Who was God the Father's "wife"?

[Misshalfway]

Book of Moses? That must be BoM? I'm not a Mormon so I think the only discussion I can participate in can be from the Scriptures that we both accept. (IOW, I do not use the deutero-canonical books when I speak with born again Christians, as they do not accept them as inspired)

That said, it sounds like the BoM contradicts what we know from Genesis, so how is that reconciled?

Sorry Fatima, I thought you were a member. My mistake. Forget that last post as it probably confuses you more than anything else.

We read from the Bible, the Book of Mormon and other works of scripture as well. They are called The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Abraham is found in the Pearl and I was referring to that.

Again, sorry for making assumptions. I will try to post differently.

[Just_A_Guy]

That said, it sounds like the BoM contradicts what we know from Genesis, so how is that reconciled?

On its face, it doesn't. If we're going to be strict textualists, Genesis does not say what most of us think it says.

What the Book of Moses contradicts is man's interpretation and interpolation of the text of Genesis.

[fatima]

To reduce candyprpl's excellent post, the answer would be simply "Revelation given to modern prophets".

She could have, had she partaken of the fruit (which God had put before her). The conundrum was, He had also told her (at least for the time being) not to partake of the fruit.

1. Because no mortal could survive the pain that Jesus had to survive during His Atonement--a full-blooded mortal would have died before that atonement was complete.

2. Because a mortal, alone, would not have power over death--either to raise others (e.g. Lazarus) or Himself from the dead.

Are you saying that God gave A and E the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", but that that command could not be fulfilled without eating of the tree which He had commanded they not touch?

Please tell me that you are not saying that.

[fatima]

On its face, it doesn't. If we're going to be strict textualists, Genesis does not say what most of us think it says.

What the Book of Moses contradicts is man's interpretation and interpolation of the text of Genesis.

Well, I, for one, am not one who takes only the on-the-surface meaning of Scripture; I believe there are many layers to what is being said. So, go ahead and tell me how it's reconciled.

[Just_A_Guy]

Are you saying that God gave A and E the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", but that that command could not be fulfilled without eating of the tree which He had commanded they not touch?

Please tell me that you are not saying that.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Your own faith teaches that cannibalism is wrong, but embraces the idea of transubstantiation. Contradiction? No; you just believe that through some mystery God provides a way that makes it all OK. So it is with us and this particular doctrine. We take it on faith that God would have provided a way.

Well, I, for one, am not one who takes only the on-the-surface meaning of Scripture; I believe there are many layers to what is being said. So, go ahead and tell me how it's reconciled.

Why on earth should I bother reconciling two propositions when I believe that one of them is incorrect in the first place, and you cannot or will not buttress that proposition with scriptural support?

Edited November 2, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[fatima]

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Your own faith teaches that cannibalism is wrong, but embraces the idea of transubstantiation. Contradiction? No; you just believe that through some mystery God provides a way that makes it all OK. So it is with us and this particular doctrine. We take it on faith that God would have provided a way.

Why on earth should I bother reconciling two propositions when I believe that one of them is incorrect in the first place, and you cannot or will not buttress that proposition with scriptural support?

I am on a Mormon forum seeking understanding about Mormon doctrine. Do you suggest I go to a Christian fundamentalist forum to get accurate answers?

What two propositions are you talking about? I am asking how the command (be fruitful and multiply) of one set of Scriptures (the Bible) is reconciled with another Scripture (BoM, Moses?) that says that sin is a pre-requisite to fulfilling that command.

I'm gathering from the post by "changed" that God set two paths before A and E, and that taking either path would result in a sin that caused the fall of man.

Am I missing something? Was there a path that they could've followed that would not have caused the fall of man?

[Just_A_Guy]

I am on a Mormon forum seeking understanding about Mormon doctrine. Do you suggest I go to a Christian fundamentalist forum to get accurate answers?

What two propositions are you talking about? I am asking how the command (be fruitful and multiply) of one set of Scriptures (the Bible) is reconciled with another Scripture (BoM, Moses?) that says that sin is a pre-requisite to fulfilling that command.

Yes; those are the ones I'm talking about. In the simplest sense, and with all due respect for Changed, I simply don't buy the proposition that "sin" was a pre-requisite for fulfilling the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Partaking of the fruit was required; but we don't know that partaking of the fruit, in and of itself, would have constituted "sin" under every set of circumstances.

