You act like you believe some things to be true some to be false.
But when shown the same things you believe as false being actual LDS theology you just go mum.
What is up with that, theologian?
case in point (-AGAIN-)
Was Mary only the "oven" for baby Jesus
Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.468 - p.469 And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring of an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the WOMB from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacled in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. 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. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God—the Only Begotten of the Father. (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.67-68, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)
Were there organic differences between Christ and ourselves?
Apostle John Widtsoe "God and man are of the same race, differing only in their degrees of advancement" (Gospel Through the Ages, pg. 107).
Apostle Parley P. Pratt "God, angels, and men are all of the same species, one race, one great family..." (Key to the Science of Theology, 1978 ed., pg. 21).
So much for MONOGENES, hah?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samual and Jeremiah -- there is none righteous, no not one. When they spoke for God, they were infallible.Now ---------------- let's answer these questions:You apparently care how God accomplished the virgin birth of Christ -- so how did he do it , deegan? Were there organic differences between Christ and ourselves? Was Mary only the "oven" for baby Jesus -- then why the lineage statements?Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
I see do as you say not as you do.There is a word for that.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You apparently care how God accomplished the virgin birth of Christ -- so how did he do it , deegan? Were there organic differences between Christ and ourselves? Was Mary only the "oven" for baby Jesus -- then why the lineage statements?Please answer the question and do not avoid by steering away from it.JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
Please answer the question and do not avoid by steering away from it.Why did the LDS god come into the world, to do what with Mary?Any reasonable person knows what these words mean. There is only one reasonable answer.That is why you avoid the reasonable conclusion and just like DH offer no other reasonable alternative:'' 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)''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)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You apparently care how God accomplished the virgin birth of Christ -- so how did he do it , deegan? Were there organic differences between Christ and ourselves? Was Mary only the "oven" for baby Jesus -- then why the lineage statements?Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the matter
Why did the father have to come into the world and what was it he did?''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)Do words mean anything ro Mormons?
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: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 is 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 Standard 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.__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
