Dean Moore wrote:
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.
DAVEH: Nonsense, Dean. Neither you nor Kevin quoted one LDS person
that used the terms sex or intercourse.
This is Blaspheme. Your are part of a church that Blaspheme,s
God name by accusing him of sin.
DAVEH: Again....nonsense.
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.
DAVEH: ??? What are you talking about, Dean. Who said such???
Are you making stuff up again?
Don't you know hell wasn't m ade 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?
DAVEH: I'd like to think they would not be standing next to
you, Dean.....but, I'M NOT SURE that I would be right in thinking that
way. :-)
-----
Original Message -----
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 exp erience 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 offi cial > >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.
|
