Oops ...

brotherofJared

Well-known member
All people according to LDS theology are literal children of HF
Where do you see that the subject of your quote was referring to spirits?
If up don’t understand this basic teaching you might want to sit in on primary lessons (LOL sorry I couldn’t resist).
LOL. I guess you don't want to answer the question. Or maybe you can't.
If you have been following I was quoting Pratt, and from the Seer…here is another teaching from the apostle, in the same periodical.
Pratt's speculation does not make it doctrine. It has holes. Your theory has holes as well. Mine has fewer and holds water better. ;)
112. We have in this article on preexistence traced man back to his origen in the heavenly world as an infant spirit; we have shown that this spirit was begotten and born by celestial parents long anterior to the formation of this creation.
This is an idea that teaches that spirits have a beginning. This is clearly opposite of Joseph Smith's teachings and the scriptures which are doctrine.
like unto their Father God by whom their spirits were begotten.
It isn't too hard to figure out where Pratt got this idea. It comes right out of the Bible. And again, how that comes about is anyone's guess but the fact remains, we do not teach that God had sex with his wife to make them. Some people imagine it occurred that way, but it's pure speculation and unfortunately for them and you, it doesn't fit. You can't make what already exists.
I understand to you he is a dead prophet and apostle, but above agrees with what the church teaches today.
No, it doesn't agree with what the church teaches today. :rolleyes: Nowhere in the church is it taught that God made spirits through sexual relations with his God wife.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
But my main point is that LDS prophets teach a literal birth
No. They don't teach literal "birth". We are the literal offspring whether or not that occurred by a birth that is any different from being born again. That is also literal, but doesn't occur through sexual relations.
nd with or without Pratt, it is a pretty much unanimous position.
Only in your mind.
As the GAs taught, we will be the parents of spirit children.
(y)
I just don't believe that it will be through sexual relations.
(y)
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 [that] we'll call Eve
(y)
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
(y)

All great points.
I have given multiple citations for LDS teaching showing the spirit were literally begotten and born
That's great. I don't disagree that they will be literally our spirit children. I disagree that they will become our literal spirit children through sexual relations. None of your "multiple citations" make that claim. You do. It appears that Pratt did. But we can acquire children without giving birth to them and this occurs whenever these beings already exist. I've already provide the citations where these beings do in fact exist and have existed forever. Second, I have given citations that Brigham Young taught that Adam and Eve are the product of sexual relations between a celestial husband and wife. If what he said is true, then it appears that somehow our new resurrected bodies will come with a switch that we do not now have... It would be a switch to have sex with spirit organs (organs that don't exist :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:... ) to having sex with physical organs... I guess.

Again, the evidence is there. Further, Joseph Smith used the terms intelligence and spirit synonymously. As I stated before, there is a point of conflict. Where a spirit already exists but he comes a son or she becomes a daughter, something has to occur to make that change. Was it sex? Well, that's not the way it works here. Those babies don't physically exist and they certainly were co-mortal like us when we made them our children. The only example of such a birth is in being born again. These are all amply testified in the scriptures. This creates a conflict in your explanation that you are not willing to address. And the last evidence that I will provide is that the pattern of birth and family here follows the pattern birth in heaven. Therefore, when we have sexual relations, we produce a physical baby who grows to maturity and gets married. That is the pattern that must occur in heaven. If you could provide me of an example when two people had sex and produce a spirit, then I could give your argument some creedance.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
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.
You did answer my question. Sorry about that.

Like I said though, it wasn't his interjection. It was IN the manual.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So you HF and HM are symbolic parents? Please explain.
Sorry. If you don't understand which part is symbolic, I really can't help you.
If you just screwed up the sentence structure…then why do these HF and HM have sex?
Again, I don't understand how you can be confused about my post.
I have shown you many.
You haven't shown me any.
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.
huh. Yet that's exactly what you believe about the birth of Christ. A baby was produced and yet you all claim that sex isn't in there. :rolleyes:
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
That would be the order of heaven. Where do you see in there that they are bearing spirit sons and daughters?
Maybe these sons and daughters just came and asked Jeremiah for help to become his children?
Did these sons and daughters always exist? See, the spirits which became the sons and daughters of God did exist and God was aware of them. Can you say the same of these earthly sons and daughters to earthly parents? No.
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.”
Show me one LDS teaching that states that spirits are produced through sexual relations. :rolleyes:
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
BoJ…You have become a “we” a spirt in a mortal tabernacle before you are resurrected.
I'm not sure what that means. But one thing is obvious. You haven't addressed the citation I provided.
Give me any LDS teaching that teaching this is how spirits are begotten in the pre-existence or organized in the womb.
There is no LDS teaching that spirits are organized in the womb. That's speculation. I have given you an LDS teaching that spirit begets spirit and flesh begets flesh. We believe what Jesus said, don't you?
You are just making stuff up…CFR from any LDS GA.
I think Jesus is an LDS GA. We believe the Bible. Again, I have to ask, have you ever seen a person give birth to a spirit? It's not going to happen, never will, not now in mortality and not ever in the kingdoms to come. Spirits, according to our theology and doctrine, are eternal. They can neither be created nor made. That means, to me, they cannot be born through sexual relations like human babies are born. That seems to be common sense to me. It would be interesting to have this discussion with Pratt, but he's not here. I don't think I would have known enough to argue it then but I do now.

