Mike

When people talk about marrying a Brazilian girl it always gets my attention to see what they say next. (And just in case the are interested in a case study).

I accept most of what you posited above, and it strikes me as a very good argument to warrant the position that God didn't necessarily create Adam's physical body identical to the way He created my physical body; and that He didn't necessarily create Eve's physical body identical to the way He created Adam's physical body.

I took to heart the teachings I'd listened to for years about being self-sufficient, but looking back I erred in that I added personal pride to the recipe of my life. The result was that I became extremely tight-lipped about anything that amounted to a need on my part, and I determined to "do it all by myself" without bothering anyone else. After all, I reasoned, I had been responsible in church callings where it was my duty to serve and to organize, and not to be served. This was my mode of operation until many years ago when in March when the ground had thawed and most of the snow melted, I received a water bill exceeding $2000 which it turned out had resulted from the water line which had broken about six feet from the foundation of my house; and for a month water had entered my plumbing system without noticeable decrease in pressure but also wasting hundreds of gallons. The location of the breach made it my responsibility to repair. And so I went to work digging not knowing before-hand precisely where the breach was or how I would repair it (and not seeking guidance from many neighbors who certainly had experience and know-how both in their professional lives and also in their every-day lives by virtue of the years they had been in our neighborhood. My work began and resumed every afternoon after coming home from my job. On the third day I had a hole about two feet in diameter and five feet deep with me at the bottom continuing to throw dirt up and out. I was getting pretty tired, a little frantic, and letting dirt slide back in. A neighbor from the next block saw me and stopped by--it wasn't the first time he had asked me if I could use some help. This time, my recognition of my own fatigue and frankly my ignorance prevailed and I told my friend that I guessed I could use (and really needed) help. In less than thirty minutes enough men with tools and experience had me out of the hole still wanting to feel like I was calling the shots but knowing I wasn't, but becoming smarter enough to get out of the way and let my friends help me. The next morning the job was done. The lesson I learned was one of gratitude, humility, and that it is important to accept help with a desire to pay it forward In addition to becoming self-sufficient. P.S. I would like to tag @Godless @mordorbund @changed @Jane_Doe @Maureen @Rob Osborn

Well, we're certainly looking at consistent differently. I think I understand you when you say that you see no reason to believe that G-d is not consistent in how he creates. But it isn't that I see no reason why God would be consistent. It's that I see no reason why God should be talked about as if He were bound by what mere humans like us want to say is consistent or inconsistent. Its that I should think that *everything* is within God's choice of how to accomplish his purposes, and our limited knowledge of everything seems to make a conversation about God being consistent tantamount to saying "because it was done this or that way with the instances I cite, then it must needs have been done identically everywhere and in every instance." I don't want to be more annoying that I may already have become, so I do appreciate your indulgence of me so far. All my best.

I'd say go vegetarian or maybe even vegan as you understand them. All the things you mentioned which are important to you are good enough reasons to experience your consideration in order to decide whether it's for you--whether you are truly able and whether you will truly want to continue for the duration. Each of us does what we can to make the world a better place.

Here's my little contribution. Yes, I struggle from time to time with aspects of LDS (although I can't be sure at the moment what we're specifically talking about except of course for what you mentioned about Joseph Smith). I reconcile my struggles through efforts that have to do with faith, research, and humility. As a fellow "searcher" (?) I plan never to say never. These are extremely brief responses and I'm happy to elaborate on them with anybody who is interested to discuss them in more depth. I certainly wish you all the best.

Many of the attitudes you described are not unique of course to LDS culture--at least in my experience. I have been at the receiving end from time to time. I have friends and relatives with different attitudes and traditions that had the potential for conflict, and I'm fortunate in that I feel like we've always treated each other with what I perceive to be common decency and mutual respect. (I have atheist friends, and I'm not sure I can picture what you might be alluding to when you mention "atheist culture" in terms of your topic.) ??

And this is focusing only on the man. From the viewpoint of the children and women I think there are precious few who *feel* the intimacy. Again, I'm not blaming anyone but merely saying how I think it is.

I have long pondered what often seems to me like a huge discrepancy between what a man, a parent, a husband *wants* in terms of loving, spending time, building intimate relationships vs. what is he actually *manages to accomplish* given the obstacles in a mortal sphere. As you suggest, this is not to judge or cast blame--it's just reality.

Are you drawing a distinction between human life and divine human life? Also, is this meant to address my earlier question to you (notwithstanding contributions made since by other forum members? I still don't see how I can hold that the actions that brought about Adam's physical body are the same as those that brought about mine. (I'm hoping you'll bear with me here as I try to discuss it with you).

I am sorry that I caused you to think I construed your remark as trying to start a fight or even impute the belief to me. I didn't perceive such at all from you. Likewise, I apologize that my response came across as defensive. In reality, I think we agree on many points that I've read you make. I have a hard time coming up in my own mind with an explanation for what the original writer (or the Inspirer) wanted me to take away from the account of the rib. (Along the same line I wonder about Adam's saying that Eve was Woman because she was taken out of Man. What we might call a play on words (man - wo-man) works in English, but in some other languages it doesn't seem to work at all.) P.S. I also agree with you regarding speculation in general. I've been trying to improve myself when writing with reference to scripture.

Whew! (wife )

Ought I to feel any degree of guilt for my and my (1) wife's ungodliness at having sex for fun at our relatively young age of 62? Or am misinterpreting and talking outside of the boundaries that your remarks address?

