Adam and Eve/physical or spiritual

[lattelady]

beefche, this isn't the first time that you've made assumptions that seem to POINT to accusations that I get things from anti-mormon sites and then drag them back here to have them discussed. Once again I will point out, I used a quote that was from LDS literature--hardley ANTI-LDS! The quote that I found, I didn't understand; much like things LDS people might not understand from Protestant or Evangelical faiths (like "Saved by Grace" thought). I've had people on this site outright mock the Saved by Grace belief that I hold dear, and when I ask why it's okay, I'm told that if that's how I'm taking it, that's my problem. If this forum is truly to help others understand LDS theology, then it should be willing to do that. I will point out, again, that I've never taken shots at ANYONE. But shots are taken at me, quite a bit.

The quote that I brought, from LDS "Gospel Principles" (Is that a book that you use? or do you believe that it is filled with error?) gave me the impression when I read it that LITERALLY spirit children are created the way they are created here on our planet. THAT is how I equated the quote with the thought I had. I'm fairly certain that I'm not the only one who has thought that--I even think there are LDS church members who think it means that. Just because you don't think about, "Heavenly Father had sex with Heavenly Mother and here I am," could that still be the teaching or the thought in Mormon Doctrine? That was my question.

Yes, your tone seemed hostile; you are making judgements that are untrue, and you STILL sound angry! Why?

[beefche]

latte, I am not angry. I don't know how else to say that. If my posts appear that way, then I apologize, but I don't know how else to say that I am not angry. I'm not using harsh words, I'm not using all caps, I'm not even really using exclamation points. So, let me assure you I am not angry.

I'm sorry you feel attacked. I tried to explain why I felt you had gotten your info from an anti site. I said that I accept that you didn't.

[Traveler]

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?

To be honest – I am somewhat offended by the use of “sex” as the means to describe intimacy between married man and woman. Some of my offence is because the same term can be and is used to describe a very wide range of activities that is some cases may not even involve another human or even another individual. There is a divine sacredness in marriage as commanded by G-d. There is also divine sacredness in gender and the scriptures infer such divine sacredness. It is not a stretch for me to sense a vain use of the name of G-d in making common or vulgar use of that which describes or names G-d.

And so I must ask myself – do I really want to cast precious sacred pearls before someone that boldly ask questions in vulgar (meaning common) manner. If my responses seem to carry a “sharp rebuke” – this is not fully unintended. To me it is like any other use of the L-rd’s name in vein. You will note that on the internet I am very careful how I use the L-rd’s name in print even to an extreme. This is in part to keep a constant reminder to me as I constructs words that describe something very precious to me.

And so it is for me – if someone wishes to tread on or discuss very sacred things it is not that I will not discuss such things but if there is the slightest hint of vulgarity towards sacred things, my response will carry with it a rebuke. It is because I have made covenant concerning sacred things; both that which is sacred to me and that which is sacred to others. So if I sense a vulgar use of something sacred even to other’s beliefs, my response is very likely to carry a rebuke.

As to the doctrine of our Father in heaven being the Father of our spirits in a manner that we can liken to our “earthy” fathers – I would point you to Hebrews 12:9

“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

The Traveler

[pam]

that I've never taken shots at ANYONE

Sorry just gotta say this. But having you tell me that it appears that I dislike non members on this site not once but twice..not a potshot? Okay..your interpretation.

[Palerider]

latte, I am not angry. I don't know how else to say that. If my posts appear that way, then I apologize, but I don't know how else to say that I am not angry. I'm not using harsh words, I'm not using all caps, I'm not even really using exclamation points. So, let me assure you I am not angry.

I'm sorry you feel attacked. I tried to explain why I felt you had gotten your info from an anti site. I said that I accept that you didn't.

Beefche....I agree with you...thats I stated what I did. You can find the stuff that is being asked from anti sites and as I said earlier I would post the link with the source. I cannot post it because its against the site rules. So yes...I have that same impression as you.

I get upset when I feel like others are trying to rub my beliefs in my face with an anti tone.

[Misshalfway]

Latte....I don't want you to feel judged. I sincerely, and I think many here feel this way too, that we simply want to be understood correctly. It has been the misfortune of the LDS church to be under constant attacks and most of them are based in untruths. I think exapperation that you are feeling. But I think that you are right that there are over reactions on this. I have mentioned it before. I honestly feel that there should be some moderation with regards to anti material and hostile troll-like postings. But sometimes I feel this site acts too hastily. Why shouldn't we LDS meet sincere questions with openness? even if they do stem out of anti material? IMO, the objectives of this site would be better met with more patient responses.

I would hope though, latte, that you would see that the majority of the responses on this thread ARE genuninely trying to help you understand in kind ways.

Originally Posted by lattelady

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?

Anyway.....with regards to this specific question I will ditto the response of Vort above. Very well said.

[Palerider]

When I googled Spirit Children as you did...I did not get the same thing...I got anti sites.....you cam always use this link in answer to your questions..

