Adam and Eve/physical or spiritual

[lattelady]

If this subject has been addressed somewhere else, please let me know and I'll go read up on it. I've been reading up on the subject of God creating something from nothing (that's the way I believe He made the world). If I understand it correctly, it seems that LDS doctrine teaches that the spirits of all humans were and are created in the same manner they're created here on earth (in a sexual manner) by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother who are physical beings. Here is what I'm trying to figure out.

A physical HF and HM created a SPIRIT Adam and Eve, sent them to earth and Adam and Eve, as spiritual creatures, were able to produce physical children. Adam and Eve were different from the rest of spirit babies who are born into families, in that they were never "born." What is your belief on whether they are spirit or physical?

[bytor2112]

We are all spirit sons and daughters of Heavenly Father. Adam and Eve received physical bodies and created children in the same manner as we procreate now. Do we have a Heavenly Mother? Speculation......I believe we do, but not much is known about that and we don't know by what manner our Spirits were created. Part of understanding LDS doctrine, is understanding that we all lived with God prior to our mortal probation......we were created long before we were placed in our mother's womb to begin our mortal journey.

All things were created spiritually before they were created physically. We believe that the earth was organized from existing matter....not created out of nothing.

[beefche]

I've been reading up on the subject of God creating something from nothing (that's the way I believe He made the world). If I understand it correctly, it seems that LDS doctrine teaches that the spirits of all humans were and are created in the same manner they're created here on earth (in a sexual manner) by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother who are physical beings.

References, please. I do not know where you get that LDS teach that spirits are created through sexual means.

[Just_A_Guy]

Mainstream LDS theology would be that:

1. Heavenly Father and Mother created the spirits that would become Adam and Eve, along with every other spirit; we have no idea in what sequence except that Jehovah (who will come to earth as Jesus of Nazareth) was the firstborn. Nor do we officially know for certain how spirits are created.

2. Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jehovah (with the assistance of Michael, who is Adam; and possibly other spirits as well) creates the earth.

3. Heavenly Father (perhaps in conjunction with Heavenly Mother; perhaps not) creates a physical body for Adam, through means currently unknown to us. It is an immortal body, impervious to sickness and disease. It is also incapable of procreation.

4. Eve is similarly created--again, through a mechanical process we don't currently understand.

5. Eve and Adam, in their turns, partake of the forbidden fruit. The fruit somehow changes their bodies to the extent that 1) they become capable of procreation, and 2) they become mortal.

That's the official view.

Now, there are unofficial variants. Some will argue that spirits are created by sex, but that's not official doctrine. Some will argue that the bodies of Adam and Eve were created by sex; but again--that's not official doctrine. Adherents of the officially-renounced Adam-God theory would argue that Adam had already lived on another world and thus didn't need anyone to "create" him by the time this world was formed.

But none of these are official teachings. If you want to know what the LDS doctrine is, stick with 1-5 above.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Seminarysnoozer]

When you ask the question are they spiritual or physical, at what point in time are you asking?

What came first the chicken or the egg? These are interesting questions.

Even when a child is "born" on earth there is nothing new created in terms of the material organized to become a fetus then infant. All that material was around. So even when we use the word "born" for mortal births it is still an organization of existing material. What is your definition of born? Is it just the physical union of spirit and body?

When we take an existing bacteria or yeast and plug in viral DNA to make a new virus that previously did not exist in this world did we give birth to the virus or create the virus or produce the virus? I think its just semantics. My understanding is that Adam and Eve were created by joining their spirits with spiritual (perfect physical) bodies, which is the 'God's breath' part. Just a thought, it is possible the production of a spiritual body cannot be done through reproduction but by 'changing' a corrupted body into a perfect one. And thus the act of joining spirit and body and they were born. ... I could be wrong. That's how I see it.

[ryanh]

What is your belief on whether they are spirit or physical?