If you and I say we disbelieve this no doubt there will be some even on this forum who will counter that we disbelieve the scriptures and even our own faith's presentation. My point is that the rib account is the only one I'm aware of, and so I use it to illustrate the difficulty of suggesting that the bodies of all humanity were created utilizing the same methods as were the bodies of Adam and Eve. You and I are free to speculate about the methods, of course, pending acquaintance with revealed doctrine on the subject. And we are all free to disagree and to present alternate speculations. Am I incorrect?

I need to be sure I understand your position here. The actions that created (brought into existence) my (and your) physical body were those of sexual reproduction. The actions that brought about Adam's physical body into existence are not delineated as far as a I recall beyond being organized. Eve's physical body was brought into existence via a process beginning with the removal of one of Adam's ribs. What am I overlooking?

This seems to match your request pretty well I agree with you.

Hmmm. I am more puzzled, I think. I found Moses 3:9 difficult; and I find D&C 93:30 even more difficult. The last sentence of Moses 3:9 which I originally referred to is problematic for me because each phrase separated by the semi-colon begins with "for" which comes across to me as "because". At first I thought the verse made sense in the context of this thread and if ["...every tree...became also a living soul for (because) it was spirit(ual) in the day that I created it;"] But the second part of the last sentence threw me for a loop: ["for (because) it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it..."] as I said earlier because the second phrase doesn't seem to explain the preceding phrase or even the whole preceding part of the verse as I would expect a phrase that begins with "for" (because) to do. Hence my original question. To make it worse for me, by combining all of this with D&C 93:30 I'm left trying to understand how ["truth is independent in that sphere (a globe (?), a dominion (?), a domain or area of being (?)) ...to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence,"] has anything to do with Moses 3:9. It leaves me wondering how to relate "every tree" to "truth". The two verses don't feel like they have much of anything to do with each other. Trust me, I'm not trying to debate this. I'm trying to comprehend it.

I was just wondering what "for it remaineth in the sphere..." means? Do you think it means (for example) that the soul of what we would consider to be a lower-order organism does not develop, or progress, etc., to a higher-order organism?

There seems to be general agreement on this thread that these creatures have souls. In what way do you find it interesting?

I sincerely wish I could perceive how you arrive at the pregnancy interpretation because I just don't see it. I don't understand what happy things you say I edited in, but in any event I haven't at any time taken your posts with me as being blunt or cold in tone. On the contrary I've enjoyed talking with you.

There doesn't seem to be any difference in your position and mine about the doctrine of eternal marriage as it is revealed in the verses of Section 132 generally nor in verses verses 19 and 63 specifically. There doesn't seem to be any difference concerning our understanding of the command and its meaning to multiply and replenish the earth, to fulfill the promise, for exaltation in the eternal worlds, and the work of my Father. And we seem to agree on the durability of the sealing power and the covenant "out of the world" and the reality of what the sealing power accomplishes. We diverge where you embolden the words and phrases above in order to get from what they say to the foregone conclusion that sexual intercourse, (and apparently gestation and delivery) are components of their fulfillment. I don't see how you think the meaning and useage of the words and phrases individually or collectively possibly combine with the purpose of the context of Section 132 to produce your conclusion. In other words nothing about [for they are given to him, to, and to, and for, to their exaltation and glory in all things, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, that is they will not have any children after the resurrection] says sexual intercourse.

Yes, I understand that: -- https://www.lds.org/topics/soul?lang=eng You seem to want D&C 132:63 to be interpreted in a manner that makes the isolated phrase, "bearing the souls of men", be meant as evidence of women who have progressed from their mortal existence on Earth to become Godesses and are (at some future point in *their* eternal progression with their husband) creating spirits in what will be a pre-mortal existence to those newly created spirits. Am I right that this is what you want? And from there you want to couple that phrase with the word "seeds" in verse 19 of Section 132 to ultimately conclude that the creation of those spirits is accomplished through sexual intercourse and culminated in said women giving birth to these spirits in a manner (identical?, similar?) to the manner in which they gave birth to mortal babies. Am I accurately describing your point of view?

Verse 63 appears to me to be talking about women in this life who commit adultery, and that bearing the souls of men refers to *in this life* to fulfill the promise for exaltation in the eternal worlds. In terms of how I define sex and experience it in this world the question or fact that sexual intercourse existed before this earth (I don't doubt that it did) isn't relevant. When I have a view of eternity before and after this life I'm sure the scope of my understanding will change. But as far as defining sex while I'm *here* I can only do as I said before.

I only ate apples even as a kid because I was told it would "keep the doctor away", and not because I found them delicious. That probably has to do with why I never wanted to believe that the "forbidden fruit" would have been an apple. I notice more and more producers of media portrayals seem to feel the same way.

I don't see an express declaration in these verses that women give birth to spirits. No, you can't say for absolute certain and of course I can't either. I respect your opinion, but I don't see a reason yet to hold to it, myself. Well, I can only define sex by what I experience with the body God placed me in, i.e. with my mortal and physical faculties, and so in that sense I would say the world does get to define what sex is and isn't--in the world that is. No doubt when the kingdom comes much will become clear to me. As far as I see, these two realities don't cause me to feel obliged to change my position on the first two quotes above. (But I'm looking forward to discussing these specific points further with you because I'm confident we can do so without aggravating one another.)