Spirit Children

[Janice Bower]

And they will when they are exalted. So far, no one has explained how spirit babies are born - except you all.

I agree. Keeping the commandments does help develop us. That has nothing to do with making spirit babies.

You don't even understand LDS scriptures, so how can you comprehend Mormonism and criticize non-Mormons who know more than you do!

 

[brotherofJared]

We're not talking of Christian Churches, but about YOUR cult.

And he was talking about our church. LOL. Allow me to quote: "I guess our church isn't as authoritarian..."

Those who dissented from Smith's or Young's wacky teachings were often excommunicated.

That's because dissenters are angry people who set out to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

You can't come here and say the "source" of Pratt's statement has been repudiated.

He not only can come here and say that. He did. Get used to it.

That's simply untrue and YOU know it.

It is true and YOU know it.

"The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation." B.H. Roberts.

If you didn't know before, you do now. But I doubt it will make a difference.

And if you think Anglicans are "authoritarian" you are really uneducated in the realm of Christianity (you obviously don't know Biblical doctrine)

That would be the debate, wouldn't it? You don't know Bible doctrine. For example, you think firstborn means preeminent. It actually means, first in time.

But I'm not playing your little game Erundur

Awe. That's not fair. He's playing your little game.

your attempt to switch the topic to Christianity won't play with me

Weren't we just talking about spirit babies? Now what are we talking about?

the fact is that you stated the source of the statement had been repudiated. Tell us how it was repudiated.

by formal action of the First Presidency.

 

[Theo1689]

That would be the debate, wouldn't it? You don't know Bible doctrine. For example, you think firstborn means preeminent. It actually means, first in time.

That's like saying, "You don't understand English terms. For example, you think gay means homosexual. It actually means, "merry" or "bright".

Guess what? Language evolves over time.

 

[Bonnie]

And he was talking about our church. LOL. Allow me to quote: "I guess our church isn't as authoritarian..."

That's because dissenters are angry people who set out to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

He not only can come here and say that. He did. Get used to it.

It is true and YOU know it.

"The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation." B.H. Roberts.

If you didn't know before, you do now. But I doubt it will make a difference.

That would be the debate, wouldn't it? You don't know Bible doctrine. For example, you think firstborn means preeminent. It actually means, first in time.

Awe. That's not fair. He's playing your little game.

Weren't we just talking about spirit babies? Now what are we talking about?

by formal action of the First Presidency.

Actually, "firstborn" can mean first one born, but in some contexts in the Bible, it does mean "first in pre-emininence." Check it out.

So yes, CA does know Bible doctrine--better than most Mormons do.

As for dissenters who are angry people who set out to kill people....is that always true? What about the people who set out to kill dissenters? Remember the Danites? What did they do?

Talk about killing....remember the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

 

[Theo1689]

As for dissenters who are angry people who set out to kill people....is that always true? What about the people who set out to kill dissenters? Remember the Danites? What did they do?

Talk about killing....remember the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

And who were the "dissenters", other than Mormons, who dissented from evangelical Christianity?

 

[Bonnie]

And who were the "dissenters", other than Mormons, who dissented from evangelical Christianity?

Hmmmm, good point!

 

[Catherineaurelia]

And he was talking about our church. LOL. Allow me to quote: "I guess our church isn't as authoritarian..."

That's because dissenters are angry people who set out to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

He not only can come here and say that. He did. Get used to it.

It is true and YOU know it.

"The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation." B.H. Roberts.

If you didn't know before, you do now. But I doubt it will make a difference.

That would be the debate, wouldn't it? You don't know Bible doctrine. For example, you think firstborn means preeminent. It actually means, first in time.

Awe. That's not fair. He's playing your little game.

Weren't we just talking about spirit babies? Now what are we talking about?

by formal action of the First Presidency.

As I recall, it was Smith's army, THE DANITES, who killed Mormon "dissenters." Mormons killing Mormons. A disgusting scenario. I don't know of any Christians killing Mormons - if you do, prove it. Smitty was arrested legally and incarcerated at Carthage jail. He was killed by Illinois citizens who were sick of his immoral teachings and his treason. I don't recall that they were evangelical Christians.