What are you really asking? Can't wrap my head around that question they way it is written and amongst all of the other tangential stuff. Are you simply asking whether or not they ever physically existed?

[Vort]

If this subject has been addressed somewhere else, please let me know and I'll go read up on it. I've been reading up on the subject of God creating something from nothing (that's the way I believe He made the world).

A common belief, found in many religions. Latter-day Saints have been fortunate enough to learn from God that matter itself is eternal, and that God's "creation" of something takes its usual meaning of "organiziation", rather than the ex nihilo idea of the Hellenic thinkers that Philo of Alexandria (and probably others) attached to preexisting Hebrew beliefs.

If I understand it correctly, it seems that LDS doctrine teaches that the spirits of all humans were and are created in the same manner they're created here on earth (in a sexual manner) by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother

You do not understand correctly.

who are physical beings. Here is what I'm trying to figure out.

A physical HF and HM created a SPIRIT Adam and Eve, sent them to earth and Adam and Eve, as spiritual creatures, were able to produce physical children. Adam and Eve were different from the rest of spirit babies who are born into families, in that they were never "born."

So...what is it you are trying to figure out? If your above summation accurately represents LDS doctrine? (No.) If your above summation accurately represents reality? (No.) If your above summation accurately represents your own beliefs? (Only you can answer that.)

What is your belief on whether they are spirit or physical?

What is the antecedent to "they"?

Well, it's either God the Father and his wife or it's Adam and Eve. In both cases, the answer is that they are both spirit and physical beings -- just like us.

[lattelady]

The idea of spirit children/babies being created through a sexual relationship...that's how I understood it; and I hoped someone could either correct that assumption or verify it was correct. This quote led me further in my thought that LDS members believe spirits were created this way.

"God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. 'All men and women are...literally the sons and daughters of Diety...Man, as spirit, was begotten, and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body." Gospel Principles 1992 ed., p.11

Vort, the antecedent to "they" would be Adam and Eve. I'm trying to understand the process of their conversion from spirit children to physical beings. It's a difficult one to "get."

[Vort]

The idea of spirit children/babies being created through a sexual relationship...that's how I understood it; and I hoped someone could either correct that assumption or verify it was correct.

Several have corrected you; hope that's sufficient.

To be clear: While I do not explicitly believe the idea you have put forward, I have no problems at all with the concept that spirits might be created by some sort of sexual union, or something akin to a sexual union. Unlike many other Christians, Latter-day Saints do not see anything inherently evil or corrupt or "icky" about sex; on the contrary, it is (in my view) one of the highest and most Godly of acts, at least when done according to the law of chastity. Rather, the objection is in supposing that LDS doctrine teaches such a thing. It does not. That doesn't mean it's not true; it just means it's not LDS doctrine.

This quote led me further in my thought that LDS members believe spirits were created this way.

I cannot speak for other Church members. I am sure there are at least some who do indeed believe this. As I said, I do not believe it, but I have no objection to it per se.

"God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. 'All men and women are...literally the sons and daughters of Diety...Man, as spirit, was begotten, and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body." Gospel Principles 1992 ed., p.11

Vort, the antecedent to "they" would be Adam and Eve. I'm trying to understand the process of their conversion from spirit children to physical beings. It's a difficult one to "get."

It is the same as our "conversion" from spirit to flesh. Brigham Young taught that Adam was not created out of mud like adobe. He was created as we are. I have no doubt that Adam and Eve both had navels.

[rameumptom]

We do not know how our spirits were created by God. We just know he created our spirits from Intelligence, or the Light of Truth.

We believe we were made from the same substance God is made of, so that entitles us to be called his literal sons and daughters. Most LDS do not believe God uses sex as the method to create spirit children, as this is something that has not been revealed by revelation.

This form of being created, somewhat independently from God, as we are made from eternal substance, means God does not have to be the creator of evil. Being formed from Intelligence and existing matter means that we are formed with independence and agency built-in. Rebellion becomes our own inherent trait, not something God placed within us.

