Becoming Worthy!

Aaron32

Well-known member
The other day on a post I mentioned how I “hate” the word worthy. In the LDS church it might be the most crippling “doctrine” that it produces.
...

Thoughts.
Part 1
I truly relate to your pain, Markk, and that of which you project on to women of the church. In the spirit of "honest" discussion, I'm going to share what I consider some sacred pearls to possibly help anyone that can also relate. I hope any Christian tempted to turn around and rend me, will hearken to their "better angels" to receive in the spirit of love, and not contention.

I remember in my youth watching the movie "Godly Sorrow" and walking away guilty. It really does a crap job of explaining repentance.

I suffered severe depression growing up. I seriously pondered suicide a year or two after I got married. I only stopped from taking the leap because I believe a ministering angel said "consider your life over, and give your life to God now." That was a turning point for me.

Then, about five years after that, later I made a transgression that seriously threatened my marriage, it wasn't in quite the threshold of adultery, but pretty darn close. At the time, I couldn't understand the meaning of existence. I was living in poverty trying to finish my college degree while supporting my wife and two babies, and working two jobs. Life just felt like work, work, work. And when I pondered existence, even if I did everything "right", all that would mean is an assurance of more work. So, I was like "What's the point?", if I see a good time and escape, I may as well take it. Hell looked more desirable than what I understood "Celestial Glory". I wanted out. Yet, because of the love for my kids. I couldn't quite make the jump.

When my wife and I explained the situation to the bishop, he told me I had a lot of knowledge, and I had a testimony, but I was never "converted". I felt like I HAD to do things, but I never WANTED to do things. I was living in "duty" not "love".

In my youth, even though I had a a deeply moving spiritual experience while in High School that letting me know Jesus was my Savior, I had gotten through Seminary living off sensational quotes of conference talks, and always preferred watching the videos instead of having a discussion centered around the scriptures. I went to church seeking to get motivated by the teachers, not really seeking to help lift others. All the while, I thought I knew the scriptures, but I never really immersed myself in them. I was "performing" to please others, not seeking to please God. Or, rather, I looked at others (my parents, church leaders, etc.) as a lens to view God. If others we're happy, then God was pleased. In other words, my religion consciously or sub-consciously, my worship was always self-serving, seeking the acceptance of others and not God.

It took me years after that meeting with the bishop to understand the meaning of conversion. When the light came on, for a while, I could recognize the cultural ills of the church. Like you, I despised how the word "worthy", and people would make statements about their lack of worthiness. For example, a friend's mom died, and she said "I hope one day I'll be worthy enough to be able to live with her again." Statements like that give me strong mixed emotions of sorrow, anger, and embarrassment of the group I claim to belong to. The line between culture and true religion get extremely blurred.

As a youth, though I listened to Church leaders, I never did it for myself. I was always doing it for others. I always had fairly good church attendance, but I rarely showed up for personal scripture study, and when I did scripture study, I felt just so proud of myself. I was "Charlie Brown"-ing my spiritual journey. "This is it! This is my experience! This is where I turn the page." Only to fumble the ball again, and again. On a personal basis, I was confusing true worship with religiosity.

