PDA

View Full Version : Since MAN can become God, why not women?



Cow Poke
06-16-2014, 07:47 AM
Another thread caused me to wonder about the Mormon "Mother God", about whom most Mormons seem to know incredibly little. They seem completely fine with "knowing she exists" without knowing anything at all about her. An article in BYU Studies (https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf) attempts to track down the source of the information in Mormonsim about "Mother God".

Several Church leaders have affirmed that Heavenly Mother is a fully divine person and have used reverential titles such as “Mother God,” “God Mother,” “God the Mother,” “God their Eternal Mother,” and “Eternal Mother” in referring to her.

Elder John A. Widtsoe (Quorum of the Twelve, March 17, 1921–November 29, 1952) wrote: “The glorious vision of life hereafter . . . is given radiant warmth by the thought that . . . [we have] a mother who possesses the attributes of Godhood.”

This is echoed by Elder James E. Talmage (Quorum of the Twelve, December 8, 1911–July 27, 1933): “We . . . [are] literally the sons and daughters of divine parents, the spiritual progeny of God our Eternal Father, and of our God Mother.”

more, President Brigham Young (President of the Church, December 27, 1947–August 29, 1877) taught that “we were created . . . in the image of our father and our mother, the image of our God,” indicating that calling Heavenly Mother “God” is consistent with the biblical account of the creation of both “male and female” being in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26–27).

Sister Susa Young Gates urged that “the divine Mother, side by side with the divine Father, [has] the equal sharing of equal rights, privileges and responsibilities.”

So, if "Mother God" was, indeed, a mortal female on earth, why can not other women become "Mother God" as men can supposedly become "God"?

Sparko
06-16-2014, 08:26 AM
They are too busy being barefoot and pregnant. After all who is going to create new spirit babies?

And she has to keep the house clean, make dinner for God and all his angels, take the spirit babies to soccer. She is way too busy to go around working at the office as a God. That's a man's job.

Catholicity
06-16-2014, 12:10 PM
They are too busy being writers, lawyers and doctors, then having children. After all who is going to create new spirit babies?
And she has got to finish her education, in order to ensure that her spirit babies will be well learned She is way too busy to go around working at the office as a God.

Fixed it for ya

Sparko
06-16-2014, 12:14 PM
Fixed it for ya

No you didn't. That is not the way the LDS heaven works, deary. Men do the work of creating and getting prayed to and sending out angels and so on. The wimmin folk just sit back and take care of the home cloud and kids, and bake muffins.

Sparko
06-16-2014, 12:36 PM
Excerpts from:

The Honored Place of Woman
Ezra Taft Benson

Since the beginning, a woman’s first and most important role has been ushering into mortality spirit sons and daughters of our Father in Heaven.
...
In the beginning, Adam was instructed to earn the bread by the sweat of his brow—not Eve. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a mother’s place is in the home!
...
Beguiling voices in the world cry out for “alternative life-styles” for women. They maintain that some women are better suited for careers than for marriage and motherhood.

These individuals spread their discontent by the propaganda that there are more exciting and self-fulfilling roles for women than homemaking. Some even have been bold to suggest that the Church move away from the “Mormon woman stereotype” of homemaking and rearing children. They also say it is wise to limit your family so you can have more time for personal goals and self-fulfillment.
...
It is a misguided idea that a woman should leave the home, where there is a husband and children, to prepare educationally and financially for an unforeseen eventuality. Too often, I fear, even women in the Church use the world as their standard for success and basis for self-worth.
---
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/the-honored-place-of-woman?lang=eng

Selected Teachings
President Spencer W. Kimball

“The husband is expected to support his family and only in an emergency should a wife secure outside employment. Her place is in the home, to build the home into a heaven of delight.

“Numerous divorces can be traced directly to the day when the wife left the home and went out into the world into employment. Two incomes raise the standard of living beyond its norm. Two spouses working prevent the complete and proper home life, break into the family prayers, create an independence which is not cooperative, causes distortion, limits the family and frustrates the children already born. …
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-20?lang=eng

Cow Poke
06-16-2014, 01:57 PM
No you didn't. That is not the way the LDS heaven works, deary. Men do the work of creating and getting prayed to and sending out angels and so on. The wimmin folk just sit back and take care of the home cloud and kids, and bake muffins.

AND get threatened with DESTRUCTION if they don't knuckle under! :yes:

foudroyant
06-16-2014, 04:36 PM
Isn't true (I'm not entirely sure about this) that if the husband forgets or intentionally refuses to call her by her (secret?) name she won't become his wife in the celestial kingdom (?)

Catholicity
06-16-2014, 04:52 PM
Foudy we found the perfect religion for you

:outtie:

foudroyant
06-16-2014, 04:58 PM
Foudy we found the perfect religion for you

:outtie:


No way!

My wife tries to obey what the Bible says - she doesn't need any other source of authority from the Mormons....


Topic now back on track.

Bill the Cat
06-16-2014, 05:11 PM
Isn't true (I'm not entirely sure about this) that if the husband forgets or intentionally refuses to call her by her (secret?) name she won't become his wife in the celestial kingdom (?)

She won't even be resurrected!

Kind Debater
06-16-2014, 05:49 PM
Assuming Joseph Smith was the one who invented that doctrine...You guys beat up on Smith a lot, but see, he was a generous man. He didn't just say that he himself could become God, have multiple wives and threaten his wife with destruction if she objected -- he let all the other men in the church have the same privileges, even the power to threaten their wives with eternal death. Wasn't that nice of him? You don't see other dictators/supreme authorities sharing their special privileges with fully 50% of their subjects. :teeth:

Seriously, whatever else we say about Smith, he had a special knack for marketing religion. I bet he realized it was smart to let other men in his group share some of his privileges, so they wouldn't be jealous and it wouldn't be quite as obvious that he was taking advantage of them. Though I think his real genius was in coming up with the "almost everyone is saved" doctrine. LDS get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to claim that their religion is tolerant and "nice people" who don't accept Jesus/Joseph Smith get to have a decent afterlife, but they also get to say that the serial killers, child molesters, etc. are in hell. So they get to satisfy both the peace-loving people who don't like hell and the justice-loving people who don't want "really evil people" in heaven. And as an added bonus, they get to use the psychological pressure of "but if you leave the church, you'll be damned" to keep people in once they join.