Was there a path that they could've followed that would not have caused the fall of man?

How about the idea that at some point God would have returned to Adam and told him that the time was now right to partake of the fruit? (Not an idea that Mormons universally accept; but one that I think our doctrine allows for.) What if the problem wasn't that the fruit was inherently bad, but that Adam partook before he should have and without proper authorization?

[Misshalfway]

Was there a path that they could've followed that would not have caused the fall of man?

Yes. A&E could have not partaken of the fruit and stayed in the garden in the presence of God. But if the fall didn't happen, neither could the plan of God to save the children of men. There would have been no sin and no death and no need for a savior and no mortal children to save in the first place.

From your point of view, Fatima, why was the whole garden thing necessary? Why did God place Adam and Eve in the garden? Why not just send those two kids on the earth and l let them make lots of babies? God knew satan would tempt them. Why go thru the exercize in the first place if it wasn't important.

My thoughts, and I posted this on another thread, was that God could create bodies for A&E and an earth, but he couldn't create bodies that were sinful and corruptable. And God new his children needed physical bodies and the experience of being away from him on an earth to be enticed by good and evil (which is what the tree brought....not just evil.) Evil can only come thru agency. Adam fell that man may be and men are that they might have joy. Neither could happen in the garden.

I trust you see it differently.

[Misshalfway]

How about the idea that at some point God would have returned to Adam and told him that the time was now right to partake of the fruit? (Not an idea that Mormons universally accept; but one that I think our doctrine allows for.) What if the problem wasn't that the fruit was inherently bad, but that Adam partook before he should have and without proper authorization?

I have thought a lot about that too. It would have been interesting to see how things would have happened if A&E had taken the conundrum to the Lord instead of heading Satan.

[fatima]

Yes; those are the ones I'm talking about. In the simplest sense, and with all due respect for Changed, I simply don't buy the proposition that "sin" was a pre-requisite for fulfilling the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Partaking of the fruit was required; but we don't know that partaking of the fruit, in and of itself, would have constituted "sin" under every set of circumstances.

How about the idea that at some point God would have returned to Adam and told him that the time was now right to partake of the fruit? (Not an idea that Mormons universally accept; but one that I think our doctrine allows for.) What if the problem wasn't that the fruit was inherently bad, but that Adam partook before he should have and without proper authorization?

Let me preface by saying that, as a Catholic, I believe that a Church can come to a fuller understanding of doctrine as time goes on. I do not necessarily expect a Mormon to be able to explain every detail of the supernatural. What I am struggling with on this issue is that God would give two seemingly contrary instructions, simultaneously. Again, as we grow in our understanding of God we might understand details we didn't before, but I don't think a later "revelation" (to borrow from LDS terminology) every contradicts what came before.

This is almost a silly comparison, but it's the best way for me to explain how I see this. If God, through your prophet, tells you that you are to refrain from stockpiling, yet also be prepared to be self-sufficient in case of (fill in the blank). Are you supposed to wait around for the injunction on stockpiling is lifted?

This is ultra-confusing.

[Islander]

I suggest it may be useful to remember that God is ALL-knowing and thus incapable of acting "randomly" ever. The history, the doctrine and the ordinances are for OUR benefit. Becaue scripture dates back a few thousand years, has gone thru countless, unknown revisions and likely human error, we MUST rely on the prophets to interpret and point to the correct way to "see" certain principles.

There is ample evidence that even within Judaism, the Torah has suffered many-many changes and has been interpreted in different ways at various times in history. What are we to make of that? Again, if the scriptures are to be trusted, we should look at how Church leaders, during and after the time of Christ, solved those same issues; by revelation.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Islander

[Just_A_Guy]

Let me preface by saying that, as a Catholic, I believe that a Church can come to a fuller understanding of doctrine as time goes on. I do not necessarily expect a Mormon to be able to explain every detail of the supernatural. What I am struggling with on this issue is that God would give two seemingly contrary instructions, simultaneously. Again, as we grow in our understanding of God we might understand details we didn't before, but I don't think a later "revelation" (to borrow from LDS terminology) every contradicts what came before.

This is almost a silly comparison, but it's the best way for me to explain how I see this. If God, through your prophet, tells you that you are to refrain from stockpiling, yet also be prepared to be self-sufficient in case of (fill in the blank). Are you supposed to wait around for the injunction on stockpiling is lifted?

