Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ran77 said:Can anyone tell me what "christians" think happened in order for Mary to become pregnant? Also, is Christ the Son of God - or not?
Ran77 said:I'm glad you don't criticize the LDS on this forum.
Ran77 said:The LDS follow the prophet. I don't recall that President Hinckley has made any referrence to a sexual relationship between God and Mary. If the LDS on this forum were to be asked I feel confident that none of them believe in what you claim we believe; I'm pretty sure they believe along the lines of what I have stated. To attempt to claim that my comments are not typical of LDS belief is incorrect and perhaps dishonest.
Ran77 said:You have chosen to emphasize statements made in a document of which the Church has chosen not to support as doctrine. Brigham Young explained something based on the knowledge he had about such matters. I have no doubt that Heavenly Father has not chosen to share with any prophet the precise method by which Mary became pregnant. If you want to take exception with Brigham for speculating - please do. Since the Church has already decided not to accept it as doctrine your argument will have to be with Brigham.
Perhaps if the early Church leaders would have known that people would scour through old documents looking for anything they could take exception with in order to attack the Church they would have been more careful in what they presented. Alas, they did not and later Church leadership took the task and declared the JoD as non-doctrinal teachings.
Ran77 said:GWiT said:Originally Posted by: GodsWordisTrue
I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders.
I'm glad you don't criticize the LDS on this forum.
Ran77 said:The LDS follow the prophet. I don't recall that President Hinckley has made any referrence to a sexual relationship between God and Mary. If the LDS on this forum were to be asked I feel confident that none of them believe in what you claim we believe; I'm pretty sure they believe along the lines of what I have stated. To attempt to claim that my comments are not typical of LDS belief is incorrect and perhaps dishonest.
Ran77 said:You have chosen to emphasize statements made in a document of which the Church has chosen not to support as doctrine. Brigham Young explained something based on the knowledge he had about such matters. I have no doubt that Heavenly Father has not chosen to share with any prophet the precise method by which Mary became pregnant. If you want to take exception with Brigham for speculating - please do. Since the Church has already decided not to accept it as doctrine your argument will have to be with Brigham.
Ran77 said:Perhaps if the early Church leaders would have known that people would scour through old documents looking for anything they could take exception with in order to attack the Church they would have been more careful in what they presented. Alas, they did not and later Church leadership took the task and declared the JoD as non-doctrinal teachings.
Ran77 said:I fail to see how this qualifies as a double standard. It is consistent with our belief in continuing prophecy. We believe more doctrine has been written to which we don't have access and still more will be written. Where is the double standard here? I suspect that you are grasping at straws here in order to turn the tables on me. Just stating it doesn't make it so.
Ran77 said:In post 44 I ask why limit God in His method of bringing about the birth of the Savior.
In post 47 Deren claims that it is humans like myself that limit God by asserting that He acts like one of His creations then He must not be a God. Deren then claims that I have dismissed the supernatural element of God and continues about God being a sinner.
I have not made any of these statements. I challenge anyone to find where I have.
In post 49 I explain to Deren that the invention of words and beliefs that I have not expressed is the reason I do not dialogue with him on the forum.
In post 58 Deren responds to my comments in 49 by falsely representing my belief to be that God is a created being. My claims of inventing views that I do not hold are followed with more of the same.
Then Deren categorizes the comments that were directed to me to be valid because he can attribute them to teachings of LDS leaders. This switches from what I have supposedly said to comments from our leaders - as if that will make the previously erroneous statements acceptable.
Then in post 60 Deren espouses the theory that the LDS do not respond to him because we do not want to be held accountable for what we believe.
How about being accountable for what a person says. If someone makes the claim that I have said something, or believe something, how about that person taking the responsibility to make sure the statement is true. And when asked to provide that proof - do so - don't move on to the next attack. I want Deren to be accountable for what he has claimed in this thread. Provide me with the post where I have stated any of the things you claim I have said, or believe. Any other kind of response would be an evasion - like I have been accused of doing.
It's time to put up or shut up. Evade the issue and I will continue my decision to avoid discussion with you.
Sven1967 So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?[/quote said:Are you saying that you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost?
Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?
If we are to consider what they say as binding on us as scriptures, then we have to go through the process as with all scriptures that are binding on us. Even though what they may say is speculation or the truth, it is not binding on us, and only serves as information. Does not make any difference since it is not essential to our salvation.
As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?
It would be speculation if it is not found in our scriptures.
So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.
