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

  • Cow Poke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kind Debater
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    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?

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    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:

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    "[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
    Last edited by seven7up; 06-23-2014, 10:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    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.



    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    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).

    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Time to toss BY under the bus again.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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.

    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. 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!

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Kind Debater
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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!

    Source: 1 Peter 3:15 (KJ21)

    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.

    © Copyright Original Source



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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Sparko, 04-04-2019, 02:28 PM
26 responses
11,369 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Working...
X