I've already explained the difference between the two words translated "firstborn" in English, but in the Greek having a different connotation. Anybody that's gone to grammar school should have been able to understand it. Let me make it more understandable to you. Was David the first born son in his family? No, he was the youngest. Yet God calls David "the firstborn," see Psalm 89: "20 “I have found David My servant; With My holy oil I have anointed him,27 “I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth." Firstborn is also a title and does not necessarily refer to order of birth or creation. But if you want to believe Mormon "jesus" was "created," fine with me. Mormon "jesus" is a fallacy. He doesn't exist anyway. The Christian Jesus Created all things, therefore has pre-eminence over Creation, as I've stated. But quite frankly, I don't expect a TBM to be convinced by grammatical facts. This is one of the chief reasons I like educating Christians about the Mormon cult - keep people out of entanglement with Mormonism should be the first goal of Christians. If some Mormon is convinced and leaves the cult, Praise the Lord - but that's not my primary goal. I write for those not yet entrapped.

A close reading of your claim (which I saw was copied off a Mormon site) says it was the publication known as "The Seer" which the cult supposedly repudiated. This would be akin to some Christian leaders repudiating the Book of Ephesians written by the Apostle Paul. The cult put pressure on the APOSTLE Pratt to renounce his own writings - don't forget the cult had at one time excommunicated him. The Mormons are laughable if they believe a real Apostle would write something which teaches false doctrine. Of course the truth is, Orson Pratt was no real Apostle, and Mormonism is no restoration of Christianity. They make it up as they go along. Furthermore, "The Seer" consisted mostly of Pratt's own writings, and the vast majority of those writings dealt with PLURAL MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY and some other topics - and that's why the cult's leadership "repudiated" them in 1865. It had nothing to do with Pratt's view of spirit babies. It was because the cult was stepping away from their "revealed" doctrine on polygamy, period. You don't even know your own history.......and that's why people remain in the cult. Most intellectually honest people would admit the obvious problems in Mormonism. TBMs absolutely won't.

 

[brotherofJared]

As I recall, it was Smith's army, THE DANITES, who killed Mormon "dissenters."

LOL. More nonsense and misinformation.

I've already explained the difference between the two words translated "firstborn"

And I've already explained that your definition is purely made up out of your belief. It has nothing to do with reality. If it meant preeminent then the take up your argument with the translators.

Was David the first born son in his family? No, he was the youngest. Yet God calls David "the firstborn,"

No. God doesn't call David the firstborn. Your attempts to rewrite our beliefs falls over into rewriting the Bible as well, apparently. God said he would "make" David his firstborn. There is a difference. The context signals being made to be something he isn't. The context eminence not preeminence which can be given to anyone. Being first cannot.

Firstborn is also a title and does not necessarily refer to order of birth or creation.

Regardless, it also means first in time. Get used to it. In the context where it is used in reference to Christ, in relation to time, Christ was first. Above all else that cannot be taken from him.

Here is the stupidity of deriving definitions based on belief. From Bible commentary,

"So we must ask: Whose womb was opened so Jesus could be firstborn over creation? Whose womb was opened so Jesus would be the firstborn from the dead? Of course, Jesus did not have to be born again because there was never a time when He was not already and still God."

Why must we ask anything?. Why can't we just take it for what it actually says? This is a belief based definition. The writer of this particular commentary believes that Colossians 1:15 is the basis for making the claim that it doesn't actually mean first born. Because Jesus never opened the womb.

But the reality is that he did open the womb. He opened the womb just like any of us did. And in that family he was also literally the firstborn. That is one example of a first for an eternal being. In eternity there are many firsts. They are things that will never happen again in all of eternity to the same being. So it is with all of us. So it is with Christ at the beginning of all creation. There will never ever be another moment in eternity for Christ to be the firstborn of all creation. And, of course, there can only be one of those. There can't be two firstborn children even if they are the same age.

But can there be more than one creation of all things? For God's work to continue, there must be. Creation works in cycles. Just as every house ever built decays so also will the earth and all of its creations because none of this contains life in itself. Therefore, for the work of God to continue, there must come after this creation has passed away, a new earth and a new heaven and in that creation there must be a firstborn. Can it be Jesus? No.

