Since MAN can become God, why not women?

[Cow Poke]

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.

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

Why does this not surprise me?

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.

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!

[seven7up]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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"?

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.

[Sparko]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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?

[Kind Debater]

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]

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]

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.

[Sparko]

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]

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]

Time to toss BY under the bus again.

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

[seven7up]

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]

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