Mormon, whose child are you?

[Magdalena]

So? Regardless of how children are conceived, whether it be by sex or some other means, it still requires a human male and a human female.to.produce a human child. Was Jesus human? Was his mother human? If they were, then Jesus had a human father. It doesn't mean they had sex to do it. Ghosts, btw, are not human.

Christ had a human mother. But He was also born God, with power to perform miracles. That’s not the same DNA.

 

[brotherofJared]

I was taught that it was "selfish" to not have a "full quiver"....basically 6 to 10 children. It was a huge talking point in the church and just a basic understanding. I understood that we were ALL spirit children of HF and HM, including being a baby and infant. I concede I did not go past that talking point as we are asking BoJ too do....but the implications are beyond clear. For me it was just the way it was.

If one really wants to get into it we can go to Orson Pratts teachings about women basically being eternally pregnant. And even if a member says Orson was just giving his opinion...well, it was the same opinion I understood and was taught in the church. And if a LDS prophet believed it that way, it was at best just a very unclear teaching, but seeing it is still a debate and talking point, BOJ has no basis to say other wise, as if he speaks for the church as he implied.

That is not the experience of every member of our church. There are some who simply accept the scripture and connect it, naturally, to what they know and really don't think about it beyond that. If the Bible says that we are all the offspring of God (which it does), they mindlessly think that God did all of that the same way we have children. Such naivety doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean it is the doctrine of the church.

If that's what you wanted to believe the church taught then fine. I can understand that, even though you weren't willing to accept a more reasonable explanation, you decided that it wasn't for you. Good for you, but that still doesn't make your view of what we believe or teach correct.

That goes for Pratt's views as well. We are all so shortsighted. His conclusions were based on hypothetical "ifs". If it takes nine months for one wife to produce a child, it would be billions of years to have enough children to populate a planet. We can go on endlessly with "ifs" and never get any closer to the truth. Case in point, you all have had the new testament for over a thousand years, especially if we view it collectively, and yet none of you are any closer to the truth. Let's consider Pratt's if. If he was the only father, and he produced all the offspring sexually, wouldn't they all look like him? Even if he had more than one wife, would they still look like him? I think they would. We believe that Jesus is the exact image of his father. A perfect beings genes would be perfect. All the degenerative traits would be gone. I can't imagine a world of beings that look exactly like their father. The concepts that have been produced in the past were based on limited information. The only solid information that we have is found in scripture, not in the speculations of a few men no matter how high up the priesthood chain they were.

The idea that spirits are created beings is contrary to our scripture. It follows the traditional Christian concept that we are created at birth. That also is a false notion. The correct idea, according to scripture, is that we have always existed and that God has no part in our creation and that, in fact, we cannot be created. This changes everything. It means that there aren't any spirit babies. Since our spirits are eternal beings birth does not create them.

So, what is spirit birth? The only example we have is being spiritually born is to be born of God. Some call it being born-again. That doesn't require sexual intercourse. Beings that already exist discover God, as in Moses and the burning bush, or God finds them as in Paul on the road to Damascus. In these situations the person has a decision to make. Spiritual birth is a conscious choice made by intelligent beings which changes the course that their live was in to one that aligns with the things that make God, God.

It has nothing to do with what flows in our veins. It has more to do with an awakening of our conscience to a greater light.

Pratt speculated and so did others, but that doesn't mean they are right. My speculation may not be correct either, but it is scripturally aligned.

"God, having found himself in the midst of spirits and great glory saw fit to institute laws whereby these [spirits] could advance like himself.,." That is not how sexual.intercoirse works. It takes some time after intercourse before one finds themselves in the midst of one being. The above statement comes from the KFD and to me, it suggests that God became aware of beings that already existed. When their course changed to align themselves with God's purposes, they were then spiritually begotten of God.