So, even though Jesus has always existed, there is a point in time where he was first in time (the actual meaning of the word used in Colossians and the most appropriate) of all creation.

This epic, in which we are now living, has been repeated for eons before we ever came into existence and will be continue to be repeated forever.

What do I mean by existence? Before we met God, our existence was null and void, without meaning or purpose. The joy and opportunity we found with God brought order, meaning and purpose. At that moment, we were born of heavenly parents, neutered and grew to maturity, just as new members of the church, when they find the joy available in God's kingdom and pursue it. Everyone who is born of the water and of the spirit has a great deal of maturity and spiritual growth ahead of them. They don't instantly know the meaning of all things. That is the context of being born as children of God. No sex involved.

But if you want to believe Mormon "jesus" was "created," fine with me

Apparently, it's not fine with you. But I never said he was created. You aren't paying attention. I'm just saying Jesus is the firstborn of all creation (the exact words used in the Bible you capital to believe). You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. It's the same thing you're doing with the quotes you offer from our church leaders. It's a complete misrepresentation.

Mormon "jesus" is a fallacy

I wouldn't rely on your opinion for that information.

 

[brotherofJared]

A close reading of your claim (which I saw was copied off a Mormon site) says it was the publication known as "The Seer" which the cult supposedly repudiated.

I gave credit to the source. The leaders of the church did repudiate it. You're making up your own facts.

This would be akin to some Christian leaders repudiating the Book of Ephesians written by the Apostle Paul

LOL. At least you're recognizing the apostleship, something none of you all have.

The cult put pressure on the APOSTLE Pratt to renounce his own writings

And it worked. His writings did not represent the doctrines of the church.

The Mormons are laughable if they believe a real Apostle would write something which teaches false doctrine.

I've told you a number of times, we don't believe our leaders are infallible. They are just as capable of speculation as anyone else's. Our critics are laughable if they think that we believe otherwise.

I pointed out an excerpt from "The Seer" that I found to be difficult to believe and I'm sure based solely on the opinion of the author. Just because their mouth is moving does not mean they are speaking God's truth. I once rewrote a talk given by Elder Scott because I believed he went off the reservation with it. During that rewrite, I discovered the purpose/message of the talk and realized that he repurposed and example from the scriptures to illustrate a point. When I understood the message, I abandoned my efforts because I was wrong, not him. I don't know what Pratt was thinking but he was not in a position to direct church doctrine. McConkie was also an apostle who said many things that were not doctrine even though he called his book Mormon Doctrine. He wasn't wrong about everything, but he did have to eat his words on several occasions and other things just weren't appropriate even if true. We don't have 15 chiefs. We have one and even that one discusses his revelations at length before they become doctrine and if you'll note, all 15 concur before it becomes doctrine. We have mavericks in our church leadership. You know, they aren't scholars of religion. They aren't reading the scriptures we have to see if one of them can invent new scripture or be clever about the interpretation of any of them. Doing so tends to break down unity and creates confusion. That's what The Seer publication was doing. A lot of it was right, even if not doctrine but it wasn't helpful. Regardless, at no point in the publication did Pratt make the explicit statement that the Gods have sex to produce spirits babies.

I'll reiterate what we believe and teach.

1. The gods will have spirit children and they will raise them to maturity and provide for them and opportunity to obtain a body and so they may receive the same opportunity the gods have.

2. We don't know, nor has any one explained the mechanics of obtaining spirit children.

3. When the gods procreate, it is give birth to children the same as it is done now. I don't think I need to explain how that works. It works no differently than it did in mortality, minus the intense pain. It was through this process that Adam and Eve came to be. Adam was not a statue made from dirt and Eve was not a rib bone.

Now, this is what I understand that our church teaches. You all disagree. I argue that not being members of our church and getting your information from antagonistic sources, the value and weight of my opinions about what we believe vastly outweighs your opinions.

If you feel you have a point worth arguing, then present the evidence. So far, nothing you have presented sways my understanding in the slightest. It is my opinion that not only do you not understand what your reading, I believe you don't want to understand which I believe is truly pathetic for a person who claims to have the truth when they obviously don't. There are so many holes in your beliefs that don't make any sense at all.