This, to me, is incredibly simple. Spirits are eternal therefore they cannot be born. Can it be more simple than that? If we have on the one hand that spirits are eternal and cannot be born and on the other hand, these eternal beings are the offspring of God, then we must conclude that whatever process that occurred, it was not through sexual relations. Again, I ask, what other example of birth do we have in the Christian world where beings who already exist are born again into a new life? What is spirit here, seems to me that it would be spirit there. Beings who already exist accepted God's plan, just like those who are born again here do. And there, those spirits embarked on a new life under God the Father just like we do here when we embark on a new life under God the Son where he becomes the Father of the new covenant.
And LOL flesh is beget through sex here, then in the CK by your logic you will be begetting through sex after the resurrection?
LOL. Why is this new to you? :rolleyes:
And according to LDS thought according to clear teaching…your spirit is resurrected first
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Ummm... no. The spirit can die. There's no need for it to be resurrected. :rolleyes:
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).
I read this as Man, as a spirit, was given a body and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the celestial kingdom, prior to coming upon the earth in a body that would die. IOW, he was born of a physical body that wouldn't die unless he wanted too and his heavenly parents raised him to maturity where he found a wife, got married, was placed in a garden and ate some fruit and was cast out of the garden to raise a family and eventually die.

Further, this statement does not equate Heavenly Father with heavenly parents. it appears to me that Joseph F Smith was deliberately avoiding that connection. The issue at hand is that God the Father has only one begotten son, not two. Since there are two beings who lived on this earth (three if we count Eve) who were physically born of heavenly parents and God the Father, only has one begotten son, it appears to be obvious that Adam had different parents from the ones that Jesus had.
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.
Yea. stlil no problem.
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.
Again, Still no problem.
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
That should be all that is needed to refute your claims. If God chose the time and place, then obviously, he didn't give birth to any of us. There is a sequential process in giving birth that appears to have no relation to the families we are born in now. If he gave birth to all of us and then mixed us all up and put us where he wanted us, then why do we look like our parents? The fact that we do look like our parents indicates a sequential process in birth and no a mixture of placing existing offspring where we want them.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
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.
Joseph Smith lied about a lot of things.
 

Markk

Active member
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.
This is just bizarre. Can you show me what part of the Adam God teaching that the church supports, with cf?

What was manufactured by the critics of the church?

In one breath you state they condemn what critics state, and in another you say they have no position. SWK certainly has an opinion and taught BY was wrong, not any critic.

It is a tough subject with the church. They need to protect BY, yet they know it is a bogus doctrine. So they say nothing at all today, but they certainly reject it by not teaching any sort of AGT, and teach opposite of, which upon request I will certainly CF.…if I am wrong you can certainly give me a GA teaching supporting the AGT.


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.'
So you have Orson Pratt here saying Job might be one of the wisest spirits in intelligence, eternal matter with God, and you condem that by taking sides with a man that taught…

Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.” – Brigham Young, Discourse 35

And,

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.” –Brigham Young, Discourse 39

And,

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” – Brigham Young, Discourse 25

And,

No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” – Brigham Young, Discourse 45

And,

“What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty.” – Brigham Young, Discourse 26

And,

“So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” –
Brigham Young, Discourse 31

My position they are both nuts, who spoke a lot of weird stuff…but Ironically most the stuff Pratt was belittled for, is now LDS doctrine. So, am picking one nut who is relevant, over a nut that is protected yet ignored.

Maybe we can start a thread on weird this said by LDS GA, that are weirder than what Pratt said in your quote.
 

Markk

Active member
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"...

LOL, any your theory is doctrine?…a bunch of spirits walking around asking Gods for help to be come Mortals? Yes Pratt is a nut, but so is BY and other GA.

Other the part about younger brethren helping with the creation, how does what you wrote differ from the current teaching of Elohim providing a plan of salvation to his first born spirit child?

Expound and explain why this contradict LDS theology.

Paste what he wrote in context and lest go through it…again his doctrine is off, but so is BY’s..so let’s compare the two, which what is taught today…the ball is in your court.
 

Markk

Active member
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?
Plants and trees have certain ways of pro-creating, to produce saplings. Some, like most cherry trees need to cross pollinate…meaning there needs to be at least two trees to basically fertilize the flower and create a fruit, which has a seed, which in turn can become a tree.

Do Gods have sex to produce God’s? …according to LDS theology yes, they teach eternal sex for a reason, and producing possible Gods is by generation, and they teach HF and HM produce by birth literal children that a reared to maturity.

