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

[Dave Hansen]

DAVEH:   The problem as I see it Perry, is that as a Mormon, I look at what is said by LDS folks, including some of the Church leaders and compare that to the context of what they said in relation to the official LDS doctrines, and then add that to my belief paradigm.  Anti-Mormons on the other hand seem to take those same quotes and view them from their biased (against) perspective, neither understanding the LDS background, nor caring to frame the quotes in the context of LDS doctrines.  So....the two views most often draw entirely different conclusions.      This current discussion (sex with Mary) is an excellent example.  BY is quoted to have said.... The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action .........and I (knowing that the Church teaches that Mary was a virgin) understand BY's comments to mean that while the birth of Jesus was miraculous, it was not by some trick of black magic or other event that denies Jesus' deified paternity.  Is Jesus literally the Son of God, or not.  As I have stated numerous times on TT, I firmly believe Jesus' father is literally our Father in Heaven.  I have also stated that I believe Mary was a virgin at the time she was conceived, and also at the time she gave birth.  Now when I hear BY's above comment, knowing a bit about the background theology of Mormonism, I can conclude that BY was trying to teach that the HG did not snap his fingers and Mary was pregnant, but rather that (and I am conjecturing about this, because it is not recorded in Scripture) there was a process (though not necessarily sexual) whereby the genetic makeup of our Heavenly Father was combined with Mary's genetic makeup to bring forth a child in as natural a fashion as science now teaches.      IF there are LDS people who believe that Mary was not a virgin, and that the birth of Jesus was the result of physical sex.....I am not aware of it.  (Though I would not be surprised if there are a few....the world is full of kooks.)  But as I have stated, that is not what I or any LDS folks I know of believe.  LDS theology teaches that Mary was a virgin.     So........I can understand why somebody might read BY's comment and draw a (faulty) conclusion.   That would not surprise me at all.  But was does surprise me very much is that after it is explained that we do NOT believe such, then why would somebody continue to tell me or anybody else that we do believe such?   What's their motive, except to deceive???     Now Perry......you have made the charge........ IT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITH DOCUMENTS FROM HIS OWN RELIGION THAT HIS PROPHETS AND LEADERS HAVE STATED SUCH. .............and Dean has made these claims......... the HOLY Ghost is supposed (their claim not mine)to have     came down and had sex with Mary and Jesus was produced from this     sexual act. So their God is a God of Incest. ........   Mary and the HOLY Ghost is supposed (their claim not mine)to have     came down and had sex with Mary and Jesus was produced from this     sexual act ..........which I have carefully and patiently explained is a lie.        Now....let me give you an anti-Mormon link that has a ton of info on this topic...... http://www.bible.ca/mor-god-had-sex-with-mary.htm ..........so that you (Perry and/or Dean) can find any LDS quote that uses the term......sex with Mary     I've read down through most of it and can nowhere find any LDS folks saying sex with Mary.  Everything they say fits into my paradigm as I explained above.  Those with an agenda against LDS theology take those same comments and spin them to sharpen the ax they are grinding, without really considering how LDS folks think or believe.     Probably the most extremely opinionated person quoted was Orson Pratt in The Seer, which was a highly speculative book based on OP's opinions.  Despite being an LDS leader, his opinions are no substitute for official doctrine, which is found in the Standard Works.  Even BY's comments fail to meet that criteria.  But....even considering the as well as the others....one still has to extrapolate their comments beyond a definitive line to conclude that God had sex with Mary.  FTR....having read the comments on the above anti website, I still do not believe such.  I do believe Mary was a virgin, and IF she had had sex even with God, I believe she would have lost her virginity.  And to claim that it is the teachings of the LDS Church simply is not true.   But...it is what most anti-Mormons want people to believe, and hence they continue to propagate the lie.     Now Perry.....you can believe what you want....but why do you have a problem with me explaining that I do not believe God had sex with Mary?  