When it comes down to it, what compelled me to get past my screwed up mindset and the harmful cultural influences is the power of covenants. I made a promise to God that meant something to me, that I was never going to break. I had received a testimony of the Book of Mormon, and I knew that God knew that I knew it. I received a testimony of Jesus Christ as my Savior, and I knew that God knew that I knew it. And despite whatever social influence, or logical reasoning, or personal behavior that confounded the conviction of my spiritual witnesses, I have always felt I had to honor my covenants, and yeah, the relationships of family and friends also had an impact. Eventually, I saw the light. I never gave up. I thirsted and hungered for truth, while also enduring in faith. If I wanted to "make it work" I had to study the scriptures, not for anyone's benefit but only for my own, and, in due time, that's when the light of understanding helped me truly unlock the power of the gospel and personal transformation, where my personal mountains were no longer impossible to overcome. "Perfection" is not un-attainable - as 1 Nephi 3:7 teaches - God provides the way if you're seeking His will.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Part 2
Sometimes I look back and wonder why it took me so long. Sometimes I wonder if anything anyone could have said or done to help me understand better as a youth. Like former mormons, now Church critics like to do - I have blamed past teachers, leaders, and parents for my understanding. Yet, as I teach try and teach the gospel my bipolar son (who has terrible addictions) - I see a reflection of my former myself. I try and read scriptures with him, and I see that sometimes he's engaged, and other times he's compelled. I'm trying to find the balance to help him discover the path on his own, without any means of force (anger, guilt, etc.). It's extremely difficult. When I see that he's not "into" reading scriptures, I'm like "why are you here, sitting with me?" He says "I just don't want to disappoint you." And my heart breaks. It's like he wants to WANT to do the right thing. That's the best he can do. He has not yet been willing to cross the bridge of being convicted of his sins to recognize the need of a redeemer. Yet, he does have a testimony. As much as I want to prepare him for adulthood and the real world, I realize there's some things he will simply have to learn on his own. All I can do is trust God will guide Him as needed, and my son's faith will endure while I continue to love him unconditionally. Likewise, I can understand why parents and church leaders can easily give into the temptation of guilt tripping to compel behavior, or worse giving in to anger and shaming thinking the ends justify the means. I realize very little could have been done for me in my youth. Some things I simply had to experience. It was painful, but like Job, for every ounce of pain I suffered in my spiritual journey, I've been re-paid sevenfold in joy.

I think the problem with those that end up burying their covenants and leaving the church is that it polarizes them. They have their understanding while in the Church, and once the "Church" element is removed, they choose on their own accord to pursue Christ, and they find him - because the bible is true. And when they look back at the Church, all they see a manmade structure that put the pressure on them, and the surrounding culture to magnify it. So, I don't condemn anyone for leaving the Church - if that's what it takes to find Jesus. I totally get it. In fact, I admire them in finding the courage to remove the shackles of darkness from their eyes, and the sacrifice of family and friends, and plausibly be considered a societal outcast in some areas. But, at the same time, it's a less than perfect understanding.

The problem I have is when they assume their experience is everyone's experience, their past decisions were the only decisions that could have been made, and they get absolutist beliefs on what the Church teaches. They fight the church according to the understanding of their youth, which is why anything that disagrees with their post-church understanding of Christianity and 'white-washed'. They paint motives on anyone that defends the Church because of cognitive dissonance. Rather than simple acceptance of what's in the scriptures or current Church manuals - they dig up 170 year old discourses - before the theological construct and methodology of "doctrine" was even realized in the Church (marked by the official declaration of 1865) to declare what is "core" doctrine. Admittedly, I speak for no one. I'm simply being honest in my perception, as many who have left the church has been honest with their perceptions of me.

But that isn't to ignore the fact that in many ways the bulk of the Church is sick. Some mormons are flat out anti-christian, they don't understand the meaning of grace, and they get threatened by anyone to suggest otherwise. (Sidenote: Any Christians that downplay the necessity of a "godly walk" while preaching to mormons make the problem worse, not better IMO.) I think Stephen R. Covey tried to explain this to his fellow members in his book "7 Habits" - identifying the different "centers" in our lives (a "church" or "family" center, vs an authentic "principled centered" life). I've been there too. I used to feel a cold-darkness whenever I heard Christian rock or Gospel Mass thinking that's irreverent never actually feeling that absolute joy in the grace of my Savior. As if other Christian religions were somehow scoring points against my own. As I've matured, I realize it's not my religion threatened, only my pride and tradition. So I'll listen to music like (below) in front of my fellow members and just get strange looks. I don't care - if you can't be moved with this, you have issues IMO.

So, being a TBM while recognizing the sickness of the Church and the clash with Christians is like being a part of the X-Men choosing sides between defending the government and defending the mutants. Socially, it's the loneliest place to be. I can connect on certain levels on both sides, but rarely do I find a full connection. I praise God for giving me companionship and always abiding in Him. My prayer is one day we can all get past our own ego's, drop religiosity, and simply abide in God's love.
 