Cerebrum123
06-17-2014, 04:37 AM
Assuming Joseph Smith was the one who invented that doctrine...You guys beat up on Smith a lot, but see, he was a generous man. He didn't just say that he himself could become God, have multiple wives and threaten his wife with destruction if she objected -- he let all the other men in the church have the same privileges, even the power to threaten their wives with eternal death. Wasn't that nice of him? You don't see other dictators/supreme authorities sharing their special privileges with fully 50% of their subjects. :teeth:

Well, Mohammed shared most of said privileges, so...


Seriously, whatever else we say about Smith, he had a special knack for marketing religion. I bet he realized it was smart to let other men in his group share some of his privileges, so they wouldn't be jealous and it wouldn't be quite as obvious that he was taking advantage of them. Though I think his real genius was in coming up with the "almost everyone is saved" doctrine. LDS get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to claim that their religion is tolerant and "nice people" who don't accept Jesus/Joseph Smith get to have a decent afterlife, but they also get to say that the serial killers, child molesters, etc. are in hell. So they get to satisfy both the peace-loving people who don't like hell and the justice-loving people who don't want "really evil people" in heaven. And as an added bonus, they get to use the psychological pressure of "but if you leave the church, you'll be damned" to keep people in once they join.

Sounds like a less violent, more modern/tolerant Mohammed.

seven7up
06-17-2014, 03:28 PM
They are too busy being barefoot and pregnant.

You DO realize that this is how agnostics / atheists attempt to characterize a woman's role in all of Christianity.

I don't have to search hard to find hypocrisy spewing forth from your mouth Sparko. Practically every single post.

-7up

seven7up
06-17-2014, 03:33 PM
... why can not other women become "Mother God" as men can supposedly become "God"?

They can.

In the LDS religion, a man cannot become exalted without a woman, and a woman cannot become exalted without a man.

The plural Hebrew term for God, "Elohim", implies Heavenly Mother in the minds of LDS believers. Hence in Genesis God says "let US create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness ... both male and female".

Now, you may continue with your insulting mockery to your own detriment.

Christ was right on when he spoke about "pearls before swine". Too many examples here to keep track of.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-17-2014, 03:36 PM
You DO realize that this is how agnostics / atheists attempt to characterize a woman's role in all of Christianity.

You DO realize that this typically refers to "trailer trash", "white trash", or extremist fundamentalists, yes? :glare:


I don't have to search hard to find hypocrisy spewing forth from your mouth Sparko. Practically every single post.

-7up

You just don't appreciate bacon. :tongue:

Cow Poke
06-17-2014, 03:39 PM
They can.

In the LDS religion, a man cannot become exalted without a woman, and a woman cannot become exalted without a man.

So, they would become "Mother God"????? The other Mormons on Tweb have always tried to hide from the "Mother God" concept. :glare:


The plural Hebrew term for God, "Elohim", implies Heavenly Mother in the minds of LDS believers.

Why does this not surprise me? :doh:


Hence in Genesis God says "let US create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness ... both male and female".

Wow, what a stretch!


Now, you may continue with your insulting mockery to your own detriment.

And you may continue being a whiny crybaby crabbyappleton. :shrug:


Christ was right on when he spoke about "pearls before swine". Too many examples here to keep track of.

-7up

I got news for you, Bub... I know Christ, and you ain't Him! :glare:

seven7up
06-17-2014, 03:41 PM
Seriously, whatever else we say about Smith, he had a special knack for marketing religion. I bet he realized it was smart to let other men in his group share some of his privileges, so they wouldn't be jealous and it wouldn't be quite as obvious that he was taking advantage of them. Though I think his real genius was in coming up with the "almost everyone is saved" doctrine. LDS get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to claim that their religion is tolerant and "nice people" who don't accept Jesus/Joseph Smith get to have a decent afterlife, but they also get to say that the serial killers, child molesters, etc. are in hell. So they get to satisfy both the peace-loving people who don't like hell and the justice-loving people who don't want "really evil people" in heaven. And as an added bonus, they get to use the psychological pressure of "but if you leave the church, you'll be damned" to keep people in once they join.



You are right KD.

Instead of marketing a "god" who draws a line and sends the grand majority of Earth's inhabitants to suffering in hell forever, it was very clever of Joseph Smith to discuss a more reasonable God who will judge each individual or reward them according to their deeds performed in mortality.

And how astute of you to point out the "psychological pressure" involved. Certainly, you must not see any such pressure in your faith, whereby it is "accept Jesus and avoid eternal damnation; no pressure though."

-7up

seven7up
06-17-2014, 03:49 PM
So, they would become "Mother God"????? The other Mormons on Tweb have always tried to hide from the "Mother God" concept.

I repeat.

Pearls before swine.

The insulting and un Christlike commentary here should be sufficient evidence for any honest observer.

7UP: Hence in Genesis God says "let US create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness ... both male and female".



Wow, what a stretch!


Perhaps if that were the origin of the doctrine. But it isn't. However, it certainly DOES fit. Fits much better than the Greek philosophical monotheism version with a literally omnipresent single simple substance of a deity.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-17-2014, 04:02 PM
They can.

So, if you can, please evaluate this statement: "After death, while their husbands are creating and ruling over planets, the women have the questionable honor of bearing his "spirit children" for eternity."

First, I'm sure you'd have an issue with the characterization of bearing his "spirit children" as "questionable honor", and I understand that.

But, besides birthing "spirit children", what does Mother God actually do?

Cow Poke
06-17-2014, 04:05 PM
I repeat.

Pearls before swine.