You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. I'm speaking now about what we believe and teach. But your religion teaches a dead-end. In all of eternity, your great God managed to only have one world, with about 7000 years of history and poof, it all ends. Or let's say some of you might be thinking wildly outside the box and God just keeps repeating the same thing and Jesus just keeps dying over and over again. That kind of makes the whole idea of the resurrection a big joke, doesn't it? How are we supposed to believe in the resurrection when they person who made it all happen just keeps being born and then dying again over and over and over. But I'm guessing most of you don't care. It's just another mystery that's beyond our understanding... Kind of like trying to figure out how we are all the offspring of God. In your imagination, that's not what God meant. In Pratt's, he had sex with his wives. Both of you are wrong.

 

[Magdalena]

That is not the experience of every member of our church. There are some who simply accept the scripture and connect it, naturally, to what they know and really don't think about it beyond that. If the Bible says that we are all the offspring of God (which it does), they mindlessly think that God did all of that the same way we have children. Such naivety doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean it is the doctrine of the church.

If that's what you wanted to believe the church taught then fine. I can understand that, even though you weren't willing to accept a more reasonable explanation, you decided that it wasn't for you. Good for you, but that still doesn't make your view of what we believe or teach correct.

That goes for Pratt's views as well. We are all so shortsighted. His conclusions were based on hypothetical "ifs". If it takes nine months for one wife to produce a child, it would be billions of years to have enough children to populate a planet. We can go on endlessly with "ifs" and never get any closer to the truth. Case in point, you all have had the new testament for over a thousand years, especially if we view it collectively, and yet none of you are any closer to the truth. Let's consider Pratt's if. If he was the only father, and he produced all the offspring sexually, wouldn't they all look like him? Even if he had more than one wife, would they still look like him? I think they would. We believe that Jesus is the exact image of his father. A perfect beings genes would be perfect. All the degenerative traits would be gone. I can't imagine a world of beings that look exactly like their father. The concepts that have been produced in the past were based on limited information. The only solid information that we have is found in scripture, not in the speculations of a few men no matter how high up the priesthood chain they were.

The idea that spirits are created beings is contrary to our scripture. It follows the traditional Christian concept that we are created at birth. That also is a false notion. The correct idea, according to scripture, is that we have always existed and that God has no part in our creation and that, in fact, we cannot be created. This changes everything. It means that there aren't any spirit babies. Since our spirits are eternal beings birth does not create them.

So, what is spirit birth? The only example we have is being spiritually born is to be born of God. Some call it being born-again. That doesn't require sexual intercourse. Beings that already exist discover God, as in Moses and the burning bush, or God finds them as in Paul on the road to Damascus. In these situations the person has a decision to make. Spiritual birth is a conscious choice made by intelligent beings which changes the course that their live was in to one that aligns with the things that make God, God.

It has nothing to do with what flows in our veins. It has more to do with an awakening of our conscience to a greater light.

Pratt speculated and so did others, but that doesn't mean they are right. My speculation may not be correct either, but it is scripturally aligned.

"God, having found himself in the midst of spirits and great glory saw fit to institute laws whereby these [spirits] could advance like himself.,." That is not how sexual.intercoirse works. It takes some time after intercourse before one finds themselves in the midst of one being. The above statement comes from the KFD and to me, it suggests that God became aware of beings that already existed. When their course changed to align themselves with God's purposes, they were then spiritually begotten of God.

You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. I'm speaking now about what we believe and teach. But your religion teaches a dead-end. In all of eternity, your great God managed to only have one world, with about 7000 years of history and poof, it all ends. Or let's say some of you might be thinking wildly outside the box and God just keeps repeating the same thing and Jesus just keeps dying over and over again. That kind of makes the whole idea of the resurrection a big joke, doesn't it? How are we supposed to believe in the resurrection when they person who made it all happen just keeps being born and then dying again over and over and over. But I'm guessing most of you don't care. It's just another mystery that's beyond our understanding... Kind of like trying to figure out how we are all the offspring of God. In your imagination, that's not what God meant. In Pratt's, he had sex with his wives. Both of you are wrong.

