Oops ...

Markk

Active member
Figures. I knew there was a reason for hiding the source.
LOL if you have followed to thread, you will see the quotes from the Seer on LDS . Org. And how most objections for the Seer were from BY and another’s that opposed him teaching God was all knowing, in stead of God being ignorant and still learning. But if you read the Millennial Star, about the objections, you would have known that.

But my main point is that LDS prophets teach a literal birth, and with or without Pratt, it is a pretty much unanimous position.

You assertion, with out any back up is that there are basically spirits out there that came to a HF and a HM and said help me.

As the GAs taught, we will be the parents of spirit children. I just don't believe that it will be through sexual relations. I believe these spirits that already exist will come to us and ask us to help them become like us, which, when we do, we will create a body, through sexual relations that one of those spirts, we'll call Adam, and one of the other gods will create a body, through sexual relations for another spirit wjp we'll call Eve. And those two will get married (this is ongoing simultaneously among billions of gods so the paring is not chosen for them, they grow and choose who they want to marry) and enter the garden of Eden with the choice to eat the fruit or not. That's how it works. No single woman is going to have sex billions of times to produce spirit babies. One baby can make 100s of billions of children, just like Adam and Eve did here. It's a pretty simple concept. We've been doing it for thousands of years. BOJ post 379

I have given multiple citations for LDS teaching showing the spirit were literally begotten and born…please provide me on citation from a GA , any GA, that would teach spirts ask for help to become mortal and that is what is meant by words like born, begotten, offspring, infant, generation, etc….

And who is US and WE in your quote above, underlined and in red font? Expound a little mor eon how this takes place please.
 

Markk

Active member
No. It doesn't. Maybe you should re-read my post. The mother and father in spiritual rebirth is symbolic, it is not sexual.
So you HF and HM are symbolic parents? Please explain. When you pray to HF, it is to a symbolical God? If you just screwed up the sentence structure…then why do these HF and HM have sex?
Your speculation isn't backed up with LDS teachings either. Try showing us one LDS teaching that states that spirit babies are produced through sexual relations. :rolleyes:
I have shown you many. Your argument is like me stating a Biblical or BoM father did not give birth to a son or daughter becasue the word sex is not in the passage.

Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens,and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. Jeremiah 29:5-6

Maybe these sons and daughters just came and asked Jeremiah for help to become his children?

I turn show me one LDS teaching that agrees with your assertion that spirts just hang around and ask for help from “US” and “WE.”


Right there in John 3:6 Flesh is born of flesh, spirit is born of the spirit.

What are we when we are resurrected? Flesh or spirit? What are we now? Flesh or spirit? What does the flesh now beget? If the flesh now begets flesh, then it is logical, that flesh after the resurrection will beget flesh.
BoJ…You have become a “we” a spirt in a mortal tabernacle before you are resurrected. Give me any LDS teaching that teaching this is how spirits are begotten in the pre-existence or organized in the womb. You are just making stuff up…CFR from any LDS GA.

And LOL flesh is beget through sex here, then in the CK by your logic you will be begetting through sex after the resurrection?

And according to LDS thought according to clear teaching…your spirit is resurrected first and you go to the spirit world, and then after the final judgement try will receive your final body of flesh and bone (no blood). Some will receive celestial bodies that will allow sexual relationships for eternity.

How are you a literal spirit child of God? I didn’t write this dross, your church did. Literally sons and daughters, no a eternal spirit in some limbo world running around asking for help as you suggest.

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).

Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy.

We were not all alike in heaven. We know, for example, that we were sons and daughters of heavenly parents—males and females. We possessed different talents and abilities, and we were called to do different things on earth.

A veil covers our memories of our premortal life, but our Father in Heaven knows who we are and what we did before we came here. He has chosen the time and place for each of us to be born so we can learn the lessons we personally need and do the most good with our individual talents and personalities. LDS . Org
 

Markk

Active member
I have to ask, are we literally the sons and daughters of God now? Is an adopted son or daughter literally a child of the parents who adopted them?
No. I have a sister that is adopted, and my parents chose her, but me and by siblings were literally begat by my mother and father. They literally drove to a hospital and literally picked up and literally put her in the car and drove home. My sister who was literally begotten of another mother and father.

My sister is literally my parents adopted child….sure. CFR from any GA that man was adopted as a spirit to HF and HF in pre-existence?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I want to make clear on something, and add this as an example..this quote is from LDS . Org...

Doctrinal Overview​

King Benjamin taught his people, “The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever” (Mosiah 3:19). He explained that such a man will remain in this condition “unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (v. 19). Elder Orson Pratt, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught: “The more righteous a people become the more they are qualified for loving others and rendering them happy. A wicked man can have but little love for his wife” (The Seer [1853–54], 156; see also student manual, 157).


