belly button

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe that what makes exalted bodies so powerful and desirable, is that they combine perfectly all the attributes and powers of both the mortal body and the spirit. All the enjoyable emotions, sensations, and pro-creation abilities melded with immortality and perfect intelligence. Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Yes, I think we disagree in some things. Overall, I think we agree on most things. Your last paragraph outlines a little of what I would probably say differently. You quote the powers of the "mortal body," I think those powers are very small if anything, especially when scriptures say the natural man is an enemy to God. But, this is only since the fall of Adam. In other words, pre-fall Adam's body was not an enemy to God. We are to learn how to overcome the passions of this world and then when we make it to the next life we are relieved of those passions, we enter into a rest from the worries of this world. In other words the opposite of what happened with the fall is what will happen with the resurrection. So understanding what happens with the resurrection will help us understand what happened with the fall. Those two things are tied together. Not everyone that receives a resurrected body will have the ability to procreate. (Unless, you believe they do, they just are kept from doing so by some kind of enforcement .... it certainly won't be from innocence at that point.) So, I speculate most resurrected bodies cannot procreate. Or maybe you don't believe that? Maybe an individual in the Telestial Kingdom could procreate physically but is somehow kept from it, I don't know. I tend to think their bodies will not have that ability. And if that is true, then there are 'perfected' bodies that can't procreate.

So all those characteristics described in that last paragraph of yours, I think stem from the spirit, not the body... enjoyable emotions, sensations, pro-creation abilities, intelligence. The refiners fire is for the spirit, not to refine the body. This probationary period is to prove our spirits not prove the body otherwise those that die young or those that have trisomy 21 or 18 wouldn't have learned much to deserve exalted status. Don't get me wrong, I think procreation is a wonderful thing, I have 4 beautiful children. I just think all those qualities you hold high in that last paragraph stem from the spirit not the body.

Alma said: “All men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.”

And: The natural man is proud. The natural man’s most distinguishing feature is pride, which, as President Ezra Taft Benson has noted, is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward man. The look of the natural man is neither up (to God) nor over (to man), except as the horizontal glance allows him to compete with his fellows.

“Pride is essentially competitive in nature,” President Benson explained. “We pit our will against God’s. When we direct our pride toward God, it is in the spirit of ‘my will and not thine be done.’ … The proud wish God would agree with them.”

I think the exalted body taking on mortal characteristics as you stated in that last paragraph is that "wishing God would agree with them" thinking that President Benson mentions. There may be some small attributes that our body takes on from the exalted form but not the other way around. Our bodies are vile, corrupt and proud. It is only when we put off the natural man that we can reach that exalted state, then we will be privileged to have a body that won't be driven by those vile passions. A procreation ability is given to the most evil of us all on this world and unfortunately is not under the control of the spirit by most, that's why more than half of children born in the United States are born to broken families.

I think the most important aspect of procreation is not sex, it is the coming together of two spirits who have the same glorified purpose in mind to bring one of God's spirits to this world to participate in His overall purpose of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. When that is the purpose, the experience is edifying to the spirit. Just like most abilities of the body, it can be used for both good and bad, but what changes that is not the body itself, it is the spirit that changes the purpose. That is the experience we hope to take to the next life, not how to have sex as even the lowest of the lowest Kingdom will likely know that.

[Vort]

Just to clarify, I don't think that sex is evil and I agree with your entire post.

Which is why I specifically mentioned that I was not singling you out. I didn't think you were saying that, so hopefully it didn't sound like I did think so.

I was trying to suggest in my insufficient way, that whatever God's ways are, they probably aren't identical to our ways. I didn't mean pitiful and lowly as strongly as it was interpreted but more like my 3 year-old's crude crayon drawings compared to a Master's oil paintings. I still beam with love when I look at my son's humble drawings and I imagine our Father does the same when he looks upon our best efforts at building strong, tender, and righteous relationships with our spouses.

To extend your comparison: Your child may produce only childish scrawls, but he uses his hands, fingers, and eyes to coordinate his efforts. He tries to represent something meaningful to himself on paper. He is doing basically exactly the same thing that a great artist does, just not as well (yet).

I have never quite understood why some people, LDS and otherwise, get all bent out of shape at the mere suggestion that sexual relationships of some sort might possibly apply to God. I believe it's unwise to dwell at length on such topics, or even to talk openly about them; but even so, I can find nothing offensive or evil in the basic idea.

If our lives here are but a pale reflection of the Eternal Life of the Father, well, they are still a reflection. We may understand only in part; we may have only imperfect approximations here. But the ultimate reality still bears resemblance to our lives here and now. Surely, when we inherit all that the Father hath and see more fully our eternal lives, we will be as surprised and delighted with the familiarity of things as we will be with their strangeness.