Answers About Mormons and Mormon Belief (LDS FAQ - Latter-day Saints)

[lattelady]

Palerider, once again, the quote that I was asking about is from Gospel Principles--that is an LDS book. Am I mistaken? Is that NOT and LDS book? Why are you having such a problem with it? If I were to type in Spirit Children--LDS beliefs, and come up with that quote, why are you having such an issue with a quote from your own literatuare? So, you got anti sites when you googled. Did I use "anti" material? What is this about?

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

I like this discussion because to me everything important in the gospel has to do with the body and so many religions focus much more on the non-body parts of the gospel. I think this is what distinguishes LDS from most religions is our focus on the body. For example, we know we could only progress so far without a body. The fall of Adam caused a change in the body and the resurrection of Jesus has to do with a sacrifice of the body and returning in body. The whole probationary period has to do with determining what type of body we get forever. Think of the anointing of the body, for those that have been through the temple.

Thoughts can even develop or change after death, the spirit prison. But one thing that will never change is after we get our immortal perfected body it cannot change or develop. It will be a body that allows for Eternal progression or it will not, one that will have a limit. One will not be able to jump from a limited body to an unlimited body. And of the glory of the sun there is one body and of the glory of the moon there is one body but of the stars there are many. A place of lesser glory has variety, a place of higher glory there is one to the point of really having His image in our countenance.

I wonder about the need for God to introduce His son when appearing to Joseph and as depicted in our earthly interpretation of that event, in films, they appear the same. And this is what creates confusion about them being the same or even Adam and God being the same ... because they had the same body, the same type of body, I suspect. The same body that we are all trying to obtain, a God body.

The reason this is important to talk about is that knowing this is the purpose tells us that achieving salvation is not just a state of mind, it is a physical process as well. The whole belief about lip service alone will not get you salvation makes more sense when you understand one of the main themes of the gospel is the body, getting a temporary one, overcoming its influences and then obtaining an immortal body and all that goes with it. If it was just a state of mind, we wouldn't need earth or be placed in an immortal body and we wouldn't need a savior. We are reminded of the need for a body every week.

[Misshalfway]

Seminary.....you reminded me of the D&C scripture of the spirit world where the state of being without a body was somewhat of a prison in and of itself. Interesting!

It is interesting to me too.....forgive my departure here....but that evil spirits want to inhabit bodies. They must understand how important they are too.

[Palerider]

Palerider, once again, the quote that I was asking about is from Gospel Principles--that is an LDS book. Am I mistaken? Is that NOT and LDS book? Why are you having such a problem with it? If I were to type in Spirit Children--LDS beliefs, and come up with that quote, why are you having such an issue with a quote from your own literatuare? So, you got anti sites when you googled. Did I use "anti" material? What is this about?

you tell me....thats what I was asking you....why do you so defensive when someone asks you a question

[Misshalfway]

Palerider, once again, the quote that I was asking about is from Gospel Principles--that is an LDS book. Am I mistaken? Is that NOT and LDS book? Why are you having such a problem with it? If I were to type in Spirit Children--LDS beliefs, and come up with that quote, why are you having such an issue with a quote from your own literatuare? So, you got anti sites when you googled. Did I use "anti" material? What is this about?

Latte.....what if we just let this go and get back to your question?

It seems you pulled a quote from an LDS manual. Can you explain how you interpretted the quote and could you help us understand if our explanations have helped you understand it better?

Some of your previous posts indicate to me that you may be reading it differently that it was meant. It might also help if you were to read the entire lesson in that Gospel principles manual as it might frame the information in better ways for you. It is about as basic a manual as it gets.

[lattelady]

Palerider, you didn't answer any of my questions...I asked you why you're so upset when I'm simply using a quote from your church's materials and trying to understand what it means. I didn't bring anti-mormon literature here and try to slam your Church with it. I'm not defensive--I'm asking you questions that you're not answering.

[Palerider]

I have answered your questions...and if you read thru my posts here you will see that. You have not answered all the questions others have asked of you in this thread.

[lattelady]

Misshalfway, I guess I was misinterpreting "all men and women are literally sons and daughters of Diety" "born and Begotten of heavenly parents" to mean that men and women were literally conceived by a HF and HM in the most literal way. I also misinterpreted this in the way the Heavenly Father and Mary created Jesus. But I'm learning, now, that literally doesn't necessarily mean literally in the sense that my human mind thinks it does.

[beefche]

Maybe this thread needs to be merged with the Kumbya thread....

[Misshalfway]

Cool. that helps me a ton to understand where you are coming from.

You know, I think it is natural for us to assume that there is only one way to make children. And I am not sure that your explanation isn't a plausible one. Maybe spirit creation happens in similar ways as physical creation. It's just that none of us can confirm any of it from a doctrinal place. We have been taught thru the Biblical and other scriptures that we are the literal spirit children of God but that is as far as the explanations goes. How that creative process happens is the part we don't know and what it means to be conceived by the Holy Ghost even more ambiguous. The scriptures say that His ways are not our ways. So what's the difference? No one knows.

So, if you meet an LDS person or read someone who says something definitive on that particular thing , understand that this is opinion and not official LDS doctrine.

[Palerider]

Maybe this thread needs to be merged with the Kumbya thread....

need the laugh button....:)