CrimsonKairos

Yes, verse four and others state that if God--through the prophet--commands someone to live the law of plural marriage, and they refuse, they cannot enter into His kingdom. As I said, it's obey and prosper, or refuse and miss out. I don't see why this concept puzzles you. Where did I say that polygamy is to be lived in the afterlife?

Traveler: My objection is that the scriptures teach man was created in the image of God. Since we know God didn't create our "intelligences" (again, as per D&C 93), then it must refer to our spiritual and physical bodies. And if God created our bodies through a process of evolution from chimpanzee to man, how is that in the image of God? Since chimpanzees have "intelligences" (type of consciousness/being) different from man's, then the only way it would make sense is for God to use evolution to "shape" the physical body of man from a chimpanzee's image into "His image," and then once the physiology/appearance of man was "right," God would start combining mankind-type intelligences with the physical bodies at birth, instead of chimpanzee intelligences. It just seems silly to me. Far more likely, in my view, is that Adam was indeed born from a woman or had his spirit combined with an alread-created mature physical body. Blazius: I have indeed read those scriptures and others you point out. I was saying that if our God was not always a God, the scriptures don't say what He was. See the difference? I'm not advocating one view or the other.

I don't have a hard-and-fast belief about what or where our Heavenly Father was before the creation of our earth. It would be reasonable to project backwards what is now happening for us. Namely, faithful and sanctified disciples of God can be exalted to live with Him and become as He is. So, perhaps our God was once as we are, going through similar experiences and ultimately being exalted by His Heavenly Father. I say perhaps, because the scriptures are largely silent on this issue. It's pretty much irrelevant to my salvation, but the popular LDS belief is that, yes, God was once as we now are...a mortal.

I guess I think (my opinion here) there must always have been an all-powerful Being. I don't know how that can be anymore than I can comprehend how something exists without being created. I do comprehend the idea, just not how it translates into reality. So I don't know, I guess I don't think about it too much. It makes sense to me (as much as infinite concepts make sense to a finite mind) for there to always have been a God helping His children progress.

Traveler, I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "intelligence." I said I defined it according to D&C 93 which roughly says it's the part of man that has always existed and was not created. We're different enough from animals that we were given spirit bodies and ultimately, physical bodies in the image of God. When I say intelligence, I don't mean IQ or MENSA-worthy or anything like that. I'm referring to the capacity or potential or quality of a consciousness. What's it capable of? It's one thing for a monkey to learn sign-language and score well on an IQ test; it's quite another thing for the monkey to invent sign language and compose the IQ test all on its own. See what I mean? For example, just because a horse is born with a mental handicap and can't coordinate its legs well enough to walk, doesn't mean that a lizard that can walk is one step away (pardon the pun) from being a horse. Similarly, just because some humans for whatever reason aren't particularly bright according to whatever definition we're using, doesn't mean that a monkey who has a higher "IQ" than them is pretty much in the same classification of "intelligences" as humans (again, refer to D&C 77 for this concept of classes or orders of beings). My point was that humans are fundamentally different from other forms of life on a core level, at our most basic level of existence, the part of us that pre-dates our spirit bodies even. We received spirit and physical bodies in the image of God. Why? I believe it's because we belong to the order of "beings" that God belongs to, and not because we scored well on a pre-mortal aptitude test. :) Maybe making this distinction is all semantics or trivial, who knows? For me, I don't believe man ever came from apes due to the different orders of beings (consciousnesses) involved. I guess I also think pragmatically about evolution/creation...I mean, would God be more likely to: --A--have Adam be born from a woman; --B--insert his spirit into an empty, waiting mortal body; or, --C--bring Adam's distinct physiology and appearance into being through millions of years of evolution. I find A or B most plausible.

I'd have a problem with the theory of man coming from apes for one reason: "Intelligences." I believe that what makes man a "man" and what makes a horse a "horse" is the type of its consciousness or "intelligence" (as per the general definition of "intelligence" found in D&C 93). Dirt or "dust" isn't living and hence comparing a monkey to mere matter--to dust--is comparing apples and oranges. As for the difference between mankind and other forms of life... Sure we have different bodies from horses, but when I say we have different "intelligences" I'm referring to the quality of our consciousness, about behavior and the ability to retain and express knowledge. If horses had opposible digits instead of hooves, for instance, I doubt they'd turn out any equine artists on par with Michelangelo, because horses aren't capable of the type of analytical and creative thought that humans are. For instance, D&C 77:3 explains that there are orders or classes among living things. Animals belong to a class separate from man. So if a monkey became a man, it wouldn't be so much a physical evolution as an evolution of a being's consciousness or core awareness. Humans and chimpanzees are fairly similar in appearance, so it's not that I object to the concept that monkeys could have one day stood up straight, developed handsomer facial features (lol), and began producing thoughts like "I think, therefore I am." I object to the concept that one class or order of living beings can alter their fundamental consciousness to the point of leaving their old classification and joining a new order, i.e. the order of mankind. I object to this because if such a thing was possible, then it's possible that our God is really just the great-great-great-<insert insane number of "greats" here>-grandson of a particularly bright ape on another world. The glory of God is intelligence. I believe His fundamental consciousness or the "order" of beings to which God belongs is the highest, most advanced class of beings with the most potential for knowledge and joy...a class of beings which we as His children happen to belong to as well. I don't believe a chimpanzee's "consciousness" or fundamental "intelligence" would ever evolve into the type of consciousness worthy of a child of God. Now back to the question at hand: Could Adam have been born as you and I are, from a mother? Sure. Could his spirit have been joined with a pre-made mortal body in its physical prime? Sure. How's that different than Jesus commanding Lazarus's spirit to re-enter his "dead" body and animate it with life again? In both cases you have an empty mortal body becoming animated by the insertion of a spirit into it. My point is that I could believe either theory right now, due to a lack of light and truth on the issue. Adam could have been born, or could have been given a mature mortal body just waiting for his spirit to animate it. I don't think anyone can truly establish or disprove either standpoint with the amount of knowledge we now have from God.