Sex is good. We say it, and we think we believe it, but somewhere in our brains, many of us still harbor ideas of the dark strangeness and "ickiness" of sex. At some point -- and sooner is better than later -- we should quit thinking as children, put off childish things, and recognize sex for the divine blessing it truly is.

And when we have reached that point, I doubt any of us will be repulsed at the idea that our Father's life might follow a very similar pattern. Even if we don't believe the idea to be true, it won't hold any horror or disgust for us, as it obviously does now among many.

[Ammonite]

You quote the powers of the "mortal body," I think those powers are very small if anything...

This is why I disagree:

“All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 181).

Speaking about Cain “this first murderer of all murderers is himself Perdition—he was so designated in preexistence—and he will rule over Satan himself when the devil and his angels are cast out everlastingly” (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness For the Articles of Faith, 658).

Joseph Smith's quote explains why Cain will rule over Satan. He will have more power because he received a mortal body. Infants and children who die, those who go through life with severe mental handicaps, also give support to my understanding that receiving bodies, in whatever form or size, is more essential than life trials. Every spirit needs the opportunity to be born, but not all need to get a mortal education.

especially when scriptures say the natural man is an enemy to God.

I think we have different definitions of the natural man. I believe the scriptures are talking about free will not specifically the mortal body. I don't think the quotes from Alma or Benson make my definition less plausible. The body doesn't usually commit a sinful act apart from the intelligence that is controlling it. Mental illness is the only exception I can think of (but then the act is not committed by free will) and hormones can make things harder so I understand how you come to your definition.

Not everyone that receives a resurrected body will have the ability to procreate.

I agree and I think it is more likely that they won't have the ability, not that they will be constrained by some law. But like you, I am only speculating.

The refiners fire is for the spirit, not to refine the body.

I agree with this too, but for those who don't need the refiner's fire, why do they come to Earth even for a brief moment in order to obtain a body? According to Jospeh Smith, in order to recieve powers and abilities that you can't have without one.

I think the most important aspect of procreation is not sex, it is the coming together of two spirits who have the same glorified purpose in mind to bring one of God's spirits to this world to participate in His overall purpose of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Yes, sex isn't the most important aspect but still a scientifically essential one. I think mortal sex has little to do with the way Gods procreate but that even the Gods must follow certain laws to produce children. We know that HF lives by the law of justice, otherwise we wouldn't need a Savior. It is plausible that there are other laws that must be followed, even if they aren't the most important aspect.

To answer the original question: Adam and Eve had belly buttons only if the definition of "First" man and woman is not literal. If it is and they had a Heavenly Mother, then they probably didn't have belly buttons. As a resurrected being why would she need an umbilical cord to sustain them? I'm just speculating that she wouldn't because I think they were immortal children before the Fall. However, because HF and HM had perfected bodies they could create bodies for them with the ability to become mortal. Like Vort, I don't want to dwell on the way they were created. I'm afraid I've bordered irreverance already, so I'll just have to agree to disagree with Seminarysnoozer on some things.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is why I disagree:

“All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 181).

I agree and I think it is more likely that they won't have the ability, not that they will be constrained by some law. But like you, I am only speculating.

I agree with this too, but for those who don't need the refiner's fire, why do they come to Earth even for a brief moment in order to obtain a body? According to Jospeh Smith, in order to recieve powers and abilities that you can't have without one.

I'm afraid I've bordered irreverance already, so I'll just have to agree to disagree with Seminarysnoozer on some things.

Like I said I agree with most things you said. I am simply giving more emphasis on certain things even though it is roughly the same line. The mortal body is a result of us keeping our first estate. It came from what we did before we came here. The receiving of the body is just a step in that whole process. But, the mortal body itself turns to dust.

Metaphorically, It is like the training wheels on a bike, after one has learned how to ride, they wouldn't hold onto the training wheels or be satisfied with knowing how to ride with training wheels. The goal is to ride without training wheels. In other words, to ride without all the "natural" constraints of this world. After I ride without training wheels I will throw them away, they serve no more purpose. Those that didn't keep their first estate don't even get to ride, in that metaphor, we weren't talking about them. And so, to 'ride' even with training wheels is better than not riding at all, but the goal still is to ride without them. This life is a small but necessary step to where we are going. But I do believe after you have been 'riding bike' for many billions of years the 'training wheels' will seem as important as the one or two months of holding onto the little stub of the very umbilical cord we are talking about.

