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

[Kevin Deegan]

Thanks Izzy I guess that sums it up!

 

Humpty Dumpty plays the Mormon or Thru the Lookin Glass:

`In that case we start afresh,' said Humpty Dumpty, `and it's my turn to choose a subject --' (`He talks about it just as if it was a game!' thought Alice.) `So here's a question for you. How old did you say you were?'

Alice made a short calculation, and said `Seven years and six months.'

`Wrong!' Humpty Dumpty exclaimed triumphantly. `You never said a word like it!'

`I thought you meant "How old are you?"' Alice explained.

`If I'd meant that, I'd have said it,' said Humpty Dumpty.

Alice didn't want to begin another argument, so she said nothing.

`Seven years and six months!' Humpty Dumpty repeated thoughtfully. `An uncomfortable sort of age. Now if you'd asked my advice, I'd have said "Leave off at seven" -- but it's too late now.'

 

<SNIP>

`I beg your pardon?' Alice said with a puzzled air.

`I'm not offended,' said Humpty Dumpty.

`I mean, what is an un-birthday present?'

`A present given when it isn't your birthday, of course.'

Alice considered a little. `I like birthday presents best,' she said at last.

`You don't know what you're talking about!' cried Humpty Dumpty. `How many days are there in a year?'

`Three hundred and sixty-five,' said Alice.

`And how many birthdays have you?'

`One.'

`And if you take one from three hundred and sixty-five what remains?'

`Three hundred and sixty-four, of course.'

Humpty Dumpty looked doubtful. `I'd rather see that done on paper,' he said.

Alice couldn't help smiling as she took out her memorandum book, and worked the sum for him:

365
    1
----
364
----

Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. `That seems to be done right --' he began.

`You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

<SNIP>

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

 

Still PUZZLED after all these years!

 

ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DaveH, I must respectfully observe that trying to reason with mormons is a complete waste of time—which is why I do not bother.  The ridiculous issues that arise, the squirming out from under the evidence against it w/o ever admitting to it, the endless arguing and contention w/o any resolution, and the vulgarity of the issues discussed are proof of the demonic nature of mormonism and of the futility of trying to reason with anyone steeped in it.  Case closed.  Move on class.  izzy

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 9:21 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter

 

DAVEH:  Yes, I read it, and discussed it on TT already.  I do not know if the person relating the story heard it correctly, understood it correctly or related it exactly as he heard it.  Since he seems to be the only source who relates it, it does seem as though JS did not go around preaching such, or there would have been others who would have mentioned it in their journals as well.

    Like I explained a day or so ago....who knows, JS may have been tickling the guys ribs, but unbeknownst to him, Oliver Huntington (I think that was his name) may have been taking him too seriously. 

ShieldsFamily wrote:

Did you read the quotation that was furnished about JS teaching that there were 6 ft tall men living on the moon, wearing Quaker-type clothing, DaveH?  Who was lying about that, the mormon who quoted him or JS himself? iz

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:19 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter

 

DAVEH:   Thank you for asking, Izzy.  That is correct....I don't believe JS said such.  From the quotes I've seen posted on TT, and the websites I've seen that discuss it, and my independent search.....No, I have not seen any evidence, nor do I believe that JS said that there were 7 foot Quakers on the moon.    I think Dean incorrectly remembered or imagined something he heard, and posted it on TT as fact, when it is obviously false.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

That’s what I did.  I asked you.  So you don’t believe that JSmith really said that? iz

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:52 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter

 

DAVEH:   Not that I am aware of, Izzy.  Dean brought it up as though I believed it....but I don't.  I'm not sure where Dean is getting his info, as it doesn't quite coincide with Perry's explanation.  It does seem though that Dean is intent on spreading misinformation about what I believe.

    So....IF you have a question about what I believe, I'd recommend you ask me directly instead of assuming that what anti-Mormons say is correct and in context with LDS doctrine.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

DaveH, give us the lowdown—are there 7 foot quackers on the moon or not??? iz

 

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:27 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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 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 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 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.  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 conce 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.