This is ultra-confusing.

I see where you're coming from. But in this case, there is no contradiction to what came before. Because when you parse the text, "what came before" isn't what it has been interpreted to be.

To take your analogy, it would be as if our prophet told us to be self-sufficient while at the same time saying "I don't want you to stockpile food right now". There are still other things I can do to prepare to be self-sufficient, and there's no reason to assume that the prohibition on stockpiling will be perpetual.

Similarly, all Christianity has is this:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That's it.

[deseretgov]

Let me preface by saying that, as a Catholic, I believe that a Church can come to a fuller understanding of doctrine as time goes on. I do not necessarily expect a Mormon to be able to explain every detail of the supernatural. What I am struggling with on this issue is that God would give two seemingly contrary instructions, simultaneously. Again, as we grow in our understanding of God we might understand details we didn't before, but I don't think a later "revelation" (to borrow from LDS terminology) every contradicts what came before.

This is almost a silly comparison, but it's the best way for me to explain how I see this. If God, through your prophet, tells you that you are to refrain from stockpiling, yet also be prepared to be self-sufficient in case of (fill in the blank). Are you supposed to wait around for the injunction on stockpiling is lifted?

This is ultra-confusing.

Well fo rthe sake of discussion tlets say that Adam and Eve could not produce children in the Garden. The only way they could is by changing their bodies from an immortal perfect state to a mortal state capable of bearing children. This could only be accomplished by eating thr fruit of the tree of knowledge. If Heavenly Father would have commanded them to eat of the fruit He would be an unjust God. Because eating the fruit changed their bodies from an immortal state to a mortal one. And such an action would have been a punishment for an immortal being. If God commanded them to eat they would have been punished for following God's commandment. It makes even less sense that God would punish somebody who follows His commandments. He HAD to command them not to eat of it or else He would have been an unjust God.

[fatima]

Okay, so LDS teaches that mankind had physical bodies in the garden, yet those bodies were immortal? Why is it that a physical, yet immortal body, could not produce children? Why are physicality and immortality mutually exclusive?

I think LDS consider the union of husband and wife sacred, and nothing sinful about it, correct? Isn't it the greatness of God that allows us to participate with Him in the creating and bearing of new life?

I guess the whole subject is bound to segue, so if you're with me, I'll keep asking.

BTW-my reason for joining the LDS.net in the first place was to learn what might be okay to offer to/talk about with my new LDS friend. For instance, can I offer her hot cocoa? I have those answers now, but reading bits about your faith is prompting me to ask questions.

Hope you don't mind.

[Just_A_Guy]

Okay, so LDS teaches that mankind had physical bodies in the garden, yet those bodies were immortal?

Yes.

Why is it that a physical, yet immortal body, could not produce children?

As to Adam and Eve: for some reason known only to God, it was not yet appropriate for them to begin producing children.

But it would be a fallacy to state that all physical, immortal bodies are incapable of producing children. It just happened to be the case with Adam and Eve, in that particular stage of their existence.

Why are physicality and immortality mutually exclusive?

They most certainly aren't. But (per LDS doctrine) our mortal lifetime is only one stage of a very long (to wit: eternal) existence. It's intended as a "probationary period"--a test--and it's supposed to have an end. There's a parallel thread on this topic currently under discussion here. The Twelfth chapter of Alma, Book of Mormon, keeps coming up a lot. I'd suggest you read it, if you have some spare time.

I think LDS consider the union of husband and wife sacred, and nothing sinful about it, correct? Isn't it the greatness of God that allows us to participate with Him in the creating and bearing of new life?

I whole-heartedly agree.

[deseretgov]

Okay, so LDS teaches that mankind had physical bodies in the garden, yet those bodies were immortal?

Yes. They did have physical bodies. And those bodies HAD to be immortal because physical death was one of the results of the fall.

Why is it that a physical, yet immortal body, could not produce children?

I don't know. But (coming from LDS belief and my personal opinions) Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother both have Physical bodies that are immortal yet they cannot produce offspring with physical bodies. They produce spirit offspring. Don't ask me why or how, that's just my observations.

Why are physicality and immortality mutually exclusive?

They aren't. Physical bodies by their very nature are physical. But a physical body can be immortal and mortal.

I think LDS consider the union of husband and wife sacred, and nothing sinful about it, correct?

True.

