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

[Dean Moore]

cd: In your first sentence alone you twice claim that "you don't know' and "I do think" showing that you are not sure-but you then turn completely around and claim that I am totally wrong to my claim of Mormon belief of Sexual Relations between God and Mary-Yet Kevin has supplied proof. This is Blaspheme. Your are part of a church that Blaspheme,s God name by accusing him of sin. This is crap and highly offence to me. It take a fool to do this-and it takes a fool to support someone whom does this -JD you are a foolish man and have receive no more conviction from the Holy Ghost for doing this then does a lost Mormon. I summit to you to examine your salvation and find that which is lost to you. Did you not know that at one time a Preacher came to J.Smith house and Smith beat him and kicked him across his yard after the preacher told him of Christ- the Mormons on this site said that Smith should have killed  the preacher for doing such.Don't you know hell wasn't made for man it was prepared for the Devil and the falling Angles-yet if we support them we are seen as no different them they are and will share in their punishment. When the goat and the sheep are divided at the judgement seat of Christ where do you think those who support the evil people will be standing?     ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 10/23/2005 1:15:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter cd; What do you mean(though not necessarily sexual)? DAVEH:   What I meant is that I do not know specifically how it was accomplished other than by the power of the HG, but I do think it can be accomplished via means that are not sexual in the physical sense that you are insisting it be.  For instance, today artificial insemination is a very common and popular method of impregnating cattle that have never been in physical contact.  As I see it, if cattle can reproduce in a natural fashion (in other words.....not needing miraculous, supernatural or black magic activity) without physically sexual contact, I don't know why you think the Lord could not do what needed to be done to alter Mary's genetic code (I know that is a bit too simplified.....or whatever needed doing to allow her to conceive as a virgin) without having a sexual experience with her.      This i s very simple, Dean, and I don't know why you cannot understand what I am telling you.  FTR once again:  I do not believe God had physical sex with Mary.  Nor does LDS theology teach such.     Dean Moore wrote: cd; What do you mean(though not necessarily sexual)? According to the English language it means that it could or could not be sexual.Now we have it as (1)Natural conception,(2) Genetic conception,(3)back to natural as Mary isn't a virgin,(4)May or may not be "necessary sexual".Full of crap! (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. > > > LDS theology teaches that Mary was a virgin. > > > > > >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 Sta ndard Works . -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.