Our Father in heaven is a personage of tabernacle, just as much as I am who stand before you today, and he has all the parts and passions of a perfect man, and his body is composed of flesh and bones, but not of blood. (President Brigham Young, to Sunday School children in Tabernacle, Journal of Discourses, 19:64, July 24, 1877)
What parts could they be talking about?
What would "ALL" include?
The god of Mormonism is a Sexually Aroused diety:
FROM ANOTHER DISCUSSION, with Nielsen a Mormon:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianvsmormonqanda/message/8174
Kevin
We do believe that God is has genitalia, but that doesn't mean that
he is subject to the flesh. He has overcome the flesh, just as
Christ overcame the flesh, had genitalia, and committed no sin.
Nielsen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianvsmormonqanda/message/8193
Kevin
Arousal is not the same as lust. Lust is what you do with arousal
and where you seek it. Arousal is necessary for the perpetuation of
the species. It is a divine characteristic of our being, just as
power is divine, but wielded in subjection to the flesh, it leads to
corruption. The flesh must be subject to our divinity, not vice
versa.
Nielsen
--- In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is he aroused in fax #2 and does that have something to do
> with "eternal life" & SEED in D&C 132?
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> nielsen_85205nielsen_us <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > We do believe that God is has genitalia
Do what?
''When the time came that His first-born, the Savior, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Savior was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.'' (Journal of Discourses Vol. 4 page 218)
WHY IN PERSON?
'' l believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Savior of the World; for He is the Only Begotten of the Father which could not have been if the Father did not actually beget him in person''. (Young Journal of Discourses Vol. 1 page 238)
Don't worry they were married!
'' The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. .....That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our Heavenly Father.''(Young Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 page 268)
"Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh ..." (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, pg.150).
"There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple" (The Promised Messiah, pg.468).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really see nothing wrong with the speculations listed below. There is not biblical expansion concerning the virgin birth. And since DH has spoken clearly of his personal views on this matter, why is the discussion being pursued?JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:06:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
Dave,
Do you have any references from the D&C about the nature of the conception of Jesus? 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.
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. 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?
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, but that some of your prophets and leaders are fantastic speculators. 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 be gotten 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 Doctri ne, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)
Perry
>From: Dave Hansen <dave@langlitz.com>
>DAVEH: I linked to an anti-Mormon site that gives most of the quotes I >think to which you are referring. Like JD, I tire quickly of reading the >garbage, hence only skim Kevin's posts to see if there is anything worth >absorbing.
>
> No, the leaders of the LDS Church do not always speak for the Church. >They have opinions just like everybody else. Many LDS folks believe those >opinions can be or are inspired, but our leaders are fallible. >Furthermore, many of them earn their living authoring books, which is a >place where they can speculate with a larger degree of freedom than if they >were preaching in Church. So, yes......they frequently and often *peak >outside of what you call "official mormon doctrine"*. Even when teaching >what they believe to be truth, it is a level (or more) down from the >official doctrines of the Church that are included in the Standard Works. >If it isn't in the Standard Works....it is not considered as official >doctrine.
>Then there is the matter of context. It is very easy to find examples of >Scripture that are seemingly contradictive IF not taken in context. I have >found that a lot of the anti-Mormon material is simply lifted out of >context of the official doctrines of the Church, and then spun (like the >sex/virgin/Mary discussion we are having) to denigrate the Church without >regard to what we actually believe.
>
>1 Nephi 11:13-21 and Alma 7:10, not to mention the Biblical passages which >claim her virginity......with which you are alre ady familiar.
----------
"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.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