I never said D&C 132 doesn't refer to plural marriage. I said that plural marriage is not THE new and everlasting covenant. Plural marriage is AN new and everlasting covenant, but not the only one. In other words, I was informing blazius that there's not just one new and everlasting covenant called polygamy. The restored gospel is the new and everlasting covenant, and it contains several everlasting covenants within it. Of course the bulk of Section 132 deals with plural marriage.

Hey lewis, welcome. The short answer to your question is that there is no official LDS position about whether Adam was born like we are, or simply had his spirit inserted into a ready-made mortal body. As you said, there are several prophets who teach specifically about what they believe happened. However, none of them tried to establish their views as canonized-authorized-binding-on-all-church-members-revelations. It's an interesting question to be sure, and Brigham Young certainly offers interesting possibilities. Depending on how you read it, the 1909 First Presidency Statement on evolution might help you form your own opinion. Here's an excerpt: It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. I think the point of these remarks is to teach that Adam wasn't the great-great-great-grandson of an ape, and not necessarily to teach that Adam began life as a "human germ or embryo," i.e. gestation within and birth from a woman. Another interesting clue is found by comparing Genesis 2:7 with Moses 6:59 which I reproduce here as well (I've put the key statements in bold type): And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; (Moses 6:59) Assuming both passages share the same context, we find God using identical phraseology to describe both Adam's "creation," and our mortal birth from a woman. Does that mean Adam was born from a woman? I don't necessarily have an opinion on the issue at present. We simply don't have a clear-cut, canonized, authoritative revelation from God on the question. There's enough evidence for and against Adam's being born from a woman that I can't adhere to either position with any amount of certainty. What about you, lewis? What do you think?

For myself, I'd be more inclined to worship a Being who has attained perfection voluntarily, based on their own choices and actions, versus a perfect Being who just always "was" perfect through no fault of their own. Note: LDS do not believe that God was created. We believe that He has always existed, though not necessarily always as a God. We believe all of us possess self-existing, uncreated consciousnesses (D&C 93:29). However, we do not view ourselves as equal to God in any way.

Firstly, the gospel as it has been restored through Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets comprises "the new and everlasting covenant." Within it are several specific "new and everlasting covenants," but to say that polygamy = THE everlasting covenant is an oversimplification and an error. What these verses are saying is that once you have been taught the truth--the gospel--and understand it and refuse to live its laws, you cannot enter into God's presence. Blessings are predicated upon obedience to God's law, whether that law relate to tithing, baptism, etc... Secondly, if you study the history of polygamy in the LDS Church (and read all of D&C 132 carefully) you will find that the pattern is for the prophet to reveal/authorize polygamous marriages. The prophets (Nathan, for one) sealed/presided over the polygamous marriages of David/Solomon (D&C 132:38-39). God commands men to practice polygamy; they either obey and are blessed, or they refuse and forfeit exaltation. So your interpretation that D&C 132 somehow declares that all faithful members of the LDS Church must be polygamists is completely off the mark. What D&C 132 says--among other things--is that if God commands a man to practice polygamy, and if God commands that man's wife to allow him to practice polygamy, and if one or both of them refuse, they cannot enter into God's kingdom. It's not a new concept or anything. It's simple, really: When God commands, we obey and are blessed or we disobey and forfeit blessings, whether in terms of the law of polygamy, tithing, baptism, etc... You're really reading too much into this issue. Polygamy is a law which God can require His servants to live or conversely, not require them to live. As of 2006, He happens to not require His servants to live it. If that changes in my lifetime, so be it. If not, so be it. Be it unto me according to the Lord's will. Is that attitude so hard to understand? Is it really that fascinating? It's simple submission to God and integration of His will in our hearts and minds.

Good point Snow.

Thanks for the welcome back, Dr. T and Pushka. :) Dr. T, you said: "You wouldn’t ascribe it to Jesus’ eternal nature. Please correct me if I’m wrong but would you say it isn’t about Jesus’ immutability and unchanging nature apart from His role while on Earth. Is that correct?" Correct. For me, the concept of God (whether we're talking about Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ) being the same eternally is not about someone without a beginning or end having always been the same from their non-beginning until their non-end. It's more about their love and purpose and mission being the same as those things relate to me and all of God's other children.

Thanks Ben. Yeah, I PM'd Heather and told her I re-registered under my new name. I guess mine and SoulSearcher's profile got deleted (among others perhaps)...guess we ticked off the hacker.

Read the official declaration on polygamy in the Doctrine & Covenants. Your questions are answered there. What you do with the answers is up to you.

Before I add my comment, a word of identification is in order. This is ApostleKnight. Whoever hacked the website deleted my account. So here I am under a new screenname. Alright, on to my comment. I think the key to understanding the phrase "same yesterday, today and forever," is to establish the viewpoint or frame of reference. I believe that God is speaking in terms of our mortal probation on this earth. His plan of salvation for His children (us) has not changed since the days of Adam up until now. He was merciful to Abraham; He will be merciful to us. He forgave the repentant then; He will forgive the repentant now. Since a perfect confidence in God is necessary to exercise perfect faith in Him, He is assuring us that we can trust Him completely to keep His word and bless us when He says He will bless us. He is bound when we do what He says. He doesn't "change His mind," based on a passing whim or fleeting fancy. He offers us salvation through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. That was, is and always will be the path to salvation for those of us who lived, live or will live on this earth. Perhaps a revision of the original statement will best convey my meaning: "For God is keeping His promise to save the repentant the same way He did yesterday, today and forever."