Questions for Mormons..

[dianaiad]

Was it natural to conceive without intercourse during the 1860s?? What else would you call “natural action” if not sexual intercourse?

What difference does that make? I’m sorry if that sounds odd, but…

What difference does it make what anyone in the 1860’s thought? At that time, perhaps they were faced with a seemingly paradoxical situation for which faith was required, but the two positions were still very much there: first, the ABSOLUTE statement that Mary was a virgin at the birth of her Son, and second, that God the Father is physically the Father of the Son…the Holy Ghost is not.

If those men really had thought that God did it by having sexual intercourse with Mary, they would have USED THOSE WORDS. At least, someone would have at some point, just to get it over with.

but nobody did, and by that, I mean, NOBODY did. Ever.

So there was this situation that people had to take by faith: that God could have made Mary pregnant without having sex with her. Dunno why that is so difficult for people today, when we actually pull that off as mere mortals, but it sure seems harder for folks now to deal with the idea than it was for my grandparents.

The father came down and he… (well you can imagine…)

You can imagine if you wish. However, your imagination is your imagination, and *not what was written. *

Almost all, if not all, of these comments occur in the context of discussions about the Trinity, and emphasize the paternity of God the Father as a separate Being; He was Christ’s father, the Holy Ghost was not.

It’s about genetics, in other words, not the method of delivery.

Oh, yes? Well it is in a different passage… if you meant that you are right…

And those statements are STILL about genetics. We still have to reconcile the idea of Mary being a virgin, (as in, never having had sex with anybody) with the idea that God was very physically the Father of the mortal Jesus Christ.

So, here’s the question for you.

Why is it so vital to you that we believe that God had sex with Mary? What’s wrong with reacting in this way: “oh, you don’t? OK, I was told you did. Thank you for clearing that up.” and going on to the next thing?

 

[Janet1983]

What difference does that make? I’m sorry if that sounds odd, but…

Jesus conceptions is over and over compared to the conception of every other human being and the conception is being called natural, by Mary and the Elohim guy.
These things were written down before in-vitro fertilisation and even today that is not “natural”. Do you really think they would have had the openness in these days to talk about sex in religious literature and to do so literally? “Natural” conception is simply that… sex… “natural action”.

Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115
“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood --was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.”

Joseph Fielding Smith; Religious Truths Defined, p. 44:
“The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit,”

Mormon Doctrine, p.742
“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.”

There are some things that can be seen in these and other sources I already quoted…

1. 
   *]Jesus’ conception was the result of “natural action”, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
   *]“The Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit,” (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44).
   *]“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers,” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).
   *]“There is nothing figurative about his [Jesus’] paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 742).
   
   I know that the LDS church maintains that Jesus was born of a virgin, but looking at this evidence it sounds utterly strange…

 

[dianaiad]

Jesus conceptions is over and over compared to the conception of every other human being and the conception is being called natural, by Mary and the Elohim guy.

Mary and 'the Elohim guy?"

Janet, I’ve done with you. I have already explained what we believe about this issue, and you are going to argue with me about it, claiming that you know better what these men ‘meant’ than we do, and we are the actual believers?

Do you have any idea just how silly that is?

Well, perhaps if I illustrate it for you: you don’t really believe that Mary was a virgin. After all, the word ‘virgin’ as used in Luke 1:27 doesn’t NECESSARILY mean 'maiden, or girl who has never had sex." It was often used to refer only to young women who were growing up, whether they had ‘known man’ or not. It was also used to refer to adolescent men. The proof of this is shown in Proverbs 30:18, There are three that are beyond me and a fourth that I do not know: [19] the way of an eagle in the heavens; the way of a snake upon a rock; the way of a ship in the heart of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman. [20] Such is the way of the adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have done no wrong.” the word for ‘young woman’ is ‘almah’ which is the word translated as ‘virgin’ in Isaiah 7:14 and in Luke 1:27. You are not absolutely tied, then, to the idea that Mary was a virgin in the English sense of the word. Therefore, you believe that she was not a virgin, but was probably made pregnant by Joseph or some other person.