I agree with needing to pass through this existence, but I do not think that powers come directly from this mortal, vile, corrupted death of a body. (if I have said that strongly enough) "Powers" will come from the power of the priesthood, through the spirit and will be unhampered by a perfected glorified body, that's how I believe it will be. And there likely is further learning with a perfected body for things that are not available here. There is a need for the body, I don't think it has been revealed to us exactly why but it is necessary in all Kingdoms of glory to have a spirit combined with a body that will never separate, not just those that can procreate. The purpose of this mortal body is to create a test like setting, to prove that we are worthy of that glory. Metaphorically speaking, after you pass your exam on the flight simulator you move on to the real thing, you don't stay on the simulator because the simulator by itself doesn't really let you fly. Everything we create in this body turns to dust in the end, so all that is taken from it is spiritual in nature, knowledge, experience, intelligence, relationships, "job well done faithful servant" etc.

[RipplecutBuddha]

We also, well I should say "I", don't believe in a God that creates corruption. Our bodies are corrupted in their current state. Or do you believe in a God that could make imperfect things, things that are corrupt?

That's just it...God did create everything in a state of incorruption. It was Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit that brought everything into a state of corruption.

God cannot create corruption, but in order to give birth, the body has to be capable of change. If a body is in a state of incorruption, then it cannot change. Eve could not bear children while in the Garden.

Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit in order to 'multiply and replenish the earth' as God commanded them.

God did not create corruption, but he created a situation where corruption could be introduced without his direct actions.

[Hemidakota]

Hmm...I would contest that Eve could have borne children while in the Garden. There was no changed to her perfect body with the exception of blood being introduce and further knoweldge and experience was gained after the partaking of the fruit.

[Justice]

I, too, believe Eve's body was capable of bearing children. All things I read point to she lacked the knowledge of how to procreate in her innocent state.

I think when you see quotes from GAs saying Adam and Eve could not have children in the Garden of Eden, they are referring to 1 of 2 things:

1) They did not know how and therefore could not

2) Had they had children while in an immortal state God's plan for man on earth would have failed

So, in both of those cases, the proper word is can't, even if it takes some explaining.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I, too, believe Eve's body was capable of bearing children. All things I read point to she lacked the knowledge of how to procreate in her innocent state.

I think when you see quotes from GAs saying Adam and Eve could not have children in the Garden of Eden, they are referring to 1 of 2 things:

1) They did not know how and therefore could not

2) Had they had children while in an immortal state God's plan for man on earth would have failed

So, in both of those cases, the proper word is can't, even if it takes some explaining.

Despite all my postings, I think I mostly believe that they didn't know how but I think it is more like not knowing how to ride a bike if all you are given is verbal instruction on how to ride a bike, you still have to get on and try and fall a few times. I can't imagine countless years going by in pre-earthly life, living in the presence of our Heavenly Father, receiving instruction and even being presented the plan and Michael participating in the construction of this world and spending a time in the garden with God, without a veil that the question didn't come up "So, Father, how does this reproduction thing work?"

In our fumbling way, look how far science has come in our day. I can't imagine in the eons of preexistence that we didn't learn about most everything, its just when we got here the veil was placed, so we forgot it all. But at that moment of temptation in the garden, I don't think they were ignorant about reproduction or how the mortal body works, the only thing they didn't know is what it feels like, what the experience is like and how to control those feelings and manage the 'out-of-control' natural state. I absolutely do not think Adam and Eve were immature bone heads. They were innocent but not dumb, there is a difference. They, I believe could probably tell you more about human physiology and anatomy before the fall, then we currently know. The thing they couldn't tell before the fall was what it feels like to experience that nature. I have a hard time believing that they weren't perfectly aware of the plan and how spirits were going to be brought into this world and how that whole thing works. I know I would have asked that question, "So, why are we here? What is it you wanted us to do? How is that going to happen?" After the fall, yes, they may have lost some memory as to that with the veil. But before, I think they knew more than even we do now.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Seminarysnoozer
typo

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmm...I would contest that Eve could have borne children while in the Garden. There was no changed to her perfect body with the exception of blood being introduce and further knoweldge and experience was gained after the partaking of the fruit.

Why is that such an important thing to you, I am curious. Why does that not jive with you, if their bodies were different or could not even reproduce before the fall. Does that affect some big perception of how things went down. I am trying to understand the resistance to that idea.

When I read Russel M. Nelson say, "Adam and Eve were first created with bodies of flesh and spirit, without blood, and were unable to die or beget children." I see everything in that sentence refering to the body - the flesh the blood, the spirit connecting to the body and the dieing. Why would everything in that sentence be about the body except the begetting children part? Maybe it is, but that seems odd to me.

Also, I don't think I need to explain any further that without blood the male contribution to the procreation process falls short.

[Justice]

I sympathize with your view. You have asked many questions I have asked myself over and over.