[beefche]

The idea of spirit children/babies being created through a sexual relationship...that's how I understood it; and I hoped someone could either correct that assumption or verify it was correct. This quote led me further in my thought that LDS members believe spirits were created this way.

"God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. 'All men and women are...literally the sons and daughters of Diety...Man, as spirit, was begotten, and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body." Gospel Principles 1992 ed., p.11

Vort, the antecedent to "they" would be Adam and Eve. I'm trying to understand the process of their conversion from spirit children to physical beings. It's a difficult one to "get."

I'm really trying to understand how you got that spirits were created from a sexual relationship from the quotes you gave. The only thing that comes to mind about LDS "belief" in spirits created from a sexual relationship was a stupid anti-Mormon cartoon that someone sent me once. I watched about 45 seconds of it before I couldn't take it anymore--in that dumb thing they talked about how Mormons "teach" eternal sex.

And this was discussed just recently in a thread about Adam and Eve or original sin or something. What about that thread wasn't clear? We do not know how spirit children are created.

I'm really curious where you are getting these "quotes"--you found one about sexual relations makes spirit babies and a re-wording of John 3:16.

[lattelady]

**sigh...

No need for curiosity, beefche. The quote I got about sexual relations, I got from googling "spirit children" and it came from "Gospel Principles", as it says in my post. No hidden agenda there. The one about rewording of John 3:16 came from someone here on LDS.net--someone who is LDS. I'm trying to get Hemidakota to guide me to where he saw it (he seems to know which one I'm talking about). I'm not misquoting someone. I saw the quote somewhere on this forum and I only wish I'd copied the post # down right when I saw it, so I could avoid this speculation you now have that I'm trying to create drama. The quote I gave from Gospel Principles seemed to indicate that spirit babies were created in the same way my husband and I created our beautiful babies. If I misinterpreted that, then I accept that. I wasn't holding to that interpretation dogmatically--I thought that's what it meant. But I'm an outsider and admit I don't have the understanding that you do.

[Palerider]

That sounds like it came from John Ankerberg....author of anti mormon lit among other things that he does not agree with in theology. I am wondering if she is getting this stuff from his literature??? I would post the link but because its an anti lit ,that would be against the rules for me to do that.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Palerider

[Snow]

If this subject has been addressed somewhere else, please let me know and I'll go read up on it. I've been reading up on the subject of God creating something from nothing (that's the way I believe He made the world).

Any idea why that concept - creation ex nilhilo (from nothing) wasn't invented until the 2nd century CE? That is, if it is true, why didn't God reveal it during the OT or NT period? You are aware that it is a 2nd century creation aren't you...

[Traveler]

**sigh...

No need for curiosity, beefche. The quote I got about sexual relations, I got from googling "spirit children" and it came from "Gospel Principles", as it says in my post. No hidden agenda there. The one about rewording of John 3:16 came from someone here on LDS.net--someone who is LDS. I'm trying to get Hemidakota to guide me to where he saw it (he seems to know which one I'm talking about). I'm not misquoting someone. I saw the quote somewhere on this forum and I only wish I'd copied the post # down right when I saw it, so I could avoid this speculation you now have that I'm trying to create drama. The quote I gave from Gospel Principles seemed to indicate that spirit babies were created in the same way my husband and I created our beautiful babies. If I misinterpreted that, then I accept that. I wasn't holding to that interpretation dogmatically--I thought that's what it meant. But I'm an outsider and admit I don't have the understanding that you do.

There are a couple of things in the discussion of creation and the doctrine of Adam and Eve.