Brigham Young taught it as doctrine. So did other mormon leaders. It wasn’t just someone’s opinion. It’s not just what Markk or anyone else “wants to believe.” It was mormon doctrine. And they believed it because their prophets said it came from God. It didn’t. But members thought they needed to believe it because their prophets said it was true.

False prophets. False doctrine. It didn’t come from Christ. Any of it.

 

[Russianwolfe]

False. There is no such thing as a spirit baby. We do not teach that there is or ever was. Learn what you are preaching against so you don't look so silly. We are all the offspring of God according to the Bible. That does not mean that anyone gave birth to us and had us as little babies. We simply believe what the Bible teaches and have never given any details about how that occurs. The idea you just produced was manufactured by our critics. It's not ours.

Jesus of the Bible is one of us. Or so he told Mary. His God and his Father is our God and our Father. I don't know why you guys just don't believe the Bible for what it says. Why can't you just accept it as it is written? There's no reason to interpret that. If jesus's father is our Father then he is one of us, a son of God.

Because if he doesn't adopt us we can't enter into the kingdom of his father.

Let's not forget that this is ancient Rome and under Roman law, adoption is quite different from American Law and American Adoption. Those who mock this adoption idea are guilty of the logical fallacy of presentism. Look into Roman law and Roman law of adoption. it was used to create more than just family. Remember, the leader of the Roman Empire was considered the father of the Roman people.

 

[Russianwolfe]

Brigham Young taught it as doctrine. So did other mormon leaders. It wasn’t just someone’s opinion. It’s not just what Markk or anyone else “wants to believe.” It was mormon doctrine. And they believed it because their prophets said it came from God. It didn’t. But members thought they needed to believe it because their prophets said it was true.

False prophets. False doctrine. It didn’t come from Christ. Any of it.

You think it was taught as doctrine. Is everything your preacher or minister says from the pulpit doctrine? Even those who preached 200 years ago? Can we hold you responsible for everything any preacher or minister ever said?

We have repeatedly told you and others like you that doctrine has a very formal method of acceptance in the LDS church. And there is no other way to have new doctrine become binding upon the church. No other way .

 

[Markk]

That is not the experience of every member of our church. There are some who simply accept the scripture and connect it, naturally, to what they know and really don't think about it beyond that. If the Bible says that we are all the offspring of God (which it does), they mindlessly think that God did all of that the same way we have children. Such naivety doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean it is the doctrine of the church.

Well this ties into the thread where the discussion is on the Church leaders the folks guessing. And your calling the majority of saints past mindless does not help you position. That would include President Young and other GA. It was at the time Doctrine and IMO still is until another leader states it otherwise....maybe they have but I don't recall reading it.

Gordon pasted a quote that reads that the GA decide doctrine by their interpretations of the SW....so there is no doubt in BY's mind it was doctrine. I would also argue that section 132 demands this in the teaching of the continuation of seeds and the ELC, polygamy aside.

The church teaches heavenly parents, male and female. The church teaches eternal marriage as an ordinance that one must have to become a God and Goddess in order to continue the seeds which are of course, their children. So is the circular theology behind the Plan of Salvation.

If that's what you wanted to believe the church taught then fine. I can understand that, even though you weren't willing to accept a more reasonable explanation, you decided that it wasn't for you. Good for you, but that still doesn't make your view of what we believe or teach correct.

What was the other option BoJ that I was not willing to accept. In other words, being that the church then and now teach as doctrine that all people have a literal Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and are "literal" spirit children of them.

"... All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are liter-ally the sons and daughters of Deity. ..." foot note from Here

So if you are saying all these teaching were incorrect, what is the correct teaching?

 

[Russianwolfe]

Well this ties into the thread where the discussion is on the Church leaders the folks guessing. And your calling the majority of saints past mindless does not help you position. That would include President Young and other GA. It was at the time Doctrine and IMO still is until another leader states it otherwise....maybe they have but I don't recall reading it.