Last edited:

Markk

Active member
Hi Aaron,

I appreciate your honesty in part 1 and part 2, and I understand you beliefs here, at least to a large degree. I do disagree, which is not really the point here, but I do believe I understand.

My journey out of Mormonism is just as emotional, and just as meaningful ( to self) as yours. I had/have some very intimate, and spiritual moments showing me clearly that Mormonism was a fabrication of JS imagination. 1st a means to make a few dollars, then he just rolled with the ”con” until it imploded. I honestly believe that, and I feel I have a prayerful confirmation from God telling me so, and for what it worth to anyone, I can testify to that.

There came a certain time in my struggles, while trying to process and understand all the new doctrine and history’s that I was discovering, that I had to take a step back and just make a command decision to let the chips fall where they may. I decided that if it is true, I want to know, if it is false, I want to know. It was not easy at first, but as I searched, not so much anti books, but by parents and grand parents LDS sources, I found that the anti books I did read, for the very most part weren’t incorrect, but were actually really speaking the truth.

I think one misunderstanding between us is when you say “my pain.” I am for the most part over it, any pain I have is seeing others, my family, folks like you, and the woman in both the videos go through the hold the church has on you.

We have a fundamental disagreement that ”the church” is to blame. It is 100% to blame to me. They teach false doctrine. They refuse to clear up and expound on past doctrines. And per our discussion fail to repent for past sins as a church and body. You are correct that there is a sickness in the church, and I believe it is “the church” that is sick, not the people that make up the church. They are left to figure out all the confusing theolghy and past lies on their own. IMO...the GA are weak men, who are with delusional, or like the bishop in the video suffer from a medical condition called a “reverse intracranial sphincter squeeze. ”

When I first became a Christian a common phrase or teaching is that a Christain has a personal relationship with Christ. I kinda got it, but not really. The older I get, the more I realize how weak man is, and how I need His unconditional Grace...I understand what the phrase really means.

Most Mormons I know that are TBM, and most TBM I have talked to of forums like this for the past 25 years, their relationship is with the church, not God/Christ. Their God is the church. And their works are dedicated to the church and not God in many ways.

When I was around 16 or so I was rebelling ,and me and some church buddies were partying a little and ditching church activities (MIA and and PH meetings) and such. We had a great sports program and very good softball team, and were really into that, and we were contending of stake regional champions in softball.
Long story short we got busted and we were suspended from playing in the championship games, and it hurt the team as a whole and we did not make the playoffs. My parents were very angry and I can remember them telling me I needed to get right with “the church.” Years later, after I first became a Christian and was married with a family, it hit me that “why didn’t they tell me to get right with God?” This maybe seem to be a little thing, but for what ever reason is a huge thing in my conversion, and I always think about that moment. “The church” in a TBM‘s life is far more important than any personal relationship with our creator.

Thanks again.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I think one misunderstanding between us is when you say “my pain.” I am for the most part over it, any pain I have is seeing others, my family, folks like you, and the woman in both the videos go through the hold the church has on you.
Sounds like Alma 30:23

They teach false doctrine. They refuse to clear up and expound on past doctrines.
Even if they tried, you call it "watered down" unless they agreed with you.

And per our discussion fail to repent for past sins as a church and body.
And yet, I'm still confused where "holding a grudge" and an "eye for and eye" reasoning is Christian.

You are correct that there is a sickness in the church, and I believe it is “the church” that is sick, not the people that make up the church. They are left to figure out all the confusing theolghy and past lies on their own. IMO...the GA are weak men, who are with delusional, or like the bishop in the video suffer from a medical condition called a “reverse intracranial sphincter squeeze. ”
What measure ye mete.

When I first became a Christian a common phrase or teaching is that a Christain has a personal relationship with Christ. I kinda got it, but not really. The older I get, the more I realize how weak man is, and how I need His unconditional Grace...I understand what the phrase really means.
Ironically, with this acknowledgement, you're still bold enough to make judgments. Maybe its wise to forgive and extend grace than to condemn.