I also am going through your link above, and am reading through the footnotes, and following the cf. Ironically one of the articles in the Seer that is rejected as truth is that ”God is all knowing” and not progressing and still learning. He was also getting slammed by BY for rejecting Adam God, which turns out to be the standard today by the church that Adam God is just BY’s opinion.

Thee objection to the Seer are spelled out, and why some, like celestial vegetables, might be something that is just weird, even is a LDS context, however much of what the FP rejected is doctrine today.

You need to read through what you pasted. I am going to take th time to finish reading through the Desert article you links, links their opinion to. It is apparent that the wiki author you quoted is either lazy and did not research before he wrote, or like FAIR, just flat out dishonest.
Hah! So, the LDS church will quote the Seer, when it suits them: " A wicked man can have but little love for his wife” (The Seer [1853–54], 156; see also student manual, 157).

Shouldn't that have been "wiveS"? :)
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I want to make clear on something, and add this as an example..this quote is from LDS . Org...

Doctrinal Overview​

King Benjamin taught his people, “The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever” (Mosiah 3:19). He explained that such a man will remain in this condition “unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (v. 19). Elder Orson Pratt, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught: “The more righteous a people become the more they are qualified for loving others and rendering them happy. A wicked man can have but little love for his wife” (The Seer [1853–54], 156; see also student manual, 157).


I also am going through your link above, and am reading through the footnotes, and following the cf. Ironically one of the articles in the Seer that is rejected as truth is that ”God is all knowing” and not progressing and still learning. He was also getting slammed by BY for rejecting Adam God, which turns out to be the standard today by the church that Adam God is just BY’s opinion.

Thee objection to the Seer are spelled out, and why some, like celestial vegetables, might be something that is just weird, even is a LDS context, however much of what the FP rejected is doctrine today.

You need to read through what you pasted. I am going to take th time to finish reading through the Desert article you links, links their opinion to. It is apparent that the wiki author you quoted is either lazy and did not research before he wrote, or like FAIR, just flat out dishonest.
You miss the entire point. You're whole argument is on your definition of "doctrine", and that doctrine is by accepting what the LDS leaders have said and taught.
Then you cherry pick sources to justify what is "concentrated" (actual) Mormonism and what is "watered down" (pseudo) Mormonism. And when challenged against your whole line of reasoning, rather than reject the source, you try and find means to justify it. How is that any different than what BoJ or I do? All that matters is your argument "survives".
You've lost a lot of respect in my book on this one.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Think hard on this video and its message to 5 and 6 year olds.
This kinda underscores my point. You use a 5 & 6 year old narrative to come up with your strawman argument.
Also, you clearly never raised kids in the church. There's no way they take it that seriously.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
LOL, they also condemn Adam God…so what? They also quote Pratt on LDS .org when it fits their needs?

I am quoting a LDS apostle, and a key founder of the LDS church in Utah. In fact, in hind sight it turns out the Pratt was correct in opposing BY and many subjects that the church now rejects…so as students of LDS history and doctrine all is fair discussion if taught by a apostle or prophet…and we can see what compliments or contradicts current LDS thought.
That's my whole argument.
And that which is "current" LDS thought, by your definition, become illogical upon further examination.
Actual "current LDS thought", which you call "watered down" focuses on the doctrine of Christ, and centralizes the Book of Mormon as a measure of all other beliefs and practices.

The church has moved on from whatever you think Mormonism is. And by rejecting your own line of reasoning to justify your beliefs reveals you to be just as "Mormon" as anyone else. Whatever it takes as long as your theological beliefs are "true".
 

Markk

Active member
Hah! So, the LDS church will quote the Seer, when it suits them: " A wicked man can have but little love for his wife” (The Seer [1853–54], 156; see also student manual, 157).

Shouldn't that have been "wiveS"? :)
The Seer is fine, the BY presidency objected to certain article in the Seer. For one Pratt insisted God was all knowing, BY and others insisted he was still learning and always would. They also reject some of his teachings on the pre-existence…and most is spelled out clearing in a newspaper article in the Millennial Star.

Pratt feuded with BY and JS from the beginning, and was actually in line to be prophet, I think even ahead of Young, but was demoted, along with Hyde, back in line a few spots in succession. Some claim, without proof, he was even ex communicated for a few months.

The first riff was that JS made a pass at Pratt’s wife, and was forced to take sides against the church or get kicked out. JS even called Pratt’s wife a whore, and said she was sleeping with the newly “retired” #1 councilor of Smiths, William Bennett.