The church teaches spirts are eternal, so no they do not have sex, they need to be organized by a HF and a HM through a celestial relationship.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
This is just bizarre. Can you show me what part of the Adam God teaching that the church supports, with cf?
I already did. ;)
What was manufactured by the critics of the church?
That Adam was the father of Jesus.
In one breath you state they condemn what critics state, and in another you say they have no position.
I haven't changed. It is clear that the GAs have condemned the Adam God "Theory". They haven't taken a position on what Brigham Young actually taught. I'll be happy to spell out anything else you don't understand about what I said, that is unless it really is absurdly simple.
SWK certainly has an opinion and taught BY was wrong, not any critic.
Oh. Please show me where SWK agreed with the critics. :rolleyes:
It is a tough subject with the church.
It is. Just like the KFD is a tough subject within the church. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. It just means that many people won't understand it. A classic example is the asinine conclusions our critics draw from them.
They need to protect BY, yet they know it is a bogus doctrine.
I disagree. They have no problem throwing Brigham Young under the bus about his position on when blacks could hold the priesthood. Clearly, Brigham was wrong on that subject. So, no, they don't need to protect him. However, on this subject, maybe the reason they haven't take a position on it is because it is doctrine. But still, Brigham didn't teach what you think he taught.

I believe it's pretty well accepted among church members that Adam and Eve weren't actually made from dirt. The creation epic is symbolic. It took longer than 6 days to create the earth and put man on it. It seems logical, that since man is part of that epic that his creation is also symbolic. Many may not be willing to go so far as to say they were born. Several members think God formed man through evolution and put man's spirit in an existing humanoid. Others think they were brought from another world where they were actually made. The book of Adam seems to support this idea which isn't a church publication. In fact, I'd dare say that a lot of people don't believe God played patty cake in mud to make man. But, again, the best explanation is usually the simplest and quite often it is the correct explanation. They were born of heavenly parents and raised to maturity and placed in the garden.
but they certainly reject it by not teaching any sort of AGT
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Not teaching it does not mean they reject it.
and teach opposite of
Please show me where they teach that Adam is not a god.
if I am wrong you can certainly give me a GA teaching supporting the AGT.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Ok. Brigham Young.
 

Markk

Active member
I haven't changed. It is clear that the GAs have condemned the Adam God "Theory". They haven't taken a position on what Brigham Young actually taught. I'll be happy to spell out anything else you don't understand about what I said, that is unless it really is absurdly simple.
LOL Okay…This is why folks believe it is a cult. John Kerry …”I was against the war, before I was for it”
That Adam was the father of Jesus.
What was that Adams name according to your theory?

Oh. Please show me where SWK agreed with the critics.
Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.


Nothing about this theory being taught by critics BoJ, Kimball is clear the theory was taught by General Authorities. It is safe to say, Brigham Young. Hence…SWK agrees with what we critics assert, it is as he puts it, “false doctrine.”
 

Markk

Active member
It is. Just like the KFD is a tough subject within the church. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. It just means that many people won't understand it. A classic example is the asinine conclusions our critics draw from them.
What is the asinine conclusion I or other critics draw from either the KFD, and the AGT…?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
What was that Adams name according to your theory?
Who knows?
Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth.
Whatever that is.
Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory.
Again. Is he agreeing with our critics? No. He's specifically talking about our critics' theories, not about what Brigham Young actually taught concerning it. There is nothing wrong with the ideas that Adam is Michael, that Adam is the Ancient if days or that Adam is the only god with whom we will have anything to do with in his role as the Ancient of Days. None of us will turn the keys of this kingdom over to Christ, only Adam can do that.

Your theories, however, are not taught and never will be because they are theories. Assessing what Brigham Young actually taught is worthy of discussion. Ideas such as Adam and Eve were born just like any of us is worth consideration. The role we will play in continuing the seeds is also worth discussion. It is an area that few have approached and most generally relegate to ideas about what we think God did based on common terms that connote ideas and do not denote them such as, father if spirits and offspring of God.

I believe Brigham Young's teachings reflect Mormon orthodoxy if we understand that an Adam exists on both sides of the viel, that Adam as a resurrected being can have a son named Adam who can die. Where else have we seen this occur? Isn't it orthodox christianity that God had a Son who could die? This is not unheard of. It's pretty obvious in the scriptures that this is exactly what happened in the case of Jesus Christ. The only problem is with God as a resurrected being.

If this creation was unique in that it will never happen again, that idea would be fine. God could put himself in the womb of a mortal woman and save his creatures and that could never happen again, but; if this was ongoing, world's without end, that wouldn't work because resurrected beings cannot die again. They can't eat fruit and make themselves mortal and repeat the process. So, how does the work continue? It seems that God must be able to have a son and a daughter who can die to start the process all over again.

This is our doctrine. This is what we teach. We aren't perfected in our understanding of the doctrine but the outline is compatible with what Brigham Young taught.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.
Again, the theory is false. Adam is not God the Father. I don't believe that was the message Brigham Young intended to convey.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It is what he said. How do you know what his intentions were.
Because he said "theory" and because we do teach that we will be able to do what God is doing now.

The theory is that Adam is Jesus' father. That is false and we don't teach it. The truth is that a resurrected being is Jesus' father and we do teach that.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Because he said "theory" and because we do teach that we will be able to do what God is doing now.

The theory is that Adam is Jesus' father. That is false and we don't teach it. The truth is that a resurrected being is Jesus' father and we do teach that.
Brigham Young didn’t say it was a theory.
 
Top