Most Mormons I know that are TBM, and most TBM I have talked to of forums like this for the past 25 years, their relationship is with the church, not God/Christ. Their God is the church. And their works are dedicated to the church and not God in many ways.
That's just projection.

I can remember them telling me I needed to get right with “the church.” Years later, after I first became a Christian and was married with a family, it hit me that “why didn’t they tell me to get right with God?”
I suppose that's a question for them to answer, not other Mormons.

“The church” in a TBM‘s life is far more important than any personal relationship with our creator.
No, that's a step too far.

The matter-of-factly stating of what a Mormon thinks, feels, or what motivates them is dehumanizing. For example, I could say "One thing I've noticed in my 20 years of dealing with ex-Mormons is they have a condescending savior complex."
That may be my perception, but it's not useful to the discussion, and it's offensive to the other person. How about we stick to what's known, vs what we simply assume - especially when we're making claims about the person we're talking to.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Okay, then apparently I am misinterpreting you then, if I am it is not on purpose,
You are doing it on purpose when I specifically tell you what's wrong with your interpretation and then clarify what I said and then you repeat your interpretation IN QUOTES as though I said it.
I am confused by your different and not so clear answers.
I can't help you there. When I say that's not what we believe, how much more clear can I be?
An exalted man and woman who are married, will be Gods, and will have sex together in order to procreate spirit children
False.
The same will, per this LDS teaching manual...”They[exalted married folks]will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. (Gospel Fundamentals teaching manual 2000)True or false.
True.
The same, will also have eternal sex for pleasure. True or false.
Stupid statement. Let me reword it for you, Is having sex pleasurable? True or False. :rolleyes:
If the exalted man has more than one wife,
The number of wives one has in the next life is irrelevant. I believe what you're getting at is will the "Gods" have orgies in heaven just for fun. The answer to that one is, I don't know, nor do I care. As far as I'm concerned, what husbands and wives do in the bedroom is no one else's business.

Now, in reference to John's statement in "A Rational Theology..." Sex is eternal. I agree with that. We read a little bit further and we see that marriage may be eternal also. So, sex and marriage go together and according to John, it isn't a big leap to reach the doctrine that we will have "spiritual" children. What does he mean by that? Notice that he says "get spiritual children", not have spiritual children. You think it means spirit babies. He doesn't say that. You think it's by having sex. He doesn't say that either. Then he makes a huge leap from getting spiritual children, which are spirits, how ever that happens, to this, "These spirits, in turn, in the process of time, will come down upon an rewards of intelligent development, that we may be to other spiritual beings, what our God has been to us."

So, somehow, we get these spiritual children and they reap the rewards of intelligent development. What are those rewards of intelligent development? The fact is, John never says how those spiritual beings are obtained. We went from sex and marriage to us being gods, like our Father in Heaven is God, to these other spiritual beings. There is nothing about the process in between. There's a lot of gray area that you fill in and call it fact, but the fact is, you filled it in, John didn't. I prefer to leave it unfilled and go with the central theme which dovetails nicely with our doctrine.
1. sex is eternal
2. marriage is eternal
3. we will get spiritual children (probably the same way God did)
4. We will be to them, what our God is to us.

That's all that's in there. Notice also that in this passage, he doesn't compare us to God the Father in this sense but instead uses the words, "our God". I can't help but wonder why. What is "our God" to us? Do we even know? John didn't say. Brigham Young did, but most people who go there are in over their head.

So, in case you didn't get it, Sex is eternal. IMO, when we have sex in the eternities, it is to produce babies just like we produce here in mortality. Little physical bundles of joy that you can touch and hold. It isn't to have spirit babies. It's to have real physical, flesh and bone, babies.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
You are doing it on purpose when I specifically tell you what's wrong with your interpretation and then clarify what I said and then you repeat your interpretation IN QUOTES as though I said it.

I can't help you there. When I say that's not what we believe, how much more clear can I be?

False.

True.