Now, Janet, I’m sure that you could come back with some intense and convincing argument that yes, you do to believe that she was a virgin, but y’know what? You, as a Christian who is a sola scripturian, have no place to go with this. All you can do about this is sputter and get indignant—how DARE I, this Mormon I’m sure you have consigned to permanent hellfire right along with the Catholics you’ve been busily insulting and instructing on their own beliefs, tell you what you believe in this?

Well, why can’t I? You do. I’ve told you. Other Mormons here have told you. Here is an article that goes into more detail. I don’t see any need to continue this.

 

[ParkerD]

I have a King James Version of the Bible published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, UT.

In Isaiah 43, I read:
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
In Isaiah 44, I read:
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If God, who is all-knowing and has perfect foreknowledge states, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”, “beside me there is no God”, and “I know not any”, how is it that Mormonism proposes that those who follow its tenets will become gods?

Randy Carson,
If you are going to read Isaiah (which is a good thing), then it is a good idea to understand the context of Isaiah’s words as he was inspired to write them, and also to understand that he writes often in poetic language and says the same thing in different ways.

Who is the God of Israel? It is Jehovah, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Holy One of Israel, the Savior and Redeemer. Isaiah is conveying this in these passages. The children of Israel were prone to create idols and get wrong thinking in their minds that those idols had something to do with “saving” them or helping them. Isaiah is inspired to re-teach to Israel that only the true Savior and Redeemer shall save them and redeem them. “Beside me there is no God” and “before me there is no God formed” are different ways of saying “beside me there is no Savior”, “neither shall there be after me.” He is emphasizing to the Israelites that He is the only Savior, the only One they should look to for being saved and redeemed.

Jehovah was the FirstBorn in the pre-mortal life where we all came long after Him in our spirit birth. In this way, He is the First (Alpha). At the end of the Millenium, when there is another great battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil led by Satan, then Christ will be the victor and Satan will be cast into hell for all eternity. In this way, Christ (Jehovah) is the Last (Omega).

The gospel message has been progressive to humankind in the Old Testament and the New Testament. John received the inspiration and assignment from God to reveal more knowledge than had been revealed to the followers of the covenant gospel, and he did that in the book of Revelation. He could not have been any more plain than when he was inspired to write:

(21:6,7) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

(3:21) “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

But you have to have the Spirit to hear and understand. “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

“All things” means literally all things. “Inherit” means to literally inherit. “Throne” means a literal throne, or in other words, a joint rulership in heaven. Why? To experience the joy and love and Oneness that Christ and the Father enjoy. That is what the mission of Jesus Christ to the world was and is all about. That is what His grace is all about–to be able to become like Him.

 

[zerinus]

I have a King James Version of the Bible published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, UT.

In Isaiah 43, I read:
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
In Isaiah 44, I read:
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If God, who is all-knowing and has perfect foreknowledge states, “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”, “beside me there is no God”, and “I know not any”, how is it that Mormonism proposes that those who follow its tenets will become gods?

Two answers to that. Firstly, Mormons were not the first to come up with that idea, the early Christians thought of it first. If you have an issue with that, you first need to resolve it in the context of your own Christian tradition, before worrying about what Mormons believe. The following two articles will put you on a good start:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/deification-of-man-and-plurality-of.html
zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-deification-in-early.html

With regard to the Isaiah quotes, that is nothing new either. Other thought of it long before you did, and answers given. This article will put you straight on that one:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/isaiah-4310.html

 

[ricko]

Randy Carson,
If you are going to read Isaiah (which is a good thing), then it is a good idea to understand the context of Isaiah’s words as he was inspired to write them, and also to understand that he writes often in poetic language and says the same thing in different ways.

Who is the God of Israel? It is Jehovah, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Holy One of Israel, the Savior and Redeemer. Isaiah is conveying this in these passages. The children of Israel were prone to create idols and get wrong thinking in their minds that those idols had something to do with “saving” them or helping them. Isaiah is inspired to re-teach to Israel that only the true Savior and Redeemer shall save them and redeem them. “Beside me there is no God” and “before me there is no God formed” are different ways of saying “beside me there is no Savior”, “neither shall there be after me.” He is emphasizing to the Israelites that He is the only Savior, the only One they should look to for being saved and redeemed.

.

Amazing. I am chastised for suggesting that you insert the word (if) to help you understand the context. I didn’t say to change any word. Yet here you are changing “God” to " Savior"

Looks like Mormon twisting of scriptures again or it’s okay if WE change something but not anybody else.

 

[ParkerD]

Amazing. I am chastised for suggesting that you insert the word (if) to help you understand the context. I didn’t say to change any word. Yet here you are changing “God” to " Savior"

Looks like Mormon twisting of scriptures again or it’s okay if WE change something but not anybody else.

Rick,
It is not twisting anything to say that the Savior is God. Have a nice day, though.

 

[Jerusha]

…and I have treated you like a ‘shadow person,’ when, precisely? I have shown my 'hate for you because of who you are" WHERE, precisely? I don’t know you. I don’t know where you live, what you do, who you are. All I know about you is what you write—and even then, I only know what you write about Mormons. If you don’t like the way I react to that, perhaps you could be less mean-spirited, hateful and frequently deliberately inaccurate.

I will specify. You offended me back in January, when you first posted in this forum. You accused (all) Catholics of rejoicing at the murder of Joseph Smith. This offended me deeply, because there is reason to believe that some of my relatives participated in the vigilante action at the Carthage jail. I am not responsible for what happened in 1844, and I refuse to judge those who were there, on either side. However, Mormons have persecuted me because of that, and the fact that I am Catholic, and have Native heritage.

Again, you stamped on some mighty bruised toes, and I do not expect any apology, Mormons being who they are.

 

[Charlotte408]

Hey everyone!! sorry I been out of the loop…too busy enjoying my sunshine filled weekend!! lol…but im back…and i came packin questions…

Because They want to share their kind of life with its fullness of joy, They created this earth for us to live on and progress by making choices in this life, without having complete knowledge about Them. Their ultimate purpose for creating this world and sending us here was so we can have a fullness of joy, which can only happen if we become “like Christ” through having His grace help us do that. The “goal” is fullness of joy, fullness of love, fullness of knowledge (which are required for a fullness of joy). Christ had creative power before this world, and "all things were made by Him").

If we “create” worlds, it will be by using the same power that He used, and it will be somewhere in the universe where that newly created world fits in, and the creation will be from existing matter or energy. We will have a fullness of joy as we “watch” other spirits progress on that new world like we have progressed on this world. We will love them just like Heavenly Father and Christ love us. We will have joy because of the love we feel for each other and for these progressing spirits.

If the universe is expanding then there is more room for more planets, right? We don’t know what is on the “edge” of the universe, right? Some scientists think there **are “multi-verses.” **God is omnipotent in the entire universe.

Ok, so, Christ, God, the Heavenly Father- had ‘creative power and fullness of joy’ and they created this world, earth, which is a planet, for us to live on, and progress, through being christ-like, into a fullness of joy…and if we acheive this, then we will also have this ‘fullness of joy’, and will be able to create ‘worlds’ ((he created earth, which is a planet, which, if we are to do the same, would lead me to believe that it would also be a planet of some sort// but this is left open, to ‘where ever our world fits in’, so…our ‘world’ could be…an ocean, or…an ant hill?? correct? not neccessarily a whole planet, and the ‘mulit-verse’ theory could mean a whole nuther universe)) and we will watch over the spirits of this ‘world’ just like christ watches over us…so…i see here, we are not ‘populating’ this world, just observing it…correct? It seems like, you believe basically what I said in the beginning, except you denied it, then reiterated it with a lot of fancy, mystical wording?? maybe ‘planet’ is too specific of a word, since you believe that it will be ‘some created world’ (keep in mind that the ‘newly created world’ Christ made, which is the kind of god you think you will be, is earth, which is a planet)…

how does this work with your spouse? at one point I asked, if you are married, and your husband dies, where does that put you? I know that your supposed to ‘watch over’ your universe, planet, ant hill with your spouse, so if he dies first, do you take first watch? or is there a limbo where you have to wait for him??
dianaiad;5602953:

Nope. God created the universe. All the planets are taken, since they are, y’know, HIS.

What we believe is that we are literally His children, and that we may (emphasis on the ‘may’ ) be **'heirs and joint-heirs" **with Christ and have all that He does. Follow the logic on that however you wish, but it doesn’t lead to populating planets. At least, not single planets.