You can "repeat" that all you want, and it just goes to show how ill equipped you are to deal with opposition. :shrug:


The insulting and un Christlike commentary here should be sufficient evidence for any honest observer.

Please show what is "un Christlike".... I believe your religion is a scam and your "prophet" is a phony... just like Jesus stood up to the religious leaders of HIS day. Would you call HIS CONDUCT "un Christlike"? :lolo:

Look, 7up, if you aren't capable of defending your religion, and can't stand the heat, get your snarky whiny butt out of the kitchen. :shrug:

Sparko
06-17-2014, 05:33 PM
You DO realize that this is how agnostics / atheists attempt to characterize a woman's role in all of Christianity.

I don't have to search hard to find hypocrisy spewing forth from your mouth Sparko. Practically every single post.

-7up

except I quoted your own prophets words on the matter, right from the lds.org website. :ahem:

Cow Poke
06-18-2014, 04:25 AM
The insulting and un Christlike commentary here should be sufficient evidence for any honest observer.

I think what should be obvious to the honest observer is that you really don't believe in what you're selling.
Oh, you're trying to put up a good fight, but you are filled with doubt.

If you REALLY believed what you were saying, you wouldn't have to hide behind all the drama of attacking your opponents. You'd be able to give a clear defense (an apology, in the classic sense) of your beliefs.

Truth is, ya got nothing! :shrug:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.

Perhaps this verse isn't in the Mormon version of the Bible? :wink:

Kind Debater
06-18-2014, 07:11 AM
You are right KD.

Instead of marketing a "god" who draws a line and sends the grand majority of Earth's inhabitants to suffering in hell forever, it was very clever of Joseph Smith to discuss a more reasonable God who will judge each individual or reward them according to their deeds performed in mortality.


Yes, I've seen your comments about hell in other threads. Since that seems to be another major objection of yours to "traditional" Christianity, I'm happy to discuss that with you once more time frees up. Right now I'm posting at the expense of doing housework. Though I have to ask....what do you do then with all of Jesus' teachings about hell? Do you think all the Gospels are corrupt and Jesus actually taught something different, which God was somehow unable to preserve in the centuries before Smith showed up?



And how astute of you to point out the "psychological pressure" involved. Certainly, you must not see any such pressure in your faith, whereby it is "accept Jesus and avoid eternal damnation; no pressure though."


Of course there's pressure. Some people don't respond to God's gentler ways of drawing them to himself. I've heard several Christian/quasi-Christian-to-atheist testimonies of people who have said that the fear of going to hell was the last, lingering thing keeping them from atheism (and obviously they managed to be unconvinced by that as well).

Whether or not that pressure is moral or immoral depends on the situation. A good government uses the pressure of law enforcement to keep would-be criminals in line. A bad government uses the pressure of law enforcement to restrict human rights and keep its grip on power. If the LDS church really is the Most True Church, then leaving it would be wrong and therefore deserving of some kind of punishment. If Joseph Smith's teachings were from him and not God, then I don't see a problem in pointing out how his teachings are designed to draw people into Mormonism and keep them there.

However, this does bring up the question of why leaving the LDS church -- i.e. rejecting Smith as a prophet -- is really the worst sin. If I'm understanding the doctrine correctly, an atheist who rejects Jesus' dying for his sins but manages to be a "nice person" and not a serial killer goes to one of the lesser heavens and/or gets more chances to repent in the next life, while a Mormon who leaves the church but accepts Jesus as their savior is in danger of Outer Darkness. Is this really the case -- is rejecting Smith and his teachings a bigger sin than rejecting God the Son himself? If so, why?

seven7up
06-21-2014, 10:16 PM
So, if you can, please evaluate this statement: "After death, while their husbands are creating and ruling over planets, the women have the questionable honor of bearing his "spirit children" for eternity."

First, I'm sure you'd have an issue with the characterization of bearing his "spirit children" as "questionable honor", and I understand that.

I certainly do have some issues with it. Not only is it based on all kinds of assumptions, but it is also demeaning to mothers here on earth.

The phrase Sparko appealed to about being "pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen" is meant to denigrate women. It is meant to demean mothers who want to be "homemakers" and who want to raise their own children in the home.

It is a devilish tactic, and it looks like Sparko and yourself have fallen for it.


But, besides birthing "spirit children", what does Mother God actually do?

More assumptions. Saying that they are going to be "birthing spirit children" makes it sound like a mortal and physical pregnancy. (It is a deceptive tactic that anti-Mormons use in order to use words with negative connotations.) Why do you assume that spiritual creation entails a physical "birthing" process?

What does Mother God do? I don't know. What does God the Father do?

Let me give you a safer assumption to work with. The relationship between a mother and father includes mutual love and respect. How's that for a novel concept to your primitive mind set?

-7up

Cow Poke
06-22-2014, 04:39 AM
I certainly do have some issues with it. Not only is it based on all kinds of assumptions, but it is also demeaning to mothers here on earth.

Agreed! Mormonism at its finest. :shrug:


The phrase Sparko appealed to about being "pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen" is meant to denigrate women. It is meant to demean mothers who want to be "homemakers" and who want to raise their own children in the home.

No, the phrase Sparko was using was intended to show the pompous attitude of Mormonism toward women.


It is a devilish tactic, and it looks like Sparko and yourself have fallen for it.

Well, he IS a pirate. :shrug: And I need to stand by him just like you stand by the devilish tactics of Joseph Smith, et al.


More assumptions. Saying that they are going to be "birthing spirit children" makes it sound like a mortal and physical pregnancy. (It is a deceptive tactic that anti-Mormons use in order to use words with negative connotations.) Why do you assume that spiritual creation entails a physical "birthing" process?

Fact is, you don't have a CLUE! This is yet another topic your guys threw out there without the slightest idea of how it works.


What does Mother God do? I don't know.

That's probably the most accurate statement you've made.


What does God the Father do?

Well, gosh, Seven --- we have LOTS of ideas on THAT, because HE is actually IN the Bible! :idea:


Let me give you a safer assumption to work with.