First à If G-d created all things from nothing then he is the only cause of all in creation and that includes evil. Personally, I have rejected the notion of creation from nothing on that basis alone; even though there are many other logical, rhetorical, spiritual and scientifically reasons that completely diminish any possibility of creation from nothing. But on the one issue of evil; G-d is not and can not be the root cause of all evil. Also – there is no possibility of agency unless we have some identity pre-creation from which we can draw from for our power to choose. Otherwise, G-d alone is the cause, by creation, of our individual identity from which we draw individuality and therefore the root determination of all our separate choices which defines agency.

Second à People keep asking LDS if we believe that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother had sex to create their children. To be honest I really do not know although I speculate that they do. But what bothers me about the whole discussion on this point is the inference that intimacy (sex) is not good and therefore should not be associated in any way with our Father in heaven. Could someone explain to me why sex within the covenant of marriage is wrong and unworthy of a divine relationship between a male and a female? Where does this doctrine of sex being a bad thing come from? Is there a scripture?

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

So Latte, now that people have answered your questions, do you feel you understand LDS theology better? I guess I am just wondering if the answers are bringing clarity for you.

[Vort]

Where does this doctrine of sex being a bad thing come from? Is there a scripture?

I addressed this very topic in an earlier post on this thread.

Where does the idea of sex as an intrinsically bad thing come from? Historically, it originates (or at least arises in our modern society) from the philosophy of the Greek neoPlatonists, who held all material things to be corrupt. They asserted that God or the gods were not physical beings -- indeed could not be physical beings -- because material things were corrupt by definition (their definition, that is). Naturally, any process that was involved in forming even more of these corrupt physical beings was itself a corrupt and inherently dirty process.

Interestingly, the early Catholic Church, which had already begun to venerate Mary, had to deal with this thorny problem: How could Mary, the mother of God and thus the mother of us all, have been a pure and chosen vessel when she was a filthy mortal human and in fact was the very mother (ugh!) of Jesus' body? To explain this seeming contradiction, the Catholic theologians assigned all filthiness of body to "original sin", and then declared that of all the host of humans ever born into this world, Mary and Mary alone was somehow exempt from this Original Sin. Thus we have the Catholic doctrine of "immaculate conception" -- Mary was not conceived in sin and filth, like everyone else (including the Lord himself).

In our own time, the idea of sex as a filthy thing is lovingly perpetuated by popular media everywhere, where sex is referred to as "doing the nasty" and is portrayed as little more than a recreational pastime to be shared often and indiscriminately. The main exception to this is the feminist view of sex as a violation of the female body and tool of patriarchal repression.

Thank God for the restoration of the gospel and the true teachings of the nature and beauty of the sexual relationship, which serve in some small measure to counteract the poisonous falsehoods taught incessantly by the world!

[Seminarysnoozer]

There are a couple of things in the discussion of creation and the doctrine of Adam and Eve.

First à If G-d created all things from nothing then he is the only cause of all in creation and that includes evil. Personally, I have rejected the notion of creation from nothing on that basis alone; even though there are many other logical, rhetorical, spiritual and scientifically reasons that completely diminish any possibility of creation from nothing. But on the one issue of evil; G-d is not and can not be the root cause of all evil. Also – there is no possibility of agency unless we have some identity pre-creation from which we can draw from for our power to choose. Otherwise, G-d alone is the cause, by creation, of our individual identity from which we draw individuality and therefore the root determination of all our separate choices which defines agency.

The Traveler

I agree. One example of this is asking yourself who created Lucifer and all who followed him who are now working their evil ways into the hearts of those here. There is agency before this life allowing some to choose evil, therefore God is not the root cause.

... now this may label me as a heretic but I am just throwing this out there as a possibility, a thought, not that I believe in this, I don't know .... In the organization of Intelligences, in the creation of all things spiritual is it not possible that the process of forming spirit children is based on eternal laws that necessitate a random mixing of character and traits that is out of the control of God? Think about what happens with in-vitro fertilization here (I'm not saying that's how it is done with spirits, this is just a metaphor) one can pick a healthy zygote and throw out the others, maybe God can't "throw out" the spirit formations that result in evil traits. Thus creating a spectrum of spiritual traits and like here "nature versus nurture" that is only a small part of where that individual will end up. And that spectrum of traits may have something to do with the age of our spirits, knowing that Jesus is the oldest. Again, this is just a thought, not my belief as of yet, just a working theory, so please don't rail me for this.

