Since MAN can become God, why not women?

[One Bad Pig]

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

I'm sure you could do as well at ballet as a 320-lb football player.

[Cow Poke]

SEX

[Bill the Cat]

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.

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.

[Bill the Cat]

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.

[tabibito]

"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.

[Kind Debater]

Then, perhaps you could stop ignoring KD's thread here!

Since CP brought it up...it would be nice, 7up, if you responded to this post.

[Kind Debater]

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... (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. )

Then, perhaps you could stop ignoring KD's thread here!

And now CP has me confused with Digital Inkling.

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

(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. )

[Cow Poke]

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!

[Cow Poke]

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]

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]

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. 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.

[seven7up]

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

[seven7up]

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

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]

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

[Cow Poke]

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.