The SAFER assumption is that there IS NO "Heavenly Mother", and your goofy leaders just babbled on about her, and you've been bamboozled into believing them. :shrug:

Sparko
06-22-2014, 04:22 PM
I certainly do have some issues with it. Not only is it based on all kinds of assumptions, but it is also demeaning to mothers here on earth.

The phrase Sparko appealed to about being "pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen" is meant to denigrate women. It is meant to demean mothers who want to be "homemakers" and who want to raise their own children in the home.

It is a devilish tactic, and it looks like Sparko and yourself have fallen for it.

so you are basically saying I was right, but I shouldn't have used that phrase.




More assumptions. Saying that they are going to be "birthing spirit children" makes it sound like a mortal and physical pregnancy. (It is a deceptive tactic that anti-Mormons use in order to use words with negative connotations.) Why do you assume that spiritual creation entails a physical "birthing" process?

Really???? Don't you believe that God and his wives have PHYSICAL bodies and engage in PHYSICAL intercourse?

And while we are on the subject, how did God get Mary pregnant according to the mormons? Hmm?

Bill the Cat
06-23-2014, 09:51 AM
More assumptions. Saying that they are going to be "birthing spirit children" makes it sound like a mortal and physical pregnancy. (It is a deceptive tactic that anti-Mormons use in order to use words with negative connotations.) Why do you assume that spiritual creation entails a physical "birthing" process?

God "created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
(Brigham Young, JOD 11:122)

Sparko
06-23-2014, 11:13 AM
Time to toss BY under the bus again.

3....2...1...

seven7up
06-23-2014, 06:43 PM
Yes, I've seen your comments about hell in other threads. Since that seems to be another major objection of yours to "traditional" Christianity, I'm happy to discuss that with you once more time frees up. Right now I'm posting at the expense of doing housework. Though I have to ask....what do you do then with all of Jesus' teachings about hell? Do you think all the Gospels are corrupt and Jesus actually taught something different, which God was somehow unable to preserve in the centuries before Smith showed up?

I believe in hell, I just disagree with those evangelicals who believe that the billions who never even heard the gospel get an automatic ticket to hell.

I suppose that is another topic for another thread.




If the LDS church really is the Most True Church, then leaving it would be wrong and therefore deserving of some kind of punishment. If Joseph Smith's teachings were from him and not God, then I don't see a problem in pointing out how his teachings are designed to draw people into Mormonism and keep them there.

However, this does bring up the question of why leaving the LDS church -- i.e. rejecting Smith as a prophet -- is really the worst sin.If I'm understanding the doctrine correctly, an atheist who rejects Jesus' dying for his sins but manages to be a "nice person" and not a serial killer goes to one of the lesser heavens and/or gets more chances to repent in the next life, while a Mormon who leaves the church but accepts Jesus as their savior is in danger of Outer Darkness.

It isn't a "second chance". Those who reject the gospel in this life had their chance. The preaching in the spirit world is for those who never had the opportunity to accept the gospel in the first place, or perhaps if the gospel was not presented properly (for example, the inquisition or crusades where you had something like "accept Jesus or we will kill and torture you" does not really count).


Is this really the case -- is rejecting Smith and his teachings a bigger sin than rejecting God the Son himself? If so, why?

No. It is not a bigger sin. If the Holy Spirit has revealed to an individual that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints IS Christ's church, then rejecting the will of the Son of God is what that individual is doing.

-7up

seven7up
06-23-2014, 06:57 PM
7up Wrote: More assumptions. Saying that they are going to be "birthing spirit children" makes it sound like a mortal and physical pregnancy. (It is a deceptive tactic that anti-Mormons use in order to use words with negative connotations.) Why do you assume that spiritual creation entails a physical "birthing" process?


Time to toss BY under the bus again.

3....2...1...

Wrong. As usual, Bill doesn't know what he is talking about. If you want to know what Mormons believe, you cannot trust Bill to provide you with accurate information.

Bill quotes:




"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.

That is not understood by LDS to be referring to the creation of the spirit, but instead a theory in LDS theology concerning the procreation of Adam's body.

This is speculation, and it has been a competing theory that is contrary to those (including LDS) who believe in organic evolution of man kind. In summary, it goes like this:

Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother consumed the fruit of Earth, and that fruit was a product of the "dust of the earth". By means of procreation, Adam was a literal child of God, but was immortal, having immortal parents.

Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of him who dwells in the heavens (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, pg. 222; JD 13:310.)

The Apostle Paul says we are the "offspring of God" and Luke's genealogy in the New Testament reads like this: “... which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

Here is where the theory is expanded upon by previous LDS leaders:

“I believe that Adam’s physical body was the offspring of God, literally (Moses 6:33); that he was begotten as a baby with a physical body not subject to death, in a world without sin or blood; and that he grew to manhood in that condition then became mortal through his own actions. I believe that Adam’s physical body was begotten by our immortal celestial Father and an immortal celestial Mother, and thus not into a condition of mortality, a condition which would have precluded Jesus from being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh" (D&C 93:11) - Robert J. Matthews (former Dean of Religion at BYU)

“Our father Adam—that is our earthly father—the progenitor of the human race of man, stands at the head being ‘Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,’ and…was not fashioned from earth like an adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven.” —(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:101-103.)

(Brigham Young) taught that, literally, God is our Father; than men are of the same race--the race called humans; and that God, the Progenitor, or Creator, is the Father of the human race.... - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:101-103
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

So, Bill uses the quote from Brigham to refer to the creation of spirits, however, it is discussing the procreation of the physical body of Adam.

Like I said, there are other beliefs in the LDS church on this subject (for example, some LDS believe in evolution). There is no set doctrine on the subject, because the details have not been provided in scripture.

-7up

seven7up
06-23-2014, 07:48 PM
7up wrote: I certainly do have some issues with (the denigration of the motherhood of a Divine female). Not only is it based on all kinds of assumptions, but it is also demeaning to mothers here on earth.


