Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Since MAN can become God, why not women?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Agreed! Mormonism at its finest.
    Denigrating motherhood is anti-Mormonism at its finest.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      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.

      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.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by 7up
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            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)
            Source: Fair

            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.

            © Copyright Original Source



            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".

            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.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              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:

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat
              "[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:

              Source: http://journalofdiscourses.com/11/19

              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

              © Copyright Original Source



              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.

              Source: Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam by Matthew B. Brown, Delivered at the 2009 FAIR Conference, Sandy, Utah.


              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]

              © Copyright Original Source



              So, yes. Bill knows EXACTLY what he is talking about.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #37
                Prophet meet bus.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Well, let's let Seven throw Hinckley under the bus, too....

                  Source: FairMormon.org



                  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.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  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.

                  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?!?!?!?!
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    "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.

                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    .... 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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        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.

                        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.

                        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.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          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

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Yeah, just like your men and women have equal standing in your Church.
                            The Biblical doctrine applies in the home and in the church.

                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            .... "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.

                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            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.

                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              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! 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.

                              It is the truth, and you are the swine.
                              Yeah, I'll stay up all night worrying about what some crackpot on Tweb said.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Well, let's let Seven throw Hinckley under the bus, too....

                                Source: FairMormon.org



                                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.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                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.

                                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?!?!?!?!
                                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

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X