As to the questions before the “Kobol” comment, you can pretty much throw them out, since they are, well, answered by the statement **'we don’t believe we will be gods of our own planets." **

well…first question is, at the top you say ‘heirs and joint-heirs’…Im thinking ‘joint heirs’ means married couples?? but either way"

heir  /ɛər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [air] Show IPA
Use heir in a Sentence
–noun 1. a person who inherits or has a right of inheritance in the property of another following the latter’s death.

so…if all the planets, everything in the universe is the Heavenly Fathers, and you believe you will one day be Heir to it, do you believe that one day He will cease to exist? I thought we were all in agreement that He was omnipotent, all knowing, created the universe the one thing that IS?? how could you ever be ‘heir’ to anything of his? and yes, like above it may not be a planet, but it could be a planet, or a universe…or whatever your ‘world’ entails…so…yes, you DO believe you will be a God of a world of your own someday, correct??

 

[Charlotte408]

and oh my gosh!! i am so SORRY! really, i did NOT mean to write ‘profit’ instead of ‘prophet’…lol…i didnt even think about it…sorry if it offended and had no idea about whatever joke it was supposed to be…

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, so, Christ, God, the Heavenly Father- had ‘creative power and fullness of joy’ and they created this world, earth, which is a planet, for us to live on, and progress, through being christ-like, into a fullness of joy…and if we acheive this, then we will also have this ‘fullness of joy’, and will be able to create ‘worlds’ ((he created earth, which is a planet, which, if we are to do the same, would lead me to believe that it would also be a planet of some sort// but this is left open, to ‘where ever our world fits in’, so…our ‘world’ could be…an ocean, or…an ant hill?? correct? not neccessarily a whole planet, and the ‘mulit-verse’ theory could mean a whole nuther universe)) and we will watch over the spirits of this ‘world’ just like christ watches over us…so…i see here, we are not ‘populating’ this world, just observing it…correct? It seems like, you believe basically what I said in the beginning, except you denied it, then reiterated it with a lot of fancy, mystical wording?? maybe ‘planet’ is too specific of a word, since you believe that it will be ‘some created world’ (keep in mind that the ‘newly created world’ Christ made, which is the kind of god you think you will be, is earth, which is a planet)…

how does this work with your spouse? at one point I asked, if you are married, and your husband dies, where does that put you? I know that your supposed to ‘watch over’ your universe, planet, ant hill with your spouse, so if he dies first, do you take first watch? or is there a limbo where you have to wait for him??

Charlotte408,
First, in answer to some of these questions, please be aware that Mormons do believe in a spirit world after this life, and in eternal progression which means that there is going to be progress after this life, including learning and changing. So the questions about what one spouse does who dies first, show a lack of understanding that they will eventually both be in the spirit world together after both have died, and will be resurrected together during the Millenium, and then at that point, after their resurrection, they will still have a lot of growing and learning and changing to do, along with everyone else. We are talking thousands of years ahead of us in our current view of time, when we look at the potential to be “like Christ”.

“Creation” is meaningful. It need not be thought of derogatorily. I take it to mean a “beautiful, fascinating earth” with mountains and water and vegetation and animals and then having spirits go to that “earth” which (thousands of years from now) I can have the opportunity to have helped “create”. This would be done by the power of faith (the kind of faith Jesus said could move mountains) and the knowledge of how matter and energy in the universe obey the commands of God. It would also be in complete harmony and unified action with the will of Heavenly Father, the Savior, and the Holy Spirit. To “create” does not detract from Them. It adds to their joy, just as when we observe a child learning to “create” and use their talents, we as a parent have joy in observing that process.

This need not be hard to understand. But if a person is going to look at it in some competitive sense or some derogatory sense, then it will not be meaningful at all to them.

 

[Charlotte408]

Parker,

I’m not trying to be derogative, or belittle your beliefs, I’m just trying to boil it down, in plain english, WHAT you believe…

I understand that you believe in an eternal spiritual afterlife…in which you will ‘create’ your own world, like christ did here…and you will ‘watch over’ the spirit children of that world, like christ watches over us.

Being that the ‘world’ christ created is a planet, earth, its no wonder people have the idea that you believe one day you will ‘create’ your own ‘world’ or planet, just like he did…Dianaid states that, no, you do not believe that it will be your own planet, but in essence, this is EXACTLY the type of world that christ created…

I noted that she had stated she was ‘hoping for a universe’ which then opens the door for this ‘world’…I hadnt thought of that…in this sense the ‘world’ could be a universe, a planet, or … an ant hill…no intention on being derogatory…just thinking critically…

But from the sumation of mormon responses, without all the big words, it seems to me that you believe that God, Christ and the Holy Father are 3 separate beings, the Holy Father being the eternal divine spirit, and the former Gods. You believe that ours is an eternal life of growing and changing, and after death, we will be put into a, spiritual limbo??? after which, we will be united with our spouse, and continue on with our changing/growing until we become Gods, like Christ, and will create our own worlds, like he did, and watch over the spirit children of those worlds, like He does.

If Christ created THIS world, then it would be fair to say that he created us. and in that sense it leads me to believe that in this same way you will populate your world. If I’m wrong, where will these spirit children that you watch over come from?

Also, back to the ‘heir’ thing…‘creating’ your own world, and ‘inheriting’ a peice of His world that He leaves to you are two totally different concepts…so…which is it??? and if its the latter, does that mean that one day you think that the Heavenly Father will cease to exist to leave you this inheritance??

 

[dianaiad]

I will specify. You offended me back in January, when you first posted in this forum. You accused (all) Catholics of rejoicing at the murder of Joseph Smith. This offended me deeply, because there is reason to believe that some of my relatives participated in the vigilante action at the Carthage jail. I am not responsible for what happened in 1844, and I refuse to judge those who were there, on either side. However, Mormons have persecuted me because of that, and the fact that I am Catholic, and have Native heritage.

Again, you stamped on some mighty bruised toes, and I do not expect any apology, Mormons being who they are.

I am sorry that you are remembering the exchange the way you are, because I am going to have to fix that. First, would you like to show me where, precisely, I accused ALL CATHOLICS of 'Rejoicing at the murder of Joseph Smith?"

That some thought it was justified and the murderers should be excused is obvious. You did that. Bill Pick chimed in with “Who cares…??” (elipsis filled in by standard anti-Mormon slams.)

Two days after I joined CAF, I wrote this:

"As far as I am aware, there weren’t any Catholics in on the real killing; why ask them if they would participate now?

The mob that murdered Joseph consisted of, mostly, Baptists, southern slavery supporters (Joseph was running for President on an abolitionist ticket), people who were afraid of the Mormons for political reasons, and just plain thugs."

I have gone over every single post that I wrote between my very first one and the above statement, by me, which rather clearly stated my understanding of who comprised the mob that killed Joseph. In none of them, not even one, could anybody claim that I said what you claim I said. Then you chimed in with this little gem:

jerusha:

It is difficult to determine at this time whether JS was guilty of more than fraud, destruction of a printing press, and institutionalized adultery (and rape). I believe that he was blamed for more than he was guilty of, as evidence I present the evolution of the LDS culture under BY. (Maybe if they were to have killed someone, it should have been BY )

To my knowledge, no-one on this board has ever said that the people who killed him did the right thing. Although I do believe that they saw no other option at that point. Like I said, it was frontier justice. Witout an effective judicial system, that often goes astray.

And, no, the few Catholics in that area were in Ft. Madison Iowa and McDonough county Illinois, according to my research. The opposition was centered in Missouri and Warsaw Illinois. macomb.com/~ilmcdono/Churches/CathCh.html

So quit making false accusations of the people on this board. (And possibly me in particular?)

Ancestor worship-- what

I had been on CAF for a whole two days by that time. Exactly what was it that I was accusing you of, generally OR specifically?

In fact, I have spent the last hour (and thank you…what a fun thing to do on my birthday…) looking at my first few days of posting, and I found the post that I think you are referring to as being an accusation of your ‘rejoicing’ at the death of Joseph Smith.

It was the post that was the reply to the one from you, just above. I pointed out the irony of your claiming that nobody on this board supported the murder of Joseph, but then going on to justify it as 'frontier justice" and therefore just ducky because he was guilty of all those nasty things…and then regretting that they didn’t kill Brigham Young instead (or as well…)

Sorry, Jerusha, you need to own your own stuff here. I was, in fact, very restrained in my responses. Far more restrained, in fact, than I tend to be now. I need to repent and go back to that style again.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

I’m not trying to be derogative, or belittle your beliefs, I’m just trying to boil it down, in plain english, WHAT you believe…

I understand that you believe in an eternal spiritual afterlife…in which you will ‘create’ your own world, like christ did here…and you will ‘watch over’ the spirit children of that world, like christ watches over us.

Being that the ‘world’ christ created is a planet, earth, its no wonder people have the idea that you believe one day you will ‘create’ your own ‘world’ or planet, just like he did…Dianaid states that, no, you do not believe that it will be your own planet, but in essence, this is EXACTLY the type of world that christ created…

I noted that she had stated she was ‘hoping for a universe’ which then opens the door for this ‘world’…I hadnt thought of that…in this sense the ‘world’ could be a universe, a planet, or … an ant hill…no intention on being derogatory…just thinking critically…

But from the sumation of mormon responses, without all the big words, it seems to me that you believe that God, Christ and the Holy Father are 3 separate beings, the Holy Father being the eternal divine spirit, and the former Gods. You believe that ours is an eternal life of growing and changing, and after death, we will be put into a, spiritual limbo??? after which, we will be united with our spouse, and continue on with our changing/growing until we become Gods, like Christ, and will create our own worlds, like he did, and watch over the spirit children of those worlds, like He does.

If Christ created THIS world, then it would be fair to say that he created us. and in that sense it leads me to believe that in this same way you will populate your world. If I’m wrong, where will these spirit children that you watch over come from?

Also, back to the ‘heir’ thing…‘creating’ your own world, and ‘inheriting’ a peice of His world that He leaves to you are two totally different concepts…so…which is it??? and if its the latter, does that mean that one day you think that the Heavenly Father will cease to exist to leave you this inheritance??

Charlotte408,
We don’t use the term “limbo” but instead the term “spirit world” which is a place where spirits interact with each other, keep learning, and thus grow in their understanding.

Mormons believe that Christ created this world along with Heavenly Father–that both were involved. Heavenly Father “created” all of the people who come to this earth (not out of nothing, but using a “creation” process known to Him and then using natural processes of course beginning with Adam and Eve). So it is a different thing to say we would be involved in “creating” an earth where spirits will go and receive a physical body and we will “watch over” them, than to say that it would be “our own world”. It is more like we give those spirits a gift of having a world for them to live on and to manage its resources and have their own joy through growing as they live their lives on that earth. We wouldn’t be on that earth with them. We would be in “heaven” with Heavenly Father and Christ. Being “joint heirs” doesn’t mean they “die”, of course. It means Christ inherited all of the attributes and the joint throne of His Father, and we can have the privilege of inheriting those same attributes and a joint throne with Them, because Christ made that possible. They live forever, and we live forever, as do all of humankind.

Each of humankind gains the kind of inheritance they live for, whether some other eternally good activity or the opportunity to be a primary agent in the creation of an earth somewhere in the universe.

 

[Jerusha]

Sorry, Jerusha, you need to own your own stuff here. I was, in fact, very restrained in my responses. Far more restrained, in fact, than I tend to be now. I need to repent and go back to that style again.

I do not rejoice at the death of Joseph Smith. And if you have ever exercised restraint on this board, you are certainly a piece of work in real life. Usually people are more unrestrained on the internet.

For those who are unaware of some of my motivations, this is what I have written elsewhere:

We can underscore the importance of genealogy to Brighamites through a word count. Of 182 usages of the word “seed” in the BOM, 155 are in the context of descendants.
The endowment ceremony of the Utah-based church at one time included this vow:
“You do solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God. His holy angels and these witnesses, that you will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach the same to your children, and that you will from this time henceforth and forever begin and carry out hostilities against the nation, to keep the same intent a profound secret, now and forever, so help you God.” (Smith, W. 1857)

Another more recent transcript has:
You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

Although they removed this vow some time between 1931 and 1937, the inner elite of Utah Mormonism still seem to practice this vow.