Agreed! Mormonism at its finest. :shrug:

Denigrating motherhood is anti-Mormonism at its finest.


No, the phrase ("barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen") Sparko was using was intended to show the pompous attitude of Mormonism toward women.

The concept that men and women are different, and even may serve different roles, is hardly "pompous". And that is hardly a "Mormon" concept. Quite arguably, it is a Biblical concept.

7UP: More assumptions. Saying that they are going to be "birthing spirit children" makes it sound like a mortal and physical pregnancy. (It is a deceptive tactic that anti-Mormons use in order to use words with negative connotations.) Why do you assume that spiritual creation entails a physical "birthing" process?


Fact is, you don't have a CLUE! This is yet another topic your guys threw out there without the slightest idea of how it works.

I think that it is safe to assume that physical children are produced through physical processes, and spiritual children are produced through spiritual processes.

Would you have a good reason to assume otherwise?

You ARE correct that LDS do not have detailed doctrine about exactly how spirits are created.

7up: What does Mother God do? I don't know.


That's probably the most accurate statement you've made.

Most LDS feel that the teaching of Heavenly Mother is a very sacred truth, and we won't know much about it in this life. It is a pearl that "swine will trample under foot". As I said, this thread is evidence enough of that.

7up: What does God the Father do?


Well, gosh, Seven --- we have LOTS of ideas on THAT, because HE is actually IN the Bible!

Yes. And for the most part, the Father delegates. He delegates to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, angels, human servants, etc.

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

7up: Let me give you a safer assumption to work with. The relationship between a mother and father includes mutual love and respect. How's that for a novel concept to your primitive mind set?


The SAFER assumption is that there IS NO "Heavenly Mother"

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'... male and female God created them." (Gen 1)

-7up

Cow Poke
06-24-2014, 04:09 AM
Most LDS feel that the teaching of Heavenly Mother is a very sacred truth

"Heavenly Mother" is more "sacred" than GOD? I don't have time to respond in detail right now, but FairMormon explains that Mormons tend to use this rationale, but it's poor logic. :wink:

This is an entirely "made up" doctrine, you can't support it, so you weenie out of it by saying "it's too sacred to talk about".

That's just dumb, and cowardly.

Sparko
06-24-2014, 06:11 AM
I believe in hell, I just disagree with those evangelicals who believe that the billions who never even heard the gospel get an automatic ticket to hell.

They don't get sent to hell because they have not heard the gospel. They get sent to hell because they have sinned. Hearing the gospel, and believing in Jesus, is how we are saved from going to hell.

So what you really don't believe that that Jesus will save those who believe in him.

Kind Debater
06-24-2014, 06:59 AM
I believe in hell, I just disagree with those evangelicals who believe that the billions who never even heard the gospel get an automatic ticket to hell.

I suppose that is another topic for another thread.


I foresee a thread on hell in the future, only I don't have time for it right now.



No. It is not a bigger sin. If the Holy Spirit has revealed to an individual that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints IS Christ's church, then rejecting the will of the Son of God is what that individual is doing.


Arguably there are cases where sin is big enough that its presence in a person's life would indicate that person doesn't truly regard God as their God, e.g. someone continuing in adultery with an "I don't care if it's wrong, it makes me happy" attitude. But what is it about rejecting LDS-specific teachings that constitutes a big enough sin to merit hell, despite trusting in Jesus? I guess I'm talking about essential vs. non-essential doctrine here. E.g. my pastor said recently that someone can disbelieve that the stories in the OT are literally true yet still be saved -- he explained why disbelieving them would be a bad idea and have negative ramifications, but he didn't regard that as something that would throw one's salvation into question. What LDS doctrines are so essential that denying them means one isn't saved?

BTW, I sent you a PM. Just checking if you saw it since I think email/popup notifications are off by default.

Cow Poke
06-24-2014, 07:47 AM
Most LDS feel that the teaching of Heavenly Mother is a very sacred truth, and we won't know much about it in this life.

How do you know what "Most LDS feel"? You got a survey on that? ANYTHING to substantiate that? The Mormons I know (including two families who have left your Church) think that the "Heavenly Mother" thing is something that early Church leaders came up with, but the Church doesn't really have a way of dealing with, so they'd rather just pretend it wasn't there, OR, claim it is one of those "sacred truths" we don't talk about.

Here is what FairMormon has to say about your line of reasoning: (bolding mine)
In trying to fathom why there are only scant and vague references to a Heavenly Mother in LDS theology, Church members who might have had good intentions but no inspiration or authority to speak on the matter have arrived at false conclusions. Perhaps the most common bad explanation for our lack of information on Heavenly Mother is the idea that she is being "protected" by our Heavenly Father from the blasphemy he and the Son endure. This is an old-fashioned bit of folk-wisdom steeped in the benevolent sexism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It's a misapplication of the "courtly love" and romantic notions that were once important in Western literature, manners, and sexual politics. These kinds of protective ideals were well-rooted in Western culture centuries before the Church was restored.

We have found no evidence of a Church leader, male or female, talking about Heavenly Mother being "protected" by her own obscurity in LDS doctrine. Though this was once a widely spread idea it appears to be little more than speculative folk-wisdom unsupported by prophetic revelation.

Please feel free to abandon this bit of "old-fashioned bit of folk-wisdom steeped in the benevolent sexism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries". :wink:


It is a pearl that "swine will trample under foot".

This is what you claim when you can't support one of your goofy ideas.... And it's both dishonest and cowardly.


As I said, this thread is evidence enough of that.

No, what that's evidence of is that you're about the POOREST Mormon "apologist" we've dealt with. You cannot defend your positions, so you revert to this "pearl before swine" nonsense.

Bill the Cat
06-24-2014, 08:02 AM
Wrong. As usual, Bill doesn't know what he is talking about. If you want to know what Mormons believe, you cannot trust Bill to provide you with accurate information.