[Misshalfway]

I think the idea that God can't create anything evil is very important to understand. It seems to me also that God used two different methods (who knows what they are) to create spirit children and then to form the bodies he gave to Adam and Eve. It feels like to me when I read scriptures that God can't make mortal bodies because mortal bodies are corruptable and God is not. So, it makes sense to me that Adam and Eve's bodies were perfect and immortal and thus explains why Satans' role in the garden becomes important and that the fall became an important event in the plan of salvation and the need for a savior.

It seems to me that Satan has been lying to the children of men and students of theology for a long long time and that the subject of sex and its inherent two edged sword nature seems good foder for him. I think even with all the modern clarifying revelation of the restoration that some Saints even fail to understand completely as religious shame is passed from one generation to the next and as false notions about sex get passed too. I still know people who are only comfortable using sex to create children. Understandable, I suppose, considering that procreation is the primary reason God gave us this power. Just not very balanced with wisdom, imo.

[Hemidakota]

You will find that pure intimacy brings both sealed partners together as one.

Looking at the aspect of knowing truths of the past, we can seek an answer to such, not as a church [i believe is too immature for now] but for your own edification. Let no one tell you otherwise, being a male or female member of the church, GOD will not reveal it to you. We stand in a time that the Lord has stated in our dispensation unto the Prophet Joseph Smith [Doctrine and Covenants] will reveal all that is to those who are considered His chosen ones. He will not hide anything from them, to include anything that is not known or questioned by the Saints but to those who can understand it and partake of it. I have seen this already of sharing knowledge by the Savior of the pre-mortal realm with a few of our youth of the church. They have the purity of Christ to do so…

If you feel you cannot receive such an answer, read the discourses of the founding dispensational prophet regarding this subject. Studying it, ponder over it, and listen intensely for the Spirit to instruct and make known those precious truths to you. This is how Joseph received some startle facts of our past, including the creation of spirit, the beginnings of spirits, and what lies ahead for us in the eternities. He may had glossed over the subject lightly, it was a major problem back then when most were immature in learning deeper doctrines of the eternal world. But, what ‘crumbs’ fell to the floor by this man, with trained spiritual eyes, you will see it from his eyes and understand what is given. Many discourses were given on this subject concerning our mortal parents, intelligence beginnings, spirit bodies, and the creation itself. We simply need to apply ourselves in finding those precious gems within.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Seminarysnoozer]

I addressed this very topic in an earlier post on this thread.

Where does the idea of sex as an intrinsically bad thing come from? Historically, it originates (or at least arises in our modern society) from the philosophy of the Greek neoPlatonists, who held all material things to be corrupt. They asserted that God or the gods were not physical beings -- indeed could not be physical beings -- because material things were corrupt by definition (their definition, that is). Naturally, any process that was involved in forming even more of these corrupt physical beings was itself a corrupt and inherently dirty process.

Interestingly, the early Catholic Church, which had already begun to venerate Mary, had to deal with this thorny problem: How could Mary, the mother of God and thus the mother of us all, have been a pure and chosen vessel when she was a filthy mortal human and in fact was the very mother (ugh!) of Jesus' body? To explain this seeming contradiction, the Catholic theologians assigned all filthiness of body to "original sin", and then declared that of all the host of humans ever born into this world, Mary and Mary alone was somehow exempt from this Original Sin. Thus we have the Catholic doctrine of "immaculate conception" -- Mary was not conceived in sin and filth, like everyone else (including the Lord himself).

