If it was not for SEX why did the Mormon god have to come down to earth to be with Mary???????????????????????
"I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on marriage, at our last conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were His wives, and that He begat children. All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this--they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough 'to fulfil all righteousness;' not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law 'to multiply and replenish the earth.' Startle not at this! For even the Father Himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a Son; and if Jesus begat children, He only 'did that
which He had seen His Father do.' Apostle Orson Hyde Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 210
There is NO answer but that he had SEX, you have not presented even one of your NON Sense answers.
Please do not tell us he was HAND delivering a TEST TUBE!
Just another PROPHET/Apostles OPINION?
It fits the English usage
It fits LDS theology of eternal marriage plurality of wives populating planets and "eternal lives" and the "continuation of SEED forever"
It fits the Mormon god who is porterayed as SEXually aroused
It fits "Replenish" the earth
Do you have another plausible excuse?
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dean Moore wrote:DAVEH: Nonsense, Dean. Neither you nor Kevin quoted one LDS person that used the terms sex or intercourse.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: Again....nonsense.This is Blaspheme. Your are part of a church that Blaspheme,s God name by accusing him of sin.
DAVEH: ??? What are you talking about, Dean. Who said such??? Are you making stuff up again?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: 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. :-)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?
----- Original Message -----From: DaveSent: 10/23/2005 1:15:00 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The HEART of the mattercd; 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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