Bill knows EXACTLY what he is talking about. It is you who wiggles and squirms to try to avoid what BY plainly said.



Bill quotes:


"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122.

That is not understood by LDS to be referring to the creation of the spirit, but instead a theory in LDS theology concerning the procreation of Adam's body.

Then the LDS are throwing Young under the bus, as Sparko said they would. BY immediately goes on to proclaim:

There exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned to fulfill their destiny in all the varied kingdoms and orders of creation, and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting

In both quotes, BY said that there is no other method of creation, or "procreation", in heaven or on earth. This means the manner of spirits being begotten is the same as the manner of our flesh being begotten.


This is speculation, and it has been a competing theory that is contrary to those (including LDS) who believe in organic evolution of man kind.

Brigham Young said, just before the part about creation of our offspring, "In all my public administration as a minister of truth, I have never yet been under the necessity of preaching, believing, or practicing doctrines that are not fully and clearly set forth in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of Mormon."
http://journalofdiscourses.com/11/19

He does not call these beliefs "theory". He calls them "doctrine"


In summary, it goes like this:

Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother consumed the fruit of Earth, and that fruit was a product of the "dust of the earth". By means of procreation, Adam was a literal child of God, but was immortal, having immortal parents.

Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of him who dwells in the heavens (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, pg. 222; JD 13:310.)

The Apostle Paul says we are the "offspring of God" and Luke's genealogy in the New Testament reads like this: “... which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

Here is where the theory is expanded upon by previous LDS leaders:

“I believe that Adam’s physical body was the offspring of God, literally (Moses 6:33); that he was begotten as a baby with a physical body not subject to death, in a world without sin or blood; and that he grew to manhood in that condition then became mortal through his own actions. I believe that Adam’s physical body was begotten by our immortal celestial Father and an immortal celestial Mother, and thus not into a condition of mortality, a condition which would have precluded Jesus from being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh" (D&C 93:11) - Robert J. Matthews (former Dean of Religion at BYU)

“Our father Adam—that is our earthly father—the progenitor of the human race of man, stands at the head being ‘Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,’ and…was not fashioned from earth like an adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven.” —(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:101-103.)

(Brigham Young) taught that, literally, God is our Father; than men are of the same race--the race called humans; and that God, the Progenitor, or Creator, is the Father of the human race.... - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:101-103
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

So, Bill uses the quote from Brigham to refer to the creation of spirits, however, it is discussing the procreation of the physical body of Adam.

Brigham said there was no difference in creation on earth or in the heavens, nor was there ever another manner of creation. He says the two are the same method.


Footnote 9: President Brigham Young, General Conference address, 8 October 1876, location not specified. Brigham Young claimed that “God . . . had children upon the same principle that children are now begotten” (Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal: 1833–1898 Typescript [Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984]

So, yes. Bill knows EXACTLY what he is talking about.

Sparko
06-24-2014, 08:29 AM
Prophet meet bus.
http://kareemslater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bus11.jpg

Cow Poke
06-24-2014, 09:08 AM
Well, let's let Seven throw Hinckley under the bus, too....



As President Gordon B. Hinckley observed:

Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven...The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her...none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.

Basically, he's saying that Mormons should believe there's a "Heavenly Mother" from "logic and reason", but then goes on to say it's inappropriate to talk to her. :doh:

How "logical" and "reasonable" is it to teach children, "you can talk to your father, but NOT to your mother"? WHO MAKES THIS STUFF UP?!?!?!?! :rant:

seven7up
07-07-2014, 06:36 PM
"Heavenly Mother" is more "sacred" than GOD?

No. "Heavenly Mother" is understood to be as Divine as God the Father. It is not that one is God and the other is not. They are, both together, God, so one cannot be "more sacred" than the other.


.... you weenie out of it by saying "it's too sacred to talk about"

We don't talk about it often, because we don't have detailed information.


And, as I mentioned previously, this thread has sufficient evidence for the lack of respect for the sacred and holy. Here you have it.

Jesus Christ discussed what happens when pearls are trampled by swine. Here we see a perfect example by the LDS critics on this thread.


-7up

seven7up
07-07-2014, 06:39 PM
They don't get sent to hell because they have not heard the gospel. They get sent to hell because they have sinned. Hearing the gospel, and believing in Jesus, is how we are saved from going to hell.

So what you really don't believe that that Jesus will save those who believe in him.

How do you expect them to believe in something they have never even heard of?

-7up

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 06:41 PM
No. "Heavenly Mother" is understood to be as Divine as God the Father. It is not that one is God and the other is not. They are, both together, God, so one cannot be "more sacred" than the other.

Yeah, just like your men and women have equal standing in your Church. :lolo:


We don't talk about it often, because we don't have detailed information.

Yeah, because it's a totally made up "doctrine" - like the cancellation of "eternal sealings" when Mormons get divorced, and nobody knows to whom the children of said cancelled "eternal sealings" are sealed. :glare:


And, as I mentioned previously, this thread has sufficient evidence for the lack of respect for the sacred and holy. Here you have it.

I don't respect totally made up nonsense. It's neither sacred NOR holy.


Jesus Christ discussed what happens when pearls are trampled by swine. Here we see a perfect example by the LDS critics on this thread.


-7up

Yeah, lacking any real defense of your faith, bring on the goofy "pearls before swine" garbage.

You're about as good an "apologist" as I am a ballerina. :wink:

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:00 PM
Bill knows EXACTLY what he is talking about. It is you who wiggles and squirms to try to avoid what BY plainly said.

You are going beyond what Brigham said.

You have said that the creation of SPIRITUAL beings is a result of PHYSICAL action. That is not what Brigham Young said.

I am not throwing Brigham under the bus. I am throwing your rampant assumptions under the bus.

There exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned to fulfill their destiny in all the varied kingdoms and orders of creation, and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting. - Brigham Young


In both quotes, BY said that there is no other method of creation, or "procreation", in heaven or on earth. This means the manner of spirits being begotten is the same as the manner of our flesh being begotten.