In our own time, the idea of sex as a filthy thing is lovingly perpetuated by popular media everywhere, where sex is referred to as "doing the nasty" and is portrayed as little more than a recreational pastime to be shared often and indiscriminately. The main exception to this is the feminist view of sex as a violation of the female body and tool of patriarchal repression.

Thank God for the restoration of the gospel and the true teachings of the nature and beauty of the sexual relationship, which serve in some small measure to counteract the poisonous falsehoods taught incessantly by the world!

Sorry, this is getting more and more tangential but it does have to do with reproduction and spiritual versus physical. ... Sex may be a feature of the mortal body only, just like blood. It may be partially why Adam and Eve suddenly felt naked, if they didn't have those parts before it may be suddenly like wearing a big scarlet letter A on your chest, it was suddenly embarrassing and obvious that they had fallen, so shame makes them want to cover their bodies. Otherwise, why would a wife and husband feel embarrassed to be naked in front of each other? Also, without being too graphic, blood is needed for sex, as we know it. Immortal bodies don't have blood.

Another point is that of all the individuals in all the glorified Kingdoms in the next life who do not have the privilege of producing spiritual children, whatever the process, do you think their bodies are different than those that do have that privilege? In other words, they would just be commanded to not reproduce or are they not physically capable of reproducing? Even the angels that are in the celestial kingdom will have the same body as those in the highest level of the celestial kingdom, or maybe they won't? (I thought the body of the sun was one, maybe its not) But those angels will not have the ability to make spiritual children. I think that would be rather cruel to have that as a feature of your body, reproduction, and not be able to reproduce. I think there has to be something more to spiritual reproduction than it being just a feature of that body, even a glorified celestial body. Otherwise, it would have to be that only those that are lined up for creating worlds of their own will have a body capable of reproduction. ... I think these are interesting speculations.

[Misshalfway]

One of the greatest blessings of exhaltation is the ability to have increase.....or to produce posterity. But that blessing only happens inside the bounds of eternal marriage. No one else will be married in the hereafter even though they will have some measure of salvation.

I think it is also interesting to think about the nature of exhalted bodies. It seems clear from the NT that there are different levels of resurrected bodies. I hadn't thought about celestial bodies outside the highest degree being different from the ones inside it until now. I am guessing eternal marriage is the difference.

[lattelady]

Misshalfway, to answer your question from earlier, I feel like my question is sortof being answered. I am curious, I guess, at what seems to be irritation (not yours) at my asking the question. I must be honest and admit to all of you that I am confused at what I perceive to be irritation and even anger toward just about every question that I ask! I don't understand it. I KNOW that sex is a good thing, that it is not meant to be evil. So I guess I don't understand why some of you seem frustrated with my understanding of your doctrine about how spirit babies are created. I have no clue who John Ankerberg is, but I'm assuming he is antimormon and that all of you know who he is. Apparently there is an assumption that I am getting information from him and bringing it here. That would be a wrong assumption and a judgement on your part. If sex is a beautiful thing, and I believe in the correct context it is, then why are some of you upset when I state my understanding of Heavenly Father and Mother creating babies in that way? (If I've taken a quote from Gospel Principles out of context or understood it incorrectly, my apologies--but I truly feel as though every time I post there are many of you who assume that I have an agenda that I DON'T have. It is highly frustrating and hurtful to be misjudged). In reference to what you believe about how spirit children ARE created, would you show me some quotes from scripture so I can understand what you're saying more clearly?