As I've explained above, that comment comes from anti-Mormon people with an agenda who have an ax to grind, and subsequently draw incorrect conclusions as to what I believe by claiming that LDS people say things that they didn't.   These classic examples of Dean's below comments......     the HOLY Ghost is supposed (their claim not mine)to have     came down and had sex with Mary and Jesus was produced from this     sexual act. ........     Mary and the HOLY Ghost is supposed (their claim not mine)to have     came down and had sex with Mary and Jesus was produced from this     sexual act ..........are simply is a lie, as I have explained above.  Now Perry....will you admit the above is a lie, or will you continue to repeat it? Charles Perry Locke wrote: The issue here, John, is that much evidence has been given to Dave in the past in the form of articles from autoritative mormon publications in which his own prophets and church leaders have stated such. Yet he always slips and slides around it, then when it is brought up again claims he never saw the stuff and challenges people to go dig it up to prove it. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITH DOCUMENTS FROM HIS OWN RELIGION THAT HIS PROPHETS AND LEADERS HAVE STATED SUCH. How many more times do we have to jump through that hoop. Yet, David has never presented evidence that disproves what his leaders have stated. Now, it seems, the ball is in his court. Perry In rules of debate, one does not have to prove what isn't BEFORE another proves what is.   The burden of proof, here, is on those that claim a thing to be    ---   Dean, the ball is in your court. Jd Dave, if you believe Dean has spoken untruthfully, please present some documentation that refutes his statements DAVEH:   Isn't that a repeat of what you wanted me to do before, Perry....prove a negative?  Impossible.  Dean made the claim, and the onus is upon him to prove his claim to be true.   It is not up to me to prove it false.  However, as I mentioned in another post tonight, official LDS doctrine teaches that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus.  (I can provide chapter and verse if you wish....just request it.)  Is that adequate proof for you, Perry?     Now let's get back to the lie that Dean continued to perpetrate even after I corrected him several days ago.  Dean stated below.............. the HOLY Ghost is supposed (their claim not mine)to have     came down and had sex with Mary and Jesus was produced from this     sexual act. So their God is a God of Incest. ...........which is a lie.  Notice his comment...... (their claim not mine) ..........OK, if that is what we claim is official LDS doctrine, then it should be easy for you or Dean (his claim not mine) to quote the doctrine.  If he or you cannot do that, then will you admit that the above claim is a lie, Perry? Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, if you believe Dean has spoken untruthfully, please present some documentation that refutes his statements. Just blathering on about how he is being untruthful without any you showing anyevidence does not make your point at all. DAVEH:   Dean.........I don't know what has gotten into you, but it does seem you are beginning to foam at the mouth!   =-O    May I suggest you slow down and think about what you are saying about my beliefs before you hit the send button.  It is hard enough to think you actually believe (about my beliefs) what you posted below, let alone thinking that other TTers would be so lacking in cognizance as to believe what you said below is true.  I don't know what you are smoking, Dean....but you do seem to be blowing it out your ears tonight!    FWIW.......Brother Dean, calm down and relax a little.  IMHO you would be better advised to stick to the truth IF you want folks to take you and your ministry seriously. Dean Moore wrote:      cd: JD I don't think you realize how much opposed the Mormon     religion and the bible really are or you would change the     above statements. Example: In the Mormon belief Jesus Christ is     just another man whom believed upon God and is now God of this     world -but only this world. Just as DaveH believes He will be God     of another world-and one must believe upon him to received     salvation on that world.This is what Mormons do-they play     games.They are using a totally different language.The God     they believe in had sex in heaven-with one of the women that they     call from the grave whom stay eternally pregnant- which produced     Mary and the HOLY Ghost is supposed (their claim not mine)to have     came down and had sex with Mary and Jesus was produced from this     sexual act. So their God is a God of Incest. They do not believe     Jesus is the exclusive way to heaven-Joseph is a way of salvation-     so is coming to the temple once a year. How can you John claim     (declare) someo ne whom carries this belief as saved? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.