No Bill, it does not mean that. It means that there are laws of existence that have always been there and always will be. There exist principles from eternity to eternity. For you to jump to the conclusions and interpret Brigham's words beyond to mean something beyond what he actually said is all to frequent with your posts on this forum.

Footnote 9: President Brigham Young, General Conference address, 8 October 1876, location not specified. Brigham Young claimed that “God . . . had children upon the same principle that children are now begotten” (Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal: 1833–1898 Typescript [Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984]

And what PRINCIPLE would that be Bill?

According to you, the principle is "physical sexual intercourse".

You are a fool.

-7up

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:05 PM
Yeah, just like your men and women have equal standing in your Church.

The Biblical doctrine applies in the home and in the church.


.... "eternal sealings" when Mormons get divorced, and nobody knows to whom the children of said cancelled "eternal sealings" are sealed.

Who will go to heaven? Who will go to hell?

God will judge.


I don't respect totally made up nonsense. It's neither sacred NOR holy.

That is why I suspect you are the kind of person who pulls off the hats of Orthodox Jews, then you pull their hair and tell them how stupid they look with all of their "nonsense". You are a despicable human being, and you don't even realize it.


Yeah, lacking any real defense of your faith, bring on the goofy "pearls before swine" garbage.

It is the truth, and you are the swine.

Good luck with your miserable life.

-7up

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:10 PM
That is why I suspect you are the kind of person who pulls off the hats of Orthodox Jews, then you pull their hair and tell them how stupid they look with all of their "nonsense".

Yeah, I just got back from Israel, where I actually traveled WITH Orthodox Jews and we actually got along just great! :smile: So, back to your goofy fantasy world. (you're really sounding unhinged)


You are a despicable human being, and you don't even realize it.

Your inability to defend your faith leads you to these ridiculous statements, and you're fooling nobody but yourself. :shrug:


It is the truth, and you are the swine.

Yeah, I'll stay up all night worrying about what some crackpot on Tweb said. :lolo:

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:12 PM
Well, let's let Seven throw Hinckley under the bus, too....



As President Gordon B. Hinckley observed:

Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven...The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her...none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.

Basically, he's saying that Mormons should believe there's a "Heavenly Mother" from "logic and reason", but then goes on to say it's inappropriate to talk to her. :doh:

How "logical" and "reasonable" is it to teach children, "you can talk to your father, but NOT to your mother"? WHO MAKES THIS STUFF UP?!?!?!?! :rant:

This goes back to our old discussion, about how Jesus specifically taught us to pray, "Pray to the Father, in my name".

To follow Christ's specific instructions does not denigrate Christ in any way, nor would it "denigrate" our Heavenly Mother.

This life is a blink of an eye compared to eternity. The knowledge we have here is nothing to what we will know and experience in eternity.

-7up

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:16 PM
Who will go to heaven? Who will go to hell?

God will judge.

Yeah, that brings up another nutty teaching of your Church:

" . . . no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

Good Ol' Brigham Young! :doh:

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:17 PM
This goes back to our old discussion, about how Jesus specifically taught us to pray, "Pray to the Father, in my name".

-7up

Because Jesus knew there was no "Heavenly Mother". NOWHERE is that taught in the Bible.

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:17 PM
Yeah, I just got back from Israel, where I actually traveled WITH Orthodox Jews and we actually got along just great!

So, you did not mock what they held sacred? How unlike you.

You must have faked it. You just paid them lip service, just like the god you pretend to serve.

Did you tell them what you REALLY believe? That they are all going to Hell for eternity for rejecting the Savior?

-7up

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:19 PM
Yeah, that brings up another nutty teaching of your Church:

" . . . no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

Good Ol' Brigham Young! :doh:

That just brings up another out of context quote that proves how much of a liar you are. Figures since you are serving the father of lies. Especially, since I already debunked it on this forum.

-7up

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:19 PM
So, you did not mock what they held sacred? How unlike you.

I oppose false teachings, and false prophets. Not ancient history and real teachings of the Bible.


You must have faked it. You just paid them lip service, just like the god you pretend to serve.

And, once again, lacking anything of substance, you go to personal attacks. Quite childish. :shrug:

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:21 PM
That just brings up another out of context quote that proves how much of a liar you are. Figures since you are serving the father of lies. Especially, since I already debunked it on this forum.

-7up

I think you're competing for "nuttiest Mormon we've ever had on Tweb". And really exposing all those "Mormons are wonderful kind loving people" stereotypes. :wink:

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:24 PM
I foresee a thread on hell in the future, only I don't have time for it right now.



Arguably there are cases where sin is big enough that its presence in a person's life would indicate that person doesn't truly regard God as their God, e.g. someone continuing in adultery with an "I don't care if it's wrong, it makes me happy" attitude. But what is it about rejecting LDS-specific teachings that constitutes a big enough sin to merit hell, despite trusting in Jesus? I guess I'm talking about essential vs. non-essential doctrine here. E.g. my pastor said recently that someone can disbelieve that the stories in the OT are literally true yet still be saved -- he explained why disbelieving them would be a bad idea and have negative ramifications, but he didn't regard that as something that would throw one's salvation into question. What LDS doctrines are so essential that denying them means one isn't saved?

BTW, I sent you a PM. Just checking if you saw it since I think email/popup notifications are off by default.


I will check my PM soon.

I respect you KD. You are the only one on this forum who even attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The others here are all just pretenders.

As for your question, I cannot say what are "essential doctrines" and what are not. I would simply say that if the Holy Spirit has testified to an individual that the Restored church is truth, then it is a sin to reject the truth that was revealed by the Holy Spirit.

-7up

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:26 PM
And, once again, lacking anything of substance, you go to personal attacks. Quite childish. :shrug:

Pointing out that you do not live the teachings of Christ, (obviously mocking the sacred beliefs of others is an example), is not a personal attack.

You and the others on this thread claim to follow Jesus, but you clearly do not.