Thank you, Diana, for having given me the opportunity to bring up the subject.

 

[Jerusha]

BTW, when you read the expressions “frontier justice” and “vigilantes”, do you ever think of those things gone wrong? I choose those terms because they are neutral to me.

Even though Thomas Sharp (lawyer, publisher, and educator) published depositions from FarWest and Nauvoo shortly before and after the Carthage incident, which firmly implicated Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others in murder.

 

[dianaiad]

I do not rejoice at the death of Joseph Smith. And if you have ever exercised restraint on this board, you are certainly a piece of work in real life. Usually people are more unrestrained on the internet.

For those who are unaware of some of my motivations, this is what I have written elsewhere:

We can underscore the importance of genealogy to Brighamites through a word count. Of 182 usages of the word “seed” in the BOM, 155 are in the context of descendants.
The endowment ceremony of the Utah-based church at one time included this vow:
“You do solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God. His holy angels and these witnesses, that you will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach the same to your children, and that you will from this time henceforth and forever begin and carry out hostilities against the nation, to keep the same intent a profound secret, now and forever, so help you God.” (Smith, W. 1857)

Another more recent transcript has:
You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray, and never cease to pray, and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

Although they removed this vow some time between 1931 and 1937, the inner elite of Utah Mormonism still seem to practice this vow.

Thank you, Diana, for having given me the opportunity to bring up the subject.

Jerusha, bringing up this subject (anything to do with the Temple script) wins your debate for you, if your goal is to get me to leave the conversation.

…though how anything I said gave you the opportunity to bring it up is a complete mystery to me. It defines ‘non-sequitur.’

One last question before I abandon this side road. How in the name of all that is wonderful does anything you may have seen or heard about the Temple scripts translate into accusing me of personally insulting you?

…on the other hand, never mind. I don’t think I want to know.

 

[dianaiad]

BTW, when you read the expressions “frontier justice” and “vigilantes”, do you ever think of those things gone wrong? I choose those terms because they are neutral to me.

Interesting that you think so. They are not neutral terms. They are always terms for justice abandoned.

Even though Thomas Sharp (lawyer, publisher, and educator) published depositions from FarWest and Nauvoo shortly before and after the Carthage incident, which firmly implicated Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others in murder.

Of course. He was one of the men who was in the mob that killed Joseph. Of course, he was acquitted of the deed in his trial, but then so were the others arrested; even those that still bore wounds from Joseph’s return fire, so I don’t get all convinced of his innocence over that one.

Oh, yes…he was also the one who ran that lovely paper, the Warsaw Signal, in which constantly ran calls to violence; to extermination, murder: this sort of thing:

“Resolved, that the time, in our opinion, has arrived, when the adherents of Smith, as a Body, should be driven from the surrounding settlements, into Nauvoo. That the Prophet and his miscreant adherents, should then be demanded at their hands, and if not surrendered, a war of extermination should be waged to the entire destruction, if necessary for our protection, of his adherents.”

Dang, that word (extermination) was used a lot.

Jerusha, I don’t think there are many things you could have done to cement your position as utterly opposed to the CoJCoLDS, as willing to do or say anything to denounce and discredit it, than to use “Old Tom Sharp” as a witness on your behalf.

Which of course, means that any claim you make about it highly suspect.

 

[Jerusha]

There was a power struggle going on among the Mormons. JS’s attempt to recruit Nancy Rigdon, young daughter of Sidney Rigdon, to become a secondary “wife” was probably a catalyst. It is altogether possible that they killed the wrong man. Brigham Young, in retrospect, was a much more unsavory character than JS. He could have set JS up in order to depose him. Therefore, the curse that the LDS place upon those responsible for the death of JS falls directly on the heads of the “Brighamite” contingent within the LDS church.

I am not responsible for what happened.

 

[Jerusha]

I have looked up “vigilante” and " frontier justice", and I continue to use those terms. Much more appropriate than your “mob of thugs”. If anything, they were better than some of the Mormons.

Mormon Apologists do say that River Pirates joined with the LDS and caused some of the problems in the Nauvoo area. I have found evidence that they were the same ones who harrassed the Shawnee on the Ohio River.