Stupid statement. Let me reword it for you, Is having sex pleasurable? True or False. :rolleyes:

The number of wives one has in the next life is irrelevant. I believe what you're getting at is will the "Gods" have orgies in heaven just for fun. The answer to that one is, I don't know, nor do I care. As far as I'm concerned, what husbands and wives do in the bedroom is no one else's business.

Now, in reference to John's statement in "A Rational Theology..." Sex is eternal. I agree with that. We read a little bit further and we see that marriage may be eternal also. So, sex and marriage go together and according to John, it isn't a big leap to reach the doctrine that we will have "spiritual" children. What does he mean by that? Notice that he says "get spiritual children", not have spiritual children. You think it means spirit babies. He doesn't say that. You think it's by having sex. He doesn't say that either. Then he makes a huge leap from getting spiritual children, which are spirits, how ever that happens, to this, "These spirits, in turn, in the process of time, will come down upon an rewards of intelligent development, that we may be to other spiritual beings, what our God has been to us."

So, somehow, we get these spiritual children and they reap the rewards of intelligent development. What are those rewards of intelligent development? The fact is, John never says how those spiritual beings are obtained. We went from sex and marriage to us being gods, like our Father in Heaven is God, to these other spiritual beings. There is nothing about the process in between. There's a lot of gray area that you fill in and call it fact, but the fact is, you filled it in, John didn't. I prefer to leave it unfilled and go with the central theme which dovetails nicely with our doctrine.
1. sex is eternal
2. marriage is eternal
3. we will get spiritual children (probably the same way God did)
4. We will be to them, what our God is to us.

That's all that's in there. Notice also that in this passage, he doesn't compare us to God the Father in this sense but instead uses the words, "our God". I can't help but wonder why. What is "our God" to us? Do we even know? John didn't say. Brigham Young did, but most people who go there are in over their head.

So, in case you didn't get it, Sex is eternal. IMO, when we have sex in the eternities, it is to produce babies just like we produce here in mortality. Little physical bundles of joy that you can touch and hold. It isn't to have spirit babies. It's to have real physical, flesh and bone, babies.
What happens to those flesh and bones babies? Were you flesh and bones in the spirit world before you were born here? What’s the point of coming here if you already had a flesh and bones body?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
What happens to those flesh and bones babies? Were you flesh and bones in the spirit world before you were born here? What’s the point of coming here if you already had a flesh and bones body?
That is a very good point. If HF and HM have flesh and bone children on heaven, then what point is there in being born on earth? I thought the whole point of spirit children being born to earthly parents was so they could acquire flesh and bone bodies, go through their earthly probation, do all the laws and ordinances of the LDS church, so they become exalted gods, return to HF, become creators of worlds, and procreate their own spirit children, starting the whole process over again??? IF they were first physical children in heaven, then there would be no need for them to be born on earth to get bodies. They could just stay in heaven...
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Well-known member
That is a very good point. Of HF and HM have flesh and bone children on heaven, then what point is there in being born on earth?
You can't be a resurrected being until you've died. They chose death. They could have stayed in the Garden forever, but they chose a better course.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I thought the whole point of spirit children being born to earthly parents was so they could acquire flesh and bone bodies, go through their early probation,
Can't do probation if you don't have knowledge of good and evil. There is no test about which we'll choose if there is no choice.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
That is a very good point. If HF and HM have flesh and bone children on heaven, then what point is there in being born on earth? I thought the whole point of spirit children being born to earthly parents was so they could acquire flesh and bone bodies, go through their early probation, do all the laws and ordinances of the LDS church, so they become exalted gods, return to HF, become creators of worlds, and procreate their own spirit children, starting the whole process over again??? IF they were first physical children in heaven, then there would be no need for them to be born on earth to get bodies. They could just stay in heaven...
Exactly.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You can't be a resurrected being until you've died. They chose death. They could have stayed in the Garden forever, but they chose a better course.
I am not talking about Adam and Eve, but about what Maggie posted. IF HM and HF ONLY have physical, flesh and bone bodies, not spirit bodies, then there is no need for them to be born on earth, to acquire physical bodies, since they already supposedly have them. No need at all.
 

