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: [email protected]
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
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
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
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
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.
|