[beefche]

Misshalfway, to answer your question from earlier, I feel like my question is sortof being answered. I am curious, I guess, at what seems to be irritation (not yours) at my asking the question. I must be honest and admit to all of you that I am confused at what I perceive to be irritation and even anger toward just about every question that I ask! I don't understand it. I KNOW that sex is a good thing, that it is not meant to be evil. So I guess I don't understand why some of you seem frustrated with my understanding of your doctrine about how spirit babies are created. I have no clue who John Ankerberg is, but I'm assuming he is antimormon and that all of you know who he is. Apparently there is an assumption that I am getting information from him and bringing it here. That would be a wrong assumption and a judgement on your part. If sex is a beautiful thing, and I believe in the correct context it is, then why are some of you upset when I state my understanding of Heavenly Father and Mother creating babies in that way? (If I've taken a quote from Gospel Principles out of context or understood it incorrectly, my apologies--but I truly feel as though every time I post there are many of you who assume that I have an agenda that I DON'T have. It is highly frustrating and hurtful to be misjudged). In reference to what you believe about how spirit children ARE created, would you show me some quotes from scripture so I can understand what you're saying more clearly?

The reason I asked where you got this from is because it is a common anti-Mormon rant that we preach "eternal sex" (their words, not mine). Perhaps our minds just think differently, but I honestly don't see how anything equates the quotes you gave to eternal sex. It's not something I think about--"Heavenly Father had sex with Heavenly Mother and here I am!"

I don't know who that Anker dude is. But, when a non-member comes on here (no matter how long they've been here) and asks something that appears to be straight from an anti site, then I'm going to ask. I have absolutely no problem answering questions--any questions. But if the source is coming from an anti site, then I worry any answer will be twisted or miscontrued.

It just seemed odd to me, latte, that in 1 or 2 days, you had asked about 2 things that appeared on the surface (to me at least) to be from an anti site. I'll take your word that you didn't get it from there, but rather was curious. If my tone in my post seemed hostile, then I apologize. That wasn't my intent, but rather to find out where you got that thought.

[Vort]

I must be honest and admit to all of you that I am confused at what I perceive to be irritation and even anger toward just about every question that I ask! I don't understand it.

I hadn't noticed. I'm sorry you perceive things to be that way; I hope you are mistaken.

I KNOW that sex is a good thing, that it is not meant to be evil. So I guess I don't understand why some of you seem frustrated with my understanding of your doctrine about how spirit babies are created.

I can think of several possible explanations:

• Your question resembles statements of antiMormons who make their living by misrepresenting and savaging the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints. Of course, that resemblance may be purely coincidental, but you can see how such might raise people's suspicion.
• Every few weeks, it seems, we get someone who creates an account on this site and then proceeds to ask a bunch of "sincere", "honest" questions that -- Holy Coincidences, Batman! -- just happen to parallel the lies and half-truths of the antiMormons. Answering them is never sufficient, of course, since they will continue to twist whatever they're given into something it is not. Such questions lead to frustration. Truly sincere questions that are recognized as such are never resented, of course, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
• You have read sex into a passage of the Gospel Principles manual that clearly does not refer to the sex act, even obliquely. Now, this may be completely honest on your part, and in any case there is nothing wrong with it per se. But given the reality of the hateful attacks of antiMormons on this very topic, it does look a bit suspicious that you seem to sexualize an obviously non-sexual statement, and could lead to frustration.
• You asked one specific question that I saw ("What is your belief on whether they are spirit or physical?"), which I believe was answered by a few people. That you seem dissatisfied with the answers given is a possible source of frustration.

If sex is a beautiful thing, and I believe in the correct context it is, then why are some of you upset when I state my understanding of Heavenly Father and Mother creating babies in that way?

If it's your personal understanding of reality, then that's fine -- in fact, you are likely to find some here who agree.

If it's your understanding of what Latter-day Saints believe, then that's fine, too -- though you will quickly discover that such a belief is far from universally accepted and is certainly not LDS doctrine. (Which is not to say it's false, necessarily, just that it's not LDS doctrine.)

If it's your understanding of what the Gospel Principles manual teaches, then that's a bit frustrating, since the manual makes no mention of sex in that context.

In reference to what you believe about how spirit children ARE created, would you show me some quotes from scripture so I can understand what you're saying more clearly?

I am aware of no scriptures that discuss the mechanics of creation, either of the earth or of its inhabitants, spiritually or mortally.