-7up

seven7up
07-07-2014, 07:30 PM
7up: So, you did not mock what they (Orthodox Jews) held sacred? How unlike you.


I oppose false teachings, and false prophets. ...


They reject Jesus as Lord and Savior. Isn't that a false teaching?

-7up

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:42 PM
7up: So, you did not mock what they (Orthodox Jews) held sacred?

Nope. They do subscribe to a totally made up book and follow a false prophet. :shrug: And they answer to God, not me.


How unlike you.

Are you 12?


They reject Jesus as Lord and Savior. Isn't that a false teaching?

-7up

God has a plan for them.

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:46 PM
Pointing out that you do not live the teachings of Christ, (obviously mocking the sacred beliefs of others is an example), is not a personal attack.

You and the others on this thread claim to follow Jesus, but you clearly do not.

-7up

WAAAANNNNNNnnnnnnhhhhhhhh, Seven is MOCKING Me!!!!!! WAAAAaaanannnnhhhhhhh




Seriously, Seven, I see nothing wrong with standing up to your false prophet and your phony BoM.... and just because you think yours is a "sacred belief" does not make Smith any less a con man, or make the BoM "real".

I follow Jesus -- just not the one your false prophet invented.

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 07:49 PM
Pointing out that you do not live the teachings of Christ, (obviously mocking the sacred beliefs of others is an example), is not a personal attack.

Would you mind showing me where the Bible prohibits me from opposing the false teachings of a cult?

Thanks

Cow Poke
07-08-2014, 06:10 AM
I will check my PM soon.

I respect you KD. You are the only one on this forum who even attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Then, perhaps you could stop ignoring KD's thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2589-Raca-One-Word-Could-Mean-the-Fall-of-Mormonism&p=72620&viewfull=1#post72620)! :idea:

Kind Debater
07-08-2014, 07:07 AM
I will check my PM soon.

So I sent 7up a PM, which he failed to notice due to the screwiness of the notification system. Realizing this, I posted about it on this thread, and then when he didn't read that post (until yesterday), I posted about it on the ex nihilo thread, and then he finally read it. And then he reads the post on this thread, and... :doh: (7up, next time I feel the need to inform you that your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries, I'll just do it in a post. :smile:)


Then, perhaps you could stop ignoring KD's thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2589-Raca-One-Word-Could-Mean-the-Fall-of-Mormonism&p=72620&viewfull=1#post72620)! :idea:

And now CP has me confused with Digital Inkling.

Gosh, a gal could start to feel almost invisible, you know... :uneasy:

(BTW, I'm not mad at all at either of you, I just thought it was funny to see two communication failures on the same page. :smile:)

Kind Debater
07-08-2014, 07:21 AM
Then, perhaps you could stop ignoring KD's thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2589-Raca-One-Word-Could-Mean-the-Fall-of-Mormonism&p=72620&viewfull=1#post72620)! :idea:

Since CP brought it up...it would be nice, 7up, if you responded to this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2149-Carbon-Dioxide-s-Anti-Mormon-Training-Thread&p=61795&viewfull=1#post61795).

tabibito
07-08-2014, 08:26 AM
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'... male and female God created them." (Gen 1)
And the verb (make) conjugation is singular, showing that elohim is not, in fact, plural but the intensive singular. It is equivalent to the "royal we" - which is readily apparent with even the most elementary understanding of how Hebrew works.

Mormon teachings regarding the creation of Adam, if they have been accurately cited, are directly contradictory of the Genesis account of his creation. In truth, I do have reservations about whether the Genesis account is factual, but the Mormon account doesn't in any way act to address the difficulties with Genesis ... it simply adds a different kind of difficulty.

Bill the Cat
07-08-2014, 06:25 PM
I respect you KD. You are the only one on this forum who even attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The others here are all just pretenders.


I'll take that as a complement, since you lack the Holy Spirit, and therefore don't know of the things of God. :smug:

Bill the Cat
07-08-2014, 06:34 PM
You are going beyond what Brigham said.

No I am not. He plainly stated it. It's YOU who has to spin and twist to make it into something besides the plain meaning of what Brigham said.


You have said that the creation of SPIRITUAL beings is a result of PHYSICAL action. That is not what Brigham Young said.

It's exactly what he said. He said ALL procreation happens the same way in every reality.


I am not throwing Brigham under the bus. I am throwing your rampant assumptions under the bus.

:rofl: You grabbed Brigham's beard and suspenders and chunked him like a pumpkin.


There exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned to fulfill their destiny in all the varied kingdoms and orders of creation, and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting. - Brigham Young

That's clarified by his statement: "[God] created man, as we create our children".


No Bill, it does not mean that.

Bologna. How do we create our children? Through sexual intercourse and gestation.


It means that there are laws of existence that have always been there and always will be.

And that they are the same laws that govern how we create our own children.


There exist principles from eternity to eternity. For you to jump to the conclusions and interpret Brigham's words beyond to mean something beyond what he actually said is all to frequent with your posts on this forum.

Oh come off it! I showed you the context of what he was teaching on, and it is YOU who has had to spin it into something he didn't mean. That's par for the course with you, your posts here, and your stupid video series.


Footnote 9: President Brigham Young, General Conference address, 8 October 1876, location not specified. Brigham Young claimed that “God . . . had children upon the same principle that children are now begotten” (Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal: 1833–1898 Typescript [Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1984]

And what PRINCIPLE would that be Bill?

SEX


According to you, the principle is "physical sexual intercourse".

And unless you have a direct quote from this discourse refuting it, then the context stands.


You are a fool.



And you are a desperate loser who needs the real Jesus.

Cow Poke
07-08-2014, 07:43 PM
SEX

:stunned:

One Bad Pig
07-10-2014, 10:20 AM
You're about as good an "apologist" as I am a ballerina. :wink:
I'm sure you could do as well at ballet as a 320-lb football player (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/22954120/steve-mclendon-ballet-is-harder-than-anything-else-i-do). :yes: