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

7up's War on Motherhood

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

  • Kind Debater
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    That isn't what the quotes say; he is talking about the husband supporting the "family", not just the wife. You can't just extend those quotes and make the assumption that this includes when the children are no longer living at home.
    I disagree. The arguments that Benson and Kimball provided would apply equally well to a childless or empty-nest marriage. But I don't think it's worth arguing over what a third party meant.

    You are exactly right that the scriptures you mention are referring to situations where the kids are already grown up and out of the house.
    I said Proverbs 31 may refer to that situation. I don't think it's a clear-cut case.

    So, KD, you really didn't address the scriptures that John MacArthur goes into, which is the same as the LDS quotes, which is about raising a family, .... but instead you tried to deflect by talking about a different kind of situation, when kids are grown up and out of the home.
    If your argument is that women with children at home should not work, I don't feel strongly enough about that to argue the point with you. I responded to your post on MacArthur's sermon because you seemed so keen for someone to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I don't know any women who exist only for that purpose either. So, why do you say it?


    -7up
    Because it's goofy that Smith came up with that idea. It's HIS view of women, not mine. It's dishonest of you to try to make it mine. You're the guy who has chose to follow the deceiver.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Of course not -- and no women I know exist for the purpose of endlessly producing "spirit children".

    I don't know any women who exist only for that purpose either. So, why do you say it?

    It is like claiming that man's ONLY purpose is to endlessly create sperm?


    You don't have a real argument to make, so instead, you are just being ridiculous.


    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 12-06-2014, 02:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Well, here's the problem.....

    The Mormons teach that God is a physical man.
    One would have to ASSUME that "Heavenly Mother" was a physical woman, to be married to a physical man.
    Correct.

    However, when creating spirits, they are spirits, not physical children. It is a spiritual process, not a physical one. So, get your mind out of the gutter.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    But SOMEHOW, she endlessly spews forth offspring, ....
    Real cute Cow Poke.

    When you go up to a mother with a new born, do you ask her, "Hey, when did you 'spew forth' that one"? Are you really this big of a jerk in real life?


    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    But SOMEHOW, she endlessly spews forth offspring, with not a CLUE about how they were "procreated".

    You are correct. LDS do not know exactly how God created the Universe. We do not know exactly how spiritual communication works. We do not know exactly how God is omniscient, or how time works for Deity. We do not know exactly how resurrection works. We do not know how God does a lot of things. What is your point?


    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Now, they CLAIM that these offspring are "spirit babies", but the Bible says...

    Source: John 3:6

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Not only have you taken this verse out of context entirely and completely misapplied it, but even when you do that, your argument doesn't hold anyways.

    We are all beings with both a physical body AND a spirit. We all know that the physical bodies of two individuals can procreate and the result is a physical being. This is something we witness in our world. Now, the idea is that in eternity, the spirit of two individuals can create a spiritual being.

    So, this being the case, flesh is begotten from flesh and spirit is begotten by spirit. However, that verse you cited is an entirely different context with an entirely different meaning, so, I don't know why you brought it up in your failed attempt to use scripture against me.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    7up: Is this how you view women?
    Of course not -- and no women I know exist for the purpose of endlessly producing "spirit children". It's an idea Joseph Smith totally made up, and I think it's silly.

    I REALLY think it's silly and immature of you to constantly be trying to turn things around like you did. Smith came up with some nutty ideas, and your "defense" is to attack your opponent with goofy untruths or allegations.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
    The actual link is: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...-women-part-2?

    It may well be the case that the Proverbs 31 wife's children are grown (her husband sits with the elders, her children are old enough to call her blessed), and therefore she has time to have a clothing business. But it sounds like Kimball would say that even a woman with grown children -- any wife -- should not be working because it's too disruptive to home life and makes her less dependent on her husband.
    That isn't what the quotes say; he is talking about the husband supporting the "family", not just the wife. You can't just extend those quotes and make the assumption that this includes when the children are no longer living at home.

    You are exactly right that the scriptures you mention are referring to situations where the kids are already grown up and out of the house.

    So, KD, you really didn't address the scriptures that John MacArthur goes into, which is the same as the LDS quotes, which is about raising a family, .... but instead you tried to deflect by talking about a different kind of situation, when kids are grown up and out of the home.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    The idea that you have a female in Heaven relegated to the role of endlessly squirting out spirit babies is beyond goofy.
    7up: Is this how you view women?

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think you are by far one of the DUMBEST Mormons we've had in a while. Of COURSE that's not how I view women.

    It would make sense to revere and view a Heavenly Mother with the the kind of respect, deference and love that one has towards our earthly mothers.

    However, you seem to think that mothers are nothing more that people who just "squirt out babies", and therefore, that is how you imagine a Heavenly Mother.

    Your perspective is obviously twisted.

    7up: The creation of spiritual children should not be considered the same as creating physical children, so your offensive way of describing babies "squirting" out isn't applicable anyways.


    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Well, what ELSE can Momma God do if she's ... um.... "delivering" babies a zillion at a time?

    In this post, you claim that I am "DUMB".

    Yet, YOU are so close minded, that you apparently imagine that the creation of spirits includes "squirting out babies". And what Cow Poke? Do they squirt out of some kind of spiritual vagina?

    It is pretty clear who is being "DUMB" in this thread, and it ain't me buddy.


    Let me repeat this again: The creation of spiritual children is not the same as the creation of physical children.

    Get it?


    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Kind Debater
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I am waiting to see if any of you are willing to read and address the Biblical teachings about the role of women, even as presented by solidly gounded evangelicals like John M.

    I provided the link. Here it is again. In part 2 he goes into the detail of the Biblical text here: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...r-Women-Part-2

    Any takers?

    -7up
    The actual link is: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...-women-part-2?

    I agree with some of what MacArthur says but not all of it. Mainly, I think he is not considering Proverbs 31:16, 18 and 24. It's clear that the Proverbs 31 wife is contributing financially to the household, and is probably providing more than a "little bit of income". Therefore I don't think "working at home" in Titus 2:5 excludes what we would today call "working from home".

    Originally posted by 7up
    LDS leaders have often expressed that they understand that certain circumstances will require women to work outside of the home.
    That sounds to me like a tactful rephrasing of "Only in an emergency should a wife secure outside employment."

    Here are the original quotes Sparko provided:

    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! --Ezra Taft Benson

    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... --Spencer W. Kimball
    It looks to me like the Proverbs 31 wife is violating the standards set by Benson and Kimball. She's going out and buying a field and planting a vineyard. She's delivering her sashes to a merchant, selling clothes and making a profit, which is an independent source of income.

    Then there's Priscilla, who worked alongside her husband (Acts 18:2-3) rather than focusing on their home.

    It may well be the case that the Proverbs 31 wife's children are grown (her husband sits with the elders, her children are old enough to call her blessed), and therefore she has time to have a clothing business. But it sounds like Kimball would say that even a woman with grown children -- any wife -- should not be working because it's too disruptive to home life and makes her less dependent on her husband.

    So, 7up, do you think women without children at home should be allowed to work/earn a second income?

    Leave a comment:


  • Christianbookworm
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Well, here's the problem.....

    The Mormons teach that God is a physical man.
    One would have to ASSUME that "Heavenly Mother" was a physical woman, to be married to a physical man.

    But SOMEHOW, she endlessly spews forth offspring, with not a CLUE about how they were "procreated".
    Now, they CLAIM that these offspring are "spirit babies", but the Bible says...

    Source: John 3:6

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    © Copyright Original Source



    It's just one of the DUMBEST doctrines around.

    But it does not surprise me in the least that Seven swallows it hook, line and stinker.
    And then the spirit babies have to get born all over! No rocket ships?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
    Maybe she just lays eggs and they get put in a spirit baby incubator/womb/birthing matrix factory?
    Well, here's the problem.....

    The Mormons teach that God is a physical man.
    One would have to ASSUME that "Heavenly Mother" was a physical woman, to be married to a physical man.

    But SOMEHOW, she endlessly spews forth offspring, with not a CLUE about how they were "procreated".
    Now, they CLAIM that these offspring are "spirit babies", but the Bible says...

    Source: John 3:6

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    © Copyright Original Source



    It's just one of the DUMBEST doctrines around.

    But it does not surprise me in the least that Seven swallows it hook, line and stinker.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christianbookworm
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think you are by far one of the DUMBEST Mormons we've had in a while. Of COURSE that's not how I view women.



    Well, what ELSE can Momma God do if she's ... um.... "delivering" babies a zillion at a time?
    Maybe she just lays eggs and they get put in a spirit baby incubator/womb/birthing matrix factory?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Is this how you view women?
    I think you are by far one of the DUMBEST Mormons we've had in a while. Of COURSE that's not how I view women.

    P.S. The creation of spiritual children should not be considered the same as creating physical children, so your offensive way of describing babies "squirting" out isn't applicable anyways.
    Well, what ELSE can Momma God do if she's ... um.... "delivering" babies a zillion at a time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I don't think it is dumb or goofy at all. I think it is wonderful.
    Yeah, cause you're deceived.

    Maybe you are just jealous.
    And, apparently not the brightest Mormon in the stake. Why would I be jealous of goofy teachings?

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Nothing if that is what a woman wants. I was speaking about the options that mormon leaders have given women (as referenced by my quotes) that say a woman should only be a housewife and mother. That is their proscription for their function. They frown on women working or not being married and having children.

    Come on 7up. You obviously know what I was saying and you just want to draw a line in the sand to pick a fight over. It is amusing, but dishonest.
    LDS leaders have often expressed that they understand that certain circumstances will require women to work outside of the home. They have also expressed how they understand that some women will get married. However, promoting the idea of a mother and father in the home, a father who is primarily responsible for providing financially by working full time and a mother who is primarily responsible for raising the children is entirely Biblical.

    Why don't you read John MacArthur's scriptural analysis of this subject? I will be happy to discuss it with you. Perhaps you won't so easily be willing to mock John MacArthur as you are willing to mock Mormons, when he breaks it down step by step from the Bible.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    7up wrote: I am waiting to see if any of you are willing to read and address the Biblical teachings about the role of women, even as presented by solidly gounded evangelicals like John M.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    That has NOTHING to do with the totally made up "doctrine" of a "Heavenly Mother" about which you know NOTHING. The idea that you have a female in Heaven relegated to the role of endlessly squirting out spirit babies is beyond goofy.
    Is this how you view women?

    Just there to "squirt out babies"?

    (It appears that all you are doing is pushing your distorted view of women and applying it to the LDS belief in Heavenly Mother. Your false view of women is the problem.)

    I don't view women and mothers in that way at all.

    I'm sure John MacArthur doesn't view women in that way either. Nevertheless, as you can see, he has a similar view to that of LDS concerning the traditional roles of men and women, and he backs it up with the Bible. Your mockery of "stay at home mothers" has everything to do with the world view provided by scripture. So, what are you mocking exactly?

    -7up

    P.S. The creation of spiritual children should not be considered the same as creating physical children, so your offensive way of describing babies "squirting" out isn't applicable anyways.
    Last edited by seven7up; 10-30-2014, 05:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:

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