Just the opposite. All the extra information is just that, extra. We do not have to follow the teaching unless it is found in the standard works.
That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.
Sven
This is just speculation, but think you are no longer LDS because of the circumstances you are in, and feeling left out by the church.
fatboys said:Are you saying that you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost?
fatboys said:Are you saying that you believe that Mary had sex with the Holy Ghost?Sven said:So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?
fatboys said:If we are to consider what they say as binding on us as scriptures, then we have to go through the process as with all scriptures that are binding on us. Even though what they may say is speculation or the truth, it is not binding on us, and only serves as information. Does not make any difference since it is not essential to our salvation.
fatboys said:It would be speculation if it is not found in our scriptures.
fatboys said:Just the opposite. All the extra information is just that, extra. We do not have to follow the teaching unless it is found in the standard works.fatboys said:So when your prophet has a revelation, it is not binding until the entire LDS church says it is.
fatboys said:This is just speculation, but think you are no longer LDS because of the circumstances you are in, and feeling left out by the church.
Your speculation is a riotI left your organization because I realized that it didn't present the everlasting gospel of Christ. It negated the work of the cross. When and if you ever realize that, you will leave too.
Happy New Year
Sven
BTW, the circumstances I am in could not be better - just for the record.
GodsWordisTrue said:I did not say that your beliefs are not typical of what LDS believe today. I said, "I don't expect you to accept the teachings of your leaders. The problem is LDS follow leaders who believed differently than Ran77 and taught what they believed to others." What LDS believed in 1960 is not what LDS believe and practice in 2006.
GodsWordisTrue said:In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. - Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211
"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" - Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p.44
"Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God!" - Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18
"For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" - Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p. 466
"God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says." Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 742
"ONLY BEGOTTEN SON: These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 546
Sven1967 said:So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?
Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?
As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?
So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.
That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.
Ran77 said:Sven, if I'm not mistaken you posted that you didn't want to communicate with me any more and that my continued efforts to post to you were a method of "stalking." I stopped posting to you after you made that comment, how about you keeping to what you said you were going to do.
Sven1967 said:What did I say I was going to do, Ran? I really do not remember saying the above to you. I am not saying that I didn't say it, because I am on medication that causes some memory problems. However, it seems so out of character for me to converse in that manner, I think that you may have me confused with someone else. I did a search of my messages but they only archive to September. If you have a copy of the message, I truely would like to see it.
Thanks and sorry for any miscommunication. I do not recall telling anyone that I didn't want to communicate with them.
I remember this.Sven1967 said:What did I say I was going to do, Ran? I really do not remember saying the above to you. I am not saying that I didn't say it, because I am on medication that causes some memory problems. However, it seems so out of character for me to converse in that manner, I think that you may have me confused with someone else. I did a search of my messages but they only archive to September. If you have a copy of the message, I truely would like to see it.
Thanks and sorry for any miscommunication. I do not recall telling anyone that I didn't want to communicate with them.
Sven
Sven1967 said:Do you view THIS as criticism?
Sven1967 said:So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?
Sven1967 said:Should we weigh all discourses expounded in the semi-annual church conference with the same scales? Basically, all talks given by anyone in conference should be considered mere speculation. Correct?
Sven1967 said:As should have the early Church fathers. Perhaps we should just depend on what we know today and erase any and all teachings relevant to theology because truly, it is all only speculation and conjecture on man's thoughts about God. Agree?
Sven1967 said:So what you are saying is that God has not yet revealed the necessary requirements for humanity to be saved or He is going to change the requirements.
Sven1967 said:That is precisely why I am not LDS anymore. I believe that when Jesus said "it is finished," it was finished. Jesus paid the price - in full.
Sven1967 said:So... would you say that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost as indicated in the Bible (Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) or do you believe that some other method was utilized?
OZBentley said:Then you subscribe to the idea that Jesus Christ was conceived from Himself, as the Holy Ghost, Who was also the Father, acting as the Holy Ghost at the time, because they are all connected as being God.
OZBentley said:So we may be also correct in concluding that Heavenly Father parented Christ in the Flesh, because He is God, but he was acting as the Holy Ghost at the time who is also God.?sort of like the head doesn't know what the right foot is doing... since your God theory has them all as one, Heavenly Father is the Head, Christ is the hands and the Holy Ghost is the feet, but yet they are one body.
Ran77 said:I don't believe Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, becasue that would make Jesus the Son of the Holy Ghost and not the Only Begotten Son of God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?