I’m reading a book on this right now and it is very interesting. Bottom line is Pratt was stubborn and head strong and held a grudge against Smith and Young, at least that is what I seeing so far in my reading.
 

Markk

Active member
You miss the entire point. You're whole argument is on your definition of "doctrine", and that doctrine is by accepting what the LDS leaders have said and taught.
Then you cherry pick sources to justify what is "concentrated" (actual) Mormonism and what is "watered down" (pseudo) Mormonism. And when challenged against your whole line of reasoning, rather than reject the source, you try and find means to justify it. How is that any different than what BoJ or I do? All that matters is your argument "survives".
You've lost a lot of respect in my book on this one.
CFR on what I cherry picked Aaron. I am not even sure what you are referring to? If it is Pratt CFR. You had better do your homework on that one. Pratt got the last laught on thos ethat rejected his line of thoughts on the nature of God and to a lesser extant the preexistence…in that the church even his life time started to accept his teachings over the now dead BY.

Did you read the arguments laid out in the News Paper article that condemned parts of the Seer? Or did you just go to Fair and paste their propaganda? If the latter then you are being deceived.

We can again objectively test everything I wrote Aaron.

Doctrine is what is taught, and what is accepted as a teaching, which is always tricky in the maze of Mormonism. I don’t know what else to say about that other than lets keep reading through it.
 

Markk

Active member
This kinda underscores my point. You use a 5 & 6 year old narrative to come up with your strawman argument.
Also, you clearly never raised kids in the church. There's no way they take it that seriously.
HuH?

The video is presented to everyone..as a faith tool. But besides that the kids were of a age that they could in no way discern differently. It is when the get older they find the true teachings and have issues.

It is not a straw man argument…at all. These men are treated as gods, and it starts in programming the kids at a early ages, just as I was. I didn’t have to raise kids in the church, I was raised in the church. Give me a break Aaron come on. Not tpmention all my nieces and nephews that are leaving the church now that they found out these men are not what they were taught they were.

Gotta run, more later.
 

Markk

Active member
That's my whole argument.
And that which is "current" LDS thought, by your definition, become illogical upon further examination.
Actual "current LDS thought", which you call "watered down" focuses on the doctrine of Christ, and centralizes the Book of Mormon as a measure of all other beliefs and practices.

The church has moved on from whatever you think Mormonism is. And by rejecting your own line of reasoning to justify your beliefs reveals you to be just as "Mormon" as anyone else. Whatever it takes as long as your theological beliefs are "true".
Tell that to the folks in the Temple? Those beliefs you say they moved on from are manifested everyday in the Temple…man making themselves Gods? And if you compare what is taught in the teaching manuals today, it hasn‘t changed at all…just the GC talks and News room propaganda.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
That's my whole argument.
And that which is "current" LDS thought, by your definition, become illogical upon further examination.
Actual "current LDS thought", which you call "watered down" focuses on the doctrine of Christ, and centralizes the Book of Mormon as a measure of all other beliefs and practices.

The church has moved on from whatever you think Mormonism is. And by rejecting your own line of reasoning to justify your beliefs reveals you to be just as "Mormon" as anyone else. Whatever it takes as long as your theological beliefs are "true".
“The church has moved on...” You mean from the false prophets and false doctrines it was founded on?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
LOL, they also condemn Adam God…so what?
LOL. No, they didn't. They condemned the "theory" which was manufactured by our critics. The church hasn't come out with any position on what Brigham Young actually taught concerning Adam God.
I am quoting a LDS apostle, and a key founder of the LDS church in Utah.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
You're quoting from an LDS apostle who is speculating. His writing is mostly fluff that has little consequence to reality. From that section, I quote:
'"The Morning Stars sang together." The Lord does not reveal to Job the sentiments contained in this song. It was probably a song,
composed by one of the wisest poets in the vast kingdom of spirits, there assembled.'

The whole section is filled with mighty guesswork. I'm particularly enthralled with the idea that the "Father of Spirits" filled one of the celestial kingdoms with his own Sons and Daughters who, I assume, were the fruit of his own loins and THEN gave commandment to his "First Born"...

So as he "First Born" before he filled one of the celestial kingdoms with the fruit of his loins or after? And now, this individual is the "First begotten" and no the only begotten? There are little tidbits of information in there, but it's hard to extract it from all the fluff.

This is one phrase in there that alludes to your ideas, "where they should become fathers of fleshly bodies, in like manner, as God was the Father of their spirits." But, again, he is still speculating what the "like manner" was about how "God was the Father of their spirits". As I stated before, the ideas that have been formed around how this occurs simply comes from doing what we believe God did and we could be wrong about it. The scriptures create an unsolvable problem with that scenario. Man has always existed and has been coexistent with God from the beginning. If that is true, then how can God give birth to these existent beings? Well, one way is to create yet another estate, the non-spirit state. That's the state that you imagine existed. I can't tell from Pratt's writings what he believes about what we were before this new estate, but clearly, our spirits did not start with birth. The problem with the beginning of a spirit state, as you suggest is that if that is true, then that state must cease to exist at some point. All things which have a beginning must have an end.

