porkchop got questions!

[porkchop]

hello there LDS people, ive got a question for the ladies of LDS and i thought id leave this thread as a place where i can ask questions, cause i often think of more.
Right, first one,....How do you ladies feel bout having to give birth in the afterlife? Does it not bum you out? Cause it sounds like my idea of hell! (i am serious, by the way)
And do you not feel equal to men in your church because of this roll and does that bother you?
Many thanks, i await your responses.xxxxx

 

[porkchop]

Can i just add that i know these questions arent "deep" but they are things i wanted to ask and i thought this was the best place for it!

 

[Comprehend]

I can't wait to see the responses...

 

[Katzpur]

hello there LDS people, ive got a question for the ladies of LDS and i thought id leave this thread as a place where i can ask questions, cause i often think of more.

Hello, Porkchop.

Right, first one,....How do you ladies feel bout having to give birth in the afterlife? Does it not bum you out? Cause it sounds like my idea of hell! (i am serious, by the way)

At 58, I'm through giving birth... now or ever. I suspect you're talking about the idea that God has given His sons and daughters the potential to become like Him in the afterlife. The Bible describes Him as the "Father of Spirits." We believe that His children have a Heavenly Mother, too. But she didn't give birth to us; our own mothers did. Birth is a physical process that takes place in mortality. Our spirits were created in some other way. If we are ever privileged to take part in the creation of new spirits, I'm confident that it will not be "hell."

And do you not feel equal to men in your church because of this roll and does that bother you?

Does it bother me that I'm able to play such an important role in the creation of a child? Not at all. After all, my husband played a role, too. Just because men do not get to experience the miracle of giving birth, I believe that God values them every bit as much as He does us.

 

[porkchop]

Thankyou, Katzpurr for your response, really interesting.
I thought that in your religion women, after they die, have there own planet with their hubby and their job is to be a baby maker (for want of a better word). And also that women are seen as baby makers on earth cause the more you have the more spirits can come into those bodies. ??????

"Each god through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons or daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in condition to multiply forever and ever" Orson Pratt, the seer, pg37.
I read this in a book, i always had the impression that what i said above was the case and thought this backed it up, do you not think that? Interesting subject.

 

[Bishka]

"Each god through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons or daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in condition to multiply forever and ever" Orson Pratt, the seer, pg37.
I read this in a book, i always had the impression that what i said above was the case and thought this backed it up, do you not think that? Interesting subject.

If it isn't found in our Standard Works (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price), it isn't doctrine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If it isn't found in our Standard Works (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price), it isn't doctrine.

But what if it makes me warm and fuzzy?

 

[Bishka]

But what if it makes me warm and fuzzy?

You have to deal with your own 'warm and fuzzies'. Doctrine is doctrine!

 

[Katzpur]

Thankyou, Katzpurr for your response, really interesting.
I thought that in your religion women, after they die, have there own planet with their hubby and their job is to be a baby maker (for want of a better word). And also that women are seen as baby makers on earth cause the more you have the more spirits can come into those bodies. ??????

"Each god through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons or daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in condition to multiply forever and ever" Orson Pratt, the seer, pg37.
I read this in a book, i always had the impression that what i said above was the case and thought this backed it up, do you not think that? Interesting subject.

I'm going to quote from an online article, "The Seer: Reliable Source?"

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church. Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

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. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work--the Seer--together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

There are much better resources for understanding LDS doctrine than "The Seer." If you would like some suggestions, I'd be happy to provide them.

 

[Comprehend]

[SIZE=+0]*Comprehend enters the thread and listens to the peaceful sound of crickets*[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Katzpur the killjoy...[/SIZE]

 

[porkchop]

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church.

I do hope you are not refering to me as an anti-mormon. I am asking these questions so i can find out what you guys really believe instead of just sticking with one source.

Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

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. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work--the Seer--together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

There are much better resources for understanding LDS doctrine than "The Seer." If you would like some suggestions, I'd be happy to provide them.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Katzpur]

I do hope you are not refering to me as an anti-mormon.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this statement, Porkchop. I guess I should start by pointing out that this statement ("Many anti-Mormons...") was the opening statement of the article from which I was quoting. It was a quote and was not directed to you personally. On the other hand, I think it would be pretty difficult for you to try at this point to pretend that your feelings towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are anything but "anti." You have made a number of statements in the past which can hardly be described as neutral. I have no intention of providing examples, since I am sincere in stating that I do not hold grudges. Still, I'm sure that you can understand why I'm viewing your questions with some trepidation.

I am asking these questions so i can find out what you guys really believe instead of just sticking with one source.

I'm very glad to hear that. We would be more than happy to answer any and all questions you may have about our beliefs. A sincere attempt to understand almost always results in a measure of success. I'm surprised, though, that "The Seer" would have been your one source of information. Seriously, it's a publication that only those Latter-day Saints like me (who are interested in apologetics) would have ever even heard of. How you stumbled across it in the first place is a mystery to me.

I would be happy to let bygones be bygones, to bury the hatchet, and to extend the olive branch if you are genuinely interested in understanding our beliefs. If you are, I'm sure the other Latter-day Saints on the forum will be equally willing to respond courteously to your questions in the future.

 

[porkchop]

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this statement, Porkchop. I guess I should start by pointing out that this statement ("Many anti-Mormons...") was the opening statement of the article from which I was quoting. It was a quote and was not directed to you personally. On the other hand, I think it would be pretty difficult for you to try at this point to pretend that your feelings towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are anything but "anti." You have made a number of statements in the past which can hardly be described as neutral. I have no intention of providing examples, since I am sincere in stating that I do not hold grudges. Still, I'm sure that you can understand why I'm viewing your questions with some trepidation.

i apologise for refering to that statement as yours, i may be "anti" some religions, but that doesnt mean im "anti" the person, your religion isnt you, i can dislike a religion but like a person; many of my family are catholic, i dislike the religion, but love my family. Can you understand that? I truly mean it.

I'm very glad to hear that. We would be more than happy to answer any and all questions you may have about our beliefs. A sincere attempt to understand almost always results in a measure of success. I'm surprised, though, that "The Seer" would have been your one source of information. Seriously, it's a publication that only those Latter-day Saints like me (who are interested in apologetics) would have ever even heard of. How you stumbled across it in the first place is a mystery to me.

" The seer" isnt the only source i was refering to, just a book i have that quotes "the seer" and doctrine of yours. And i am sincerely trying to better understand your religion.

I would be happy to let bygones be bygones, to bury the hatchet, and to extend the olive branch if you are genuinely interested in understanding our beliefs. If you are, I'm sure the other Latter-day Saints on the forum will be equally willing to respond courteously to your questions in the future.

Katzpurr, i have nothing against you and never will, but i will suggest that other LDS members answer my questions as you seem to get annoyed by me and are obviously unsure of me and clearly affects the way you answer my posts; all i am doing is trying to learn and honestly, you are putting me off asking anything else.

 

[Katzpur]

Can you understand that? I truly mean it.

Yes, I can understand that, and I believe that you mean it.

And i am sincerely trying to better understand your religion.

That's good. I'm glad to hear that.

Katzpurr, i have nothing against you and never will, but i will suggest that other LDS members answer my questions as you seem to get annoyed by me and are obviously unsure of me and clearly affects the way you answer my posts; all i am doing is trying to learn and honestly, you are putting me off asking anything else.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will respect your wishes. If you would rather I not respond in the future, I won't.

 

[Comprehend]

" The seer" isnt the only source i was refering to, just a book i have that quotes "the seer" and doctrine of yours. And i am sincerely trying to better understand your religion.

I would be interested to know the title of the book you got the quote out of and who the publisher is, you do still have the book don't you?

If Katzpur's information is correct, it would seem that any book that purports to be teaching one about the LDS church with quotes out of a book that has been repudiated by the church is at least suspect.