Gordon pasted a quote that reads that the GA decide doctrine by their interpretations of the SW....so there is no doubt in BY's mind it was doctrine. I would also argue that section 132 demands this in the teaching of the continuation of seeds and the ELC, polygamy aside.

The church teaches heavenly parents, male and female. The church teaches eternal marriage as an ordinance that one must have to become a God and Goddess in order to continue the seeds which are of course, their children. So is the circular theology behind the Plan of Salvation.



What was the other option BoJ that I was not willing to accept. In other words, being that the church then and now teach as doctrine that all people have a literal Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and are "literal" spirit children of them.

"... All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are liter-ally the sons and daughters of Deity. ..." foot note from Here

So if you are saying all these teaching were incorrect, what is the correct teaching?

Doesn't matter what you think Brigham Young thought or didn't think. Since the beginning of the church and especially since the formation of the first Quorum of the 12 Apostles, for any new doctrine to be established, it requires a complete agreement by all 15 apostles (no exceptions) and to be presented to the membership for their sustaining vote. Joseph Smith did it when the first Book of Commandments was published. It was done when the Revelation on the Priesthood was accepted. And it will be done for any new doctrine that may be revealed from heaven.

 

[Markk]

That goes for Pratt's views as well. We are all so shortsighted. His conclusions were based on hypothetical "ifs". If it takes nine months for one wife to produce a child, it would be billions of years to have enough children to populate a planet. We can go on endlessly with "ifs" and never get any closer to the truth. Case in point, you all have had the new testament for over a thousand years, especially if we view it collectively, and yet none of you are any closer to the truth. Let's consider Pratt's if.

There are two arguments here, the first his math, the second, in what we are arguing is that they are born babies. Pratt was a prophet, seer, and revelator, this was the common understand and the GA believed a taught a literal HF and HM and that they had literal spirit children.

The "proclamation to the world" teaches a HF and HM and that all people here were there spirit sons and daughters.

If he was the only father, and he produced all the offspring sexually, wouldn't they all look like him? Even if he had more than one wife, would they still look like him? I think they would. We believe that Jesus is the exact image of his father. A perfect beings genes would be perfect. All the degenerative traits would be gone. I can't imagine a world of beings that look exactly like their father. The concepts that have been produced in the past were based on limited information. The only solid information that we have is found in scripture, not in the speculations of a few men no matter how high up the priesthood chain they were.

Were is your opinion found in scripture? I was not aware God had genes?

 

[Markk]

Doesn't matter what you think Brigham Young thought or didn't think. Since the beginning of the church and especially since the formation of the first Quorum of the 12 Apostles, for any new doctrine to be established, it requires a complete agreement by all 15 apostles (no exceptions) and to be presented to the membership for their sustaining vote. Joseph Smith did it when the first Book of Commandments was published. It was done when the Revelation on the Priesthood was accepted. And it will be done for any new doctrine that may be revealed from heaven.

Well if you believe a literal HF and HM was not and is not taught, or was taught as a false doctrine that is a very bold statement. Is "The Family: The proclamation to the world" sustained Doctrine?

By your assertion above, there has certainly been a lot of false doctrine being taught over the history of the church. RW, if it is not a true teaching it is then what? A false teaching?

Gordon claims that anything published by the church , such as in a magazine (Era, Ensign), or at LDS . org are GA approved and true.

 

[Markk]

The idea that spirits are created beings is contrary to our scripture. It follows the traditional Christian concept that we are created at birth. That also is a false notion. The correct idea, according to scripture, is that we have always existed and that God has no part in our creation and that, in fact, we cannot be created. This changes everything. It means that there aren't any spirit babies. Since our spirits are eternal beings birth does not create them.

Well that is not exactly true. LDS theology teaches that matter is not created and that there are eternal matter called intelligences. The LDS church has always implied that these intelligences, some even great and might, were born to a HF and a HM.

