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

[Dave]

Charles Perry Locke wrote: 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? DAVEH:  One of the attributes I like about the Church is the ability/freedom to think outside the box.   A few years back, such discussions and preaching (if that is the word for it) were much more common place as I remember.  Now however, the leaders have admonished folks to stick to the basic gospel principles more and speculate less, due to the tactics commonly used by anti-Mormons.  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. DAVEH:  I do believe that Jesus' conception was the result of natural principles and action that did not necessitate a physical sexual relationship.  So Perry....we both read the same comments, and draw entirely different conclusions.  Your conclusion is then used to promote what you view as wrong doctrines.  My conclusion helps me understand more of what really happened, and fortifies my belief that Jesus is literally the Son of God.   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. DAVEH:  I fully understand what you said and meant.  I hope you understood what I meant. So, yes, I am surprised that she has never discussed this with other mormons. DAVEH:  Did you bother to ask her why, instead of assuming the case was closed.  Perhaps she is thinking there is a problem discussing such things with other members.  I do not know why she would think such. 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. DAVEH:   Maybe I did misunderstand.  I don't understand why it would be an issue with her at all.  IF it was a personal issue, then perhaps she misunderstands LDS theology.....as it teaches that incest is sinful.  IF it was a theological issue.....hmmmmm.......same answer. 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. DAVEH:  It wouldn't be discussed since it is a non issue to most LDS folks.  The only time it comes up is when other folks (primarily anti-Mormons) bring it up with the intent to make us think that is what we should believe.   I've never heard any sermons or lessons based on whether or not God had physical sex with Mary.  There is really no reason to have such discussions in the normal course of LDS theology, because it is a foregone doctrinal conclusion that Mary was a virgin.   So the only folks who would feel a need to talk about it are non Mormons who do not understand LDS theology.    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. DAVEH:  That is because you have an ax to grind, and apparently try to frame everything you read by LDS folks in a negative light.  I think I have already tried to explain how most of the comments above relate to my understanding of LDS theology that teaches Mary was a virgin, and that your assumption is wrong.   The real question is whether or not you want to really understand what Mormons believe (and perhaps why), or do you want to impose on Mormonism your perspective of what they believe despite them explaining differently.     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. DAVEH:   Nonsense, Perry.  I've explained it to you already, and you either lack the capacity of understanding what I said, or I did a poor job of explaining it....or, you simply want to impose your own beliefs into our theology.   Now....to make sure that you understand what I believe, please give me a specific quote made by an LDS person that still bothers you, and I will attempt to explain it in simpler terms than I have in the past. You almost had me believing that you believe totally in the virgin birth...now I am again wondering about it. DAVEH:  Why?  I said I did....and I still do.  It is also doctrinally sound in LDS theology. You have such a hard time seeing the hypocrisy in your position. DAVEH:   Perhaps so.  But I might add that I think you don't really want to understand my position. Why are you trying to cover up for a few of your heretical leaders? DAVEH:  Why do you accuse them of being heretical?  I read what you read and fully understand what they said.  Do you not have the spirit of understanding? 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 DAVEH:   What a nice way of saying that, Perry.  I'm surprised you did not include a smilie with your comment.  Yes, I am a Mormon, and am not ashamed to be such.....just as I am not ashamed to be a Christian.  I suppose I am blind to the hypocrisy, lies, and deceit.......not of the Church though, but rather those coming from anti-Mormons. 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? DAVEH:   What issue, Perry?   Is not the dictionary definition of incest...... sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry ........then how could there be any accusation of incest IF there was no physical sex between God and Mary? Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.