If one were sincerly trying to learn about our religion, wouldn't it make the most sense to read a book published by the LDS church, who would know the LDS church better than the LDS church?

That is, unless you were assuming that our church didn't tell the truth about itself... but I am sure you don't think that right?

 

[FFH]

"Each god through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons or daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in condition to multiply forever and ever" Orson Pratt, the seer, pg37.
I read this in a book, i always had the impression that what i said above was the case and thought this backed it up, do you not think that? Interesting subject.

We will raise children/rear families as we do on earth. How that is accomplished we don't know.

This earth is a pattern of heaven, only without pain, suffering and temptations.

Good topic of debate/discusstion.

Families are eternal and we will all have eternal ongoing families if we are worthy of the highest degree of heaven/Celestial kingdom.

Will rospond more on this later.

 

[porkchop]

I would be interested to know the title of the book you got the quote out of and who the publisher is, you do still have the book don't you?

Yes, i still have it, it is called " Mormonism, mama and me" , it is a wonderful story, plus i also look over the book of mormon on the net and ive read the articles of faith, to be honest, i like to stick to the Bible, but i do find books like the one im reading to be of help and also thought it best to ask a mormon as i like to "chat" and it can save time.

If Katzpur's information is correct, it would seem that any book that purports to be teaching one about the LDS church with quotes out of a book that has been repudiated by the church is at least suspect.

I guess we'd differ on oppinion there, comprehend. Though there are many people of the same faith that have been taught differently or say their doctrine means different things. That is why i am asking you guys, not just to take the word of one person.

If one were sincerly trying to learn about our religion, wouldn't it make the most sense to read a book published by the LDS church, who would know the LDS church better than the LDS church?

I think it's good to read as much as you can from all sides/views therefore you get a well rounded view on the subject, thats just the way i do things.

That is, unless you were assuming that our church didn't tell the truth about itself... but I am sure you don't think that right?

I don't think that at the moment, but i don't feel iv'e read enough to know; though its a weird question, why would a church not tell the truth about itself???

 

[porkchop]

We will raise children/rear families as we do on earth. How that is accomplished we don't know.

This earth is a pattern of heaven, only without pain, suffering and temptations.

Good topic of debate/discusstion.

Families are eternal and we will all have eternal ongoing families if we are worthy of the highest degree of heaven/Celestial kingdom.

Will rospond more on this later.

Thankyou, FFH, i appreciate your response and look forward to the rest later.

 

[porkchop]

I just wanted to say that nobody's telling you what you believe; i just came across something your elders had taught in the past and wanted to ask about it.

 

[Comprehend]

Yes, i still have it, it is called " Mormonism, mama and me" , it is a wonderful story, plus i also look over the book of mormon on the net and ive read the articles of faith, to be honest, i like to stick to the Bible, but i do find books like the one im reading to be of help and also thought it best to ask a mormon as i like to "chat" and it can save time.

gotcha. I haven't ever heard of the book. Does it seem like a fair book?

I guess we'd differ on oppinion there, comprehend. Though there are many people of the same faith that have been taught differently or say their doctrine means different things. That is why i am asking you guys, not just to take the word of one person.

You would look to a book that has been repudiated by the First Presidency of the LDS church for doctrine? The opinion of the First Presidency is different than one of our opinions.

I think it's good to read as much as you can from all sides/views therefore you get a well rounded view on the subject, thats just the way i do things.

Me too, that is what I did when deciding what I wanted to do about being a mormon. It seems that most people only read the other side. Personally, I don't see how anyone can have any bearing at all for the things they read about the church without having first read the Book of Mormon.

I don't think that at the moment, but i don't feel iv'e read enough to know; though its a weird question, why would a church not tell the truth about itself???

That is exactly my point. Why wouldn't you read what the church has to say about itself first? The only reason I can think of is if someone didn't think our church was honest about itself.

In other words, why do you not read an LDS book about our church to find out about us? I wouldn't read a book written by a Mormon to learn about Baptists. I would find out what the Baptists say.