Moore wrote:
cd: Brother Kevin -I
wouldn't waste to much time on these guys-No amount of evidence is
enough and when you do put the evidence in front of them they jump to
something else-DJ or is it JD or what ever his name is is no
different-He thinks its okay to fault the brethren and love the false
teacher-with God loves everybody theology. This is the same stuff we
get out on the street but as we often discussed among the brethren-Satans
job is to" ware out" the brethern with trash talk so that when the
true seeker comes alone we are too tired to give them proper attention.The
sad part is that these type on foolish street people think they serve
God and actually know him. I am thinking of spending time with Jd
and trying to help him-if possible. What do you think-by the way
keep this quite.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
10/22/2005 8:34:45 PM
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
It is OK don't fret God the father & Mary
were married!
"God, the Father of our spirits, became the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh ...The fleshly
body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the
Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the
Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of
God the Father ...He had a lawful right to overshadow the
Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a
Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to
govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to
prescribe rules for his own conduct" (The Seer, Orson Pratt, pg. 158).
Could anything be more
clear or is the "way" for all your kids, TEST TUBE BABIES?
"Christ was begotten by an
Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten
by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 547.)
Bill, what constitutes a loss of virginity, "knowing" a man,
or having a
baby? I surmise the former.
(Since this is aone-time event, we certainly have no precedence!)
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I
know
not a man?
Matt 1:24-25: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the
Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till
she
had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Perry
>From: "Taylor"
>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>To:
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:07:03 -0600
>
>After the birth of Christ, Mary was still a virgin. Surely we all
>believe this !!
>
>I don't. After hi s conception, Mary was still a virgin. After his
birth, <
BR>>... well, think about it.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>
>
> 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 no
t 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
> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:05:27 -0700
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
>< BR>>
> cd 10/20: Then-pray tell me- What does th
e 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 re peat.....I do
not
>believe God (nor the HG) had ph
ysical 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
claims 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 t his 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. 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 Work
s.
>
> 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 < BR>>consider correcting your own errors, lest
you dece
ive 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 conce ived Jesus. Now -pray tel l 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.
|