Maybe you can explain how these intelligence become spirt children to a HF and HM?

BRM wrote: ... "Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities. ..."
BY wrote: ... "[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. ..."

What did these prophets, seers, and revelators mean when they taught this?

How does a future "person" become a spirit child from intelligent matter?

 

[Markk]

So, what is spirit birth? The only example we have is being spiritually born is to be born of God. Some call it being born-again. That doesn't require sexual intercourse. Beings that already exist discover God, as in Moses and the burning bush, or God finds them as in Paul on the road to Damascus. In these situations the person has a decision to make. Spiritual birth is a conscious choice made by intelligent beings which changes the course that their live was in to one that aligns with the things that make God, God.

That is not true you skipped the first two estates,

The first was intelligence....D&C 93: 29 "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

The second was the pre-mortal spirit world.... D&C 138: 55 "I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God. 56 Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men."

You can fully the chart that shows this in detail....



BOJ, this a church doctrine, so how does Intelligence become a spirit child of a literal HF and HM? Click Here for full context

 

[Markk]

It has nothing to do with what flows in our veins. It has more to do with an awakening of our conscience to a greater light.

Pratt speculated and so did others, but that doesn't mean they are right. My speculation may not be correct either, but it is scripturally aligned.

I disagree, see my last post, and go to the site and see what the D&C reads.

How does intelligent matter become a spirit child of literal Heavenly Parents?

 

[Markk]

"God, having found himself in the midst of spirits and great glory saw fit to institute laws whereby these [spirits] could advance like himself.,." That is not how sexual.intercoirse works. It takes some time after intercourse before one finds themselves in the midst of one being. The above statement comes from the KFD and to me, it suggests that God became aware of beings that already existed. When their course changed to align themselves with God's purposes, they were then spiritually begotten of God.

That makes no sense. It rejects the LDS concept of eternal progression, eternal law, and the plan of salvation. And according to RW and others here, the KFD can't be relied upon because it was not sustained?

 

[Magdalena]

You think it was taught as doctrine. Is everything your preacher or minister says from the pulpit doctrine? Even those who preached 200 years ago? Can we hold you responsible for everything any preacher or minister ever said?

We have repeatedly told you and others like you that doctrine has a very formal method of acceptance in the LDS church. And there is no other way to have new doctrine become binding upon the church. No other way .

Do you vote on everything your prophets say? Do you sit there in General Conference and say to yourself, “No, that’s not true.” “Ok, that’s true.” No. Believing mormons accept what their prophets say as coming from God. They’re told to do that. “When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.” “Accept what the prophet says even if it’s wrong. The Lord will bless you anyways.”

When Joseph Smith said the Lord told him something, mormons accepted it. Or they left. But it was considered to be mormon doctrine.

Is it ok for you to decide the Word of Wisdom was just some guy’s opinion and not really doctrine, so you don’t have to obey it? Or tithing? Or temple work?

If you are having trouble accepting mormon doctrine, perhaps thats a sign to you that it’s false. But to deny that its doctrine is just lying to yourself.

 

[Markk]

You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. I'm speaking now about what we believe and teach.

See what the LDS church teaches in post#51, which contradicts just about everything you wrote.

In all of eternity, your great God managed to only have one world, with about 7000 years of history and poof, it all ends. Or let's say some of you might be thinking wildly outside the box and God just keeps repeating the same thing and Jesus just keeps dying over and over again. That kind of makes the whole idea of the resurrection a big joke, doesn't it? How are we supposed to believe in the resurrection when they person who made it all happen just keeps being born and then dying again over and over and over. But I'm guessing most of you don't care.

LOL That's all new to me. Where does the Bible teach this.

However LDS teaching have been clear that all new worlds will need a savior. I think you are a bit confused here. The church teaches Adam was meant to fall, so that man can live. This will mean, because it is the LDS plan of salvation, all worlds that are created by exalted men/gods will need a Adam and a Savior.