Markk

Active member
You are doing it on purpose when I specifically tell you what's wrong with your interpretation and then clarify what I said and then you repeat your interpretation IN QUOTES as though I said it
Focus...what I put in quotes, which you obviously could not have read, are pasted quotes from LDS teaching manuals or direct teachings, again pasted from a automotive source, or from a GA...I quoted them because well, they are quotes, it would be dishonest otherwise . I have no clear idea what you believe in that you are all over the place, and you exclusively speak for all mormon’s most often by saying things “we believe, or we don’t believe ”. When obviously that is far from true as the quotes clearly indicate, what TBM LDS members I know, TBM’s on TBM forums, and your conversation with Aaron shows.

Also, you attempt to tell me what is wrong with the quotes and my interpretations of the “quotes”...yet not once that I can recall, have you offered any cf from a authorities GA or correlated teaching that supported you opinion, while I, and others, continue to provide “authoritative quotes” that support our interpretations.

If you want to rely on personal revelation on how a quote is interpreted, fine, then change your language to read “IMO” or similar, and stop speaking for the LDS church.
 

Markk

Active member
Mark Wrote” An exalted man and woman who are married, will be Gods, and will have sex together in order to procreate spirit children
BoJ replied: False.

BoJ, I will agree that is your opinion, but disagree it is not a church teaching. Below is why.

Eternity of Sex. It has already been said that sex is an eternal principle. The equivalent of sex has always existed and will continue forever. As the sex relation, then, represents an eternal condition, the begetting of children is coincidently an eternal necessity. We were begotten into the spirit world by God the Father, and have been born into the world which we now possess. PH teaching manual...Rational Theology Widstoe (LDS Apostle)


A correlated teaching manual reads, to compliment the above quote...

They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done.Gospel Fundamentals chapter 36, 2000

Of those who enter the Lord's order of matrimony and who keep their covenants ..., the Lord says: "They shall pass by the angels, and the gods, ...to their exaltation and glory in all things, ...which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." That is to say, eternal life consists of two things: (1) the continuation of the family unit in eternity, which means a continuation of the seeds or the everlasting begetting of children; and (2) the receipt of the fulness of the glory of the Father, which is all power in heaven and on earth.’ Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, p.708:

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this continuation of "the seeds" forever and ever, meant the power of procreation; in other words, the power to beget spirit children on the same principle as we were born to our Heavenly Parents, God the Eternal Father and our Eternal Mother. Therefore, a man cannot receive the highest exaltation without a woman, his wife, nor can a woman be exalted without her husband. That is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation. Milton Hunter Conference Talk 1949...

I can give scores of such teaching on the continuation of seeds (procreation for eternity)...Your opinion might differ, and I say great...but you are being dishonest when yo speak for all Mormons. IMO your are in a minute minority that would disagree with the D&C and Correlation and GA interpretation.


D&C 132:19. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the bnew and everlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
 

Markk

Active member
Markk said:
The same will, per this LDS teaching manual...”They[exalted married folks]will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. (Gospel Fundamentals teaching manual 2000)True or false.

Good, we can determine that you believe when married you will have spirit children, and will make new worlds for them to live on. And I understand that it is your opinion, that you don’t believe “making” children is the same as to begetting, or procreating, and disagree with the teachings that clearly teach other wise. See post #197
 

Markk

Active member
Stupid statement. Let me reword it for you, Is having sex pleasurable? True or False.
The doctrine that men will be come Gods and have multiple wives and have sex with them, whether to procreate, or for pleasure is “stupid” to me. So we certainly have a fundamental difference of opinion here.

Your position, and personal opinion is that Gods will have sex for eternity, that IMO is 100% correct in a LDS theological construct. Where our opinion differs, is I believe and feel I have offered more than enough cf that is for the most part procreation and the continuation of seed of spirit childern (and pleasure), while you deny it is for procreation of spirit children, and offer no cf, just that it is what “we” believe. Which IMO is a general blanket statement for all Mormons that is 100% false, as the CF I proved reads otherwise.
 
Top