Like this mortal existence, it has a beginning and it will have an end. If we apply this same principle to your idea, our spirits must have an end. If that ends, then the very basis for the form our body holds will also end meaning that the resurrection will have an end. Roberts addresses the obvious problem created by this idea.

The resurrection has a beginning and based on this idea of what begins also ends would suggest that the resurrection also has an ending. His solution is that matter is also eternal and that kind of makes sense to me, but he doesn't fold it into a solution well enough for me. While every aspect around it is not clear, it seems to me that those who are resurrected will have sufficient power over matter to maintain their bodies. Right now, our bodies are kept alive by blood pumping through our veins transferring oxygen from our lungs to various parts of our body to maintain function. It grows and increases in vitality to a point and then begins to decay and die. In the resurrection, our bodies will be maintained through by spirit which is eternal. Why that can't happen before we were born into mortality is an unknown. Apparently, God is in control over that and it appears to be automatic. If you were born, through the Savior's atonement, we are all automatically eligible for the resurrection. The question is, into which resurrection will we enter.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
that is rejected as truth is that ”God is all knowing” and not progressing and still learning.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is "rejected as truth". In fact, I believe this is your idea of what we teach and is not, in fact, what we teach.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I don't think the Prophets intend to lead anyone astray.
Yea. I'd agree. Leading someone astray, like lying, would indicate that they knew the right way and intentionally lead them the wrong way. I believe that the Prophet and all the twelve, including Pratt, believe what they teach/taught. So, if they are leading people astray, it's not intentional. I don't know that I can say the same thing about our critics' prophets and false teachers.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Why allow misinformed Temple prep teachers since the Temple is extremely important and vital to the covenants necessary for salvation.
If you really were a member of the church, you'd know better. There is not school to keep people from interjecting their own ideas and so people are allowed to say what they believe is true. You didn't answer my question. I did I answer your question?

Note: I just say that you answered my question in the affirmative. I don't see any reason to discuss it further.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
They are…begat means begat, Trees beget Trees, monkeys beget monkeys, people beget people, and Gods beget Gods.
And spirit begets spirits. Do trees have sex to produce trees? Do Gods have sex to produce Gods? Do spirits have sex to produce spirits?

The point is that these very same words are used to connote other forms of birth besides pregnancy in females. Case in point, the Father of spirits. Firstborn of all creation, offspring of God. born-again. All terms that refer to an event that has nothing to do with sex.
What you write above is beyond nonsense In a LDS context.
What you claim about what we believe is beyond nonsense in an LDS context.
Eternal families are exalted families in the final estate, if they make “Eternal life.” They are beings with exalted celestial bodies of flesh and bone, who have been seal together for eternity. That is a definition of a LDS “eternal family”…you simply have no idea what LDS theology demands.
Your view is "simply" limited to your own ideas. Eternal families are the production of families forever. Hence, the words, eternal and family. Connecting families genealogically is not part of the heavenly eternal family. Genealogy is done to connect the family from the last man to Adam, an accounting that ensures that no one is missed. In the resurrection, those who are married will continue to have children, and those children will follow the same course that Adam and Eve chose, which, in turn, makes them like us where they can continue the work that we did. That work continues eternally. In this way, the promises made to Abraham can be fulfilled wherein his seed will be as innumerable as the sands of the sea and the stars in the heavens. That's a number that cannot possibly be fulfilled in the limited time that this earth will exist to produce offspring in mortality.
The spirit children…who were begotten, born, reared to maturity, organized in the whom of HM, etc…are spirits, in the “pre-existence” and “spirit world”…that is why it is and are given a mortal tabranacle and then have to go and prove themselves worthy in order t live eternally as a family as a “eternal family.”
Again, a concoction of our own making. Spirit children, who have always existed and are co-eternal with God, are born and begotten and reared to maturity in the same manner that we accept the gospel and grow in the gospel, line upon line...
Anyone in a eternal family is either a God or Goddess (HF and a HM)
Again, your own concoction. Are you "in an eternal family"? Are you a God or a Goddess? a HF or a HM? No? I didn't think so. And why do you suppose that would be?
and they will in turn beget, give birth, raise to maturity spirit children
Pretty close. I fixed it for you.
I will be more that happy to go through this with you…I encourage you to reject it,
I would encourage you to get it right before you start preaching what you think we believe.
 
Top