In Pratt's, he had sex with his wives. Both of you are wrong.

LOL....focus I don't believe any of this rubbish, all I am doing is showing what the church has taught and what they are currently teachings and that what believe contradicts all that.

And also showing that as in the other post, all the leaders do is keep silent and leave you to guess. But if you read post 51, they did give you a bit more than they usually do.

 

[Markk]

Do you vote on everything your prophets say? Do you sit there in General Conference and say to yourself, “No, that’s not true.” “Ok, that’s true.” No. Believing mormons accept what their prophets say as coming from God. They’re told to do that. “When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.” “Accept what the prophet says even if it’s wrong. The Lord will bless you anyways.”

When Joseph Smith said the Lord told him something, mormons accepted it. Or they left. But it was considered to be mormon doctrine.

Is it ok for you to decide the Word of Wisdom was just some guy’s opinion and not really doctrine, so you don’t have to obey it? Or tithing? Or temple work?

If you are having trouble accepting mormon doctrine, perhaps thats a sign to you that it’s false. But to deny that its doctrine is just lying to yourself.

They quote things not voted on all the time. The concept that God was once a man comes from the the KFD, and it was not sustained....and I doubt if the Snow couplet was either, but both are considered doctrine.

It all boils down to protecting their God, the church, and their primary scripture, their testimony.... anything else can be changed, and what a leader says is only truth and doctrine if it protects "the church" and "their testimony."

 

[Richard7]

That is not true you skipped the first two estates,

The first was intelligence....D&C 93: 29 "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

The second was the pre-mortal spirit world.... D&C 138: 55 "I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God. 56 Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men."

You can fully the chart that shows this in detail....

View attachment 5828

BOJ, this a church doctrine, so how does Intelligence become a spirit child of a literal HF and HM? Click Here for full context

Everything was created spiritually first, you must have missed a lesson or two... chuckle

 

[Richard7]

Well that is just a strawman. The church teaches exalted folks can, and this is directly from a teaching manual, "Gospel Fundamentals"....Chapter 36.


To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. 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. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted.

Where do they spirit children come from that we will receive that our HF received? And how are they given to HF and in turn a exalted person?

There are also LDS teachings about HF's spirit children being raises to maturity....what does that imply? Keep in mind it is a very clear teaching that exalted men will be like HF and have everything he and Jesus have....power, glory, knowledge, and dominion. So by default, exalted being will be have spirit children and be heavenly parents.

Is picture is from LDS .org, under the title of Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents.... Click Here

View attachment 5813


BOJ, these are not exactly adults, so isn't a fair assumption they were babies? Remember, if exalted you will be like HF, and do all that he has done, and have everything he has.

It's a picture dude, do you know what art work is? Some ones creative mind expresses their impression of the spoken word..,chuckle

 

[Janice Bower]

Do you vote on everything your prophets say? Do you sit there in General Conference and say to yourself, “No, that’s not true.” “Ok, that’s true.” No. Believing mormons accept what their prophets say as coming from God. They’re told to do that. “When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.” “Accept what the prophet says even if it’s wrong. The Lord will bless you anyways.”

I remember the teaching!

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

When the Prophet Speaks, Is the Thinking Done?

It is often stated by critics of the Church that the LDS people are blind followers of the prophet, and that the Church expects and cultivates such blind obedience. A quote which they choose to offer in support of this misconception is that ‘when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.’ This...

www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

 

[Markk]

Everything was created spiritually first, you must have missed a lesson or two... chuckle

So did HF create intelligences out of nothing, or did he organize them? Do you believe Christ is a created being? I recall you say often God can not create anything out of nothing....so which is it?

How did HF "create" your spirit? The early church believe it was just like you mortal bodies were created, by a father and mother.

Explain how HF created your spirit....did he just speak it into existence? Or did he do it by mixing chemicals? How? The article by the th efiret presidency said they are born to heavenly parents....which is true Ralf? Is it in the lesson I missed?