Isn't it the greatness of God that allows us to participate with Him in the creating and bearing of new life?

Yep.

I guess the whole subject is bound to segue, so if you're with me, I'll keep asking.

BTW-my reason for joining the LDS.net in the first place was to learn what might be okay to offer to/talk about with my new LDS friend. For instance, can I offer her hot cocoa? I have those answers now, but reading bits about your faith is prompting me to ask questions.

Hope you don't mind.

Keep asking.

[fatima]

Changed, this is very troubling for me. As parents, none of us wills that our children come to know sin/evil. Earthly parents would do anything in their power to avoid knowing the evils of this world. When your children accept and continue to live a good, Mormon life, does it have more meaning because they know (have committed) some evil/sin; to the point that you prefer that they actually go out and sin before they come back to the faith? That sounds to me like exactly what you think God the Father did. Can you explain it any differently?

God gave us free will, yes, but His Will was that we would freely choose His Will as opposed to our own.

[fatima]

I guess we've gone off a bit from the original topic, which still puzzles me. The LDS church teaches that "families are forever", and that you are sealed to your spouse for eternity. It is also my understanding that LDS believe that the men who reach exaltation will be God the Father (so to speak) of their own planets. Will they/could they be bearing children with earthly women as God the Father of this planet did with Mary? How do LDS women feel about this?

Did Mary effectively practice polyandry, being married to Joseph as well as bearing the Christ?

[Islander]

I guess we've gone off a bit from the original topic, which still puzzles me. The LDS church teaches that "families are forever", and that you are sealed to your spouse for eternity. It is also my understanding that LDS believe that the men who reach exaltation will be God the Father (so to speak) of their own planets. Will they/could they be bearing children with earthly women as God the Father of this planet did with Mary? How do LDS women feel about this?

Did Mary effectively practice polyandry, being married to Joseph as well as bearing the Christ?

What you referred as "teachings" were parts and portions of sermons offered by the Prophet and others in the early times of the Church. There is a fair amount of speculation and tangential reasoning when it comes to those portions of doctrine of which no specific or detailed revelation exist.

What may or may not happen a trillion years from now has little to do with our salvation for which we are ALL dependent on Christ. What degree of exaltation and stewardship we are to receive in the kingdom of our God is up to our Heavenly Father. Sufice to say that we know next to nothing in regards to the subject.

[deseretgov]

I guess we've gone off a bit from the original topic, which still puzzles me. The LDS church teaches that "families are forever", and that you are sealed to your spouse for eternity. It is also my understanding that LDS believe that the men who reach exaltation will be God the Father (so to speak) of their own planets. Will they/could they be bearing children with earthly women as God the Father of this planet did with Mary? How do LDS women feel about this?

Well I don't think God did any thing with Mary that would qualify as reproducing with her. We read it was the Holy Ghost that came upon Mary. The way I think of it is that God simply commanded the atoms within Mary to come together in a certain pattern. There wasn't a relationship involved.

Did Mary effectively practice polyandry, being married to Joseph as well as bearing the Christ?

I would say no since Mary wasn't married to God nor did she have a relationship with Him.

[fatima]

Well I don't think God did any thing with Mary that would qualify as reproducing with her. We read it was the Holy Ghost that came upon Mary. The way I think of it is that God simply commanded the atoms within Mary to come together in a certain pattern. There wasn't a relationship involved.

I would say no since Mary wasn't married to God nor did she have a relationship with Him.

Okay, so "God commanded the atoms". I'm pretty sure you're using those terms for brevity sake, not to minimize.

Does that mean that LDS teaches that all of Christ's humanity came from Mary? IOW, my church (Catholic) does teach that because we believe God the Father is all spirit, and the union of the divine and the human we call the "hypostatic union". But LDS teaches that God has a physical makeup, right? And earlier it was said that God the Father and a heavenly mother created or begat the spirit child (don't know what else to call it) of Jesus? So, did the Father's physicalilty contribute to Jesus' physicality? (Did I ask that question earlier?) I mean, if you could do a DNA test on Jesus, we would only find Mary's DNA? No that such silliness really has any bearing on matters of faith.

Mortality and immortality, physical makeup and pure spirit makeup are all mutually exclusive from one another, and are combined to make up souls at different stages of their existence/progression?

I'm probably starting to not make sense (and I guess that's because I'm trying to get in a few posts what LDS have spent years studying, and I'm confused!)