I have decided it was something in the fruit they ate (or in becoming mortal) that allowed them to understand. It is very difficult for us to understand because we do not remember the state we were in in the pre-earthly life, or even the state we were in before we learned how to procreate. Maybe observing a person with a developed body and undeveloped mind, or mentally disable, can give us some insights into what it might be like to not even consider procreation?

It is much the same type of thing as to why Adam's act was a transgression and not a sin. He did not understand the consequences and had never experienced any. Until he ate the fruit he simply did not understand what it was all about. He may have been told, but there was no way to understand it until he experienced it. This seems to make sense with all the quotes I've read about the fall from GAs over the years.

It's like if you tell a young child not to touch the stove because they will get burned. They can go their whole life being obedient and never get burned. But, they will not truly understand why they are not doing it until they touch it once. Then, they can choose to not touch it for themselves, still being obedient yet NOW understanding the consequences also.

It's like us trying to understand forever. Most people get brain cramps when trying. For someone who is immortal (Adam), and never witnessing death before trying to understand what death is, is like someone mortal trying to understand immortality. We just can't understand how different one's logic and reasoning would be from one side of the veil through the other... until we venture there.

So, for us to understand what it was like for them to reason through one thing or the other is very difficult at best, or impossible.

A child at 4 years old is rather intelligent already, but innocent, and the opposite sex means little to nothing to them. Even if you teach them about procreation at 4, they still won't understand it. The fact that Adam and Eve recognized their nakedness after they ate the fruit says a great deal to me about their state before verses their state after: Innocent before, not innocent after.

That Adam and Eve physically couldn't have children makes no sense to me, nor do I see this implied in anything I read in the creation story. Nor does it even have a familiar ring in anything I've read from GAs. But, I at least see some logic and similarities in gaining knowledge, even about procreation, when God taught them about "seeds," which can mean procreation.

Does anyone have any scriptures that even sound like they physically were unable to have children in the Garden of Eden?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Justice

[Seminarysnoozer]

I sympathize with your view. You have asked many questions I have asked myself over and over.

I have decided it was something in the fruit they ate (or in becoming mortal) that allowed them to understand. It is very difficult for us to understand because we do not remember the state we were in in the pre-earthly life, or even the state we were in before we learned how to procreate. Maybe observing a person with a developed body and undeveloped mind, or mentally disable, can give us some insights into what it might be like to not even consider procreation?

It is much the same type of thing as to why Adam's act was a transgression and not a sin. He did not understand the consequences and had never experienced any. Until he ate the fruit he simply did not understand what it was all about. He may have been told, but there was no way to understand it until he experienced it. This seems to make sense with all the quotes I've read about the fall from GAs over the years.

It's like if you tell a young child not to touch the stove because they will get burned. They can go their whole life being obedient and never get burned. But, they will not truly understand why they are not doing it until they touch it once. Then, they can choose to not touch it for themselves, still being obedient yet NOW understanding the consequences also.

It's like us trying to understand forever. Most people get brain cramps when trying. For someone who is immortal (Adam), and never witnessing death before trying to understand what death is, is like someone mortal trying to understand immortality. We just can't understand how different one's logic and reasoning would be from one side of the veil through the other... until we venture there.

So, for us to understand what it was like for them to reason through one thing or the other is very difficult at best, or impossible.

A child at 4 years old is rather intelligent already, but innocent, and the opposite sex means little to nothing to them. Even if you teach them about procreation at 4, they still won't understand it. The fact that Adam and Eve recognized their nakedness after they ate the fruit says a great deal to me about their state before verses their state after: Innocent before, not innocent after.

That Adam and Eve physically couldn't have children makes no sense to me, nor do I see this implied in anything I read in the creation story. Nor does it even have a familiar ring in anything I've read from GAs. But, I at least see some logic and similarities in gaining knowledge, even about procreation, when God taught them about "seeds," which can mean procreation.

Does anyone have any scriptures that even sound like they physically were unable to have children in the Garden of Eden?

I appreciate your responses, it is helping me ponder these things more than I ever have. Even though I am responding more one sided, I am seeing it both ways and have not come to any conclusions. It is not for a lack of trying to understand, I just think it is one of these things that I will probably continue to wonder about until the second coming. It won't affect my testimony either way. I am simply stuck on picturing Adam and Eve like the movie "Blue Lagoon" where they are naive about their feelings until they reach 'puberty' then it becomes obvious. Part of that reluctance is knowing that they were married, seemingly, right from the start. And Adam understanding Eve's creation and purpose right from the start (seemingly). Of course, there is not much as to a time reference and many things about the story are symbolic. I think one would lean towards Adam and Eve being first created as babies if one believes the only (or at least most important reason) they didn't have sex and procreate is because they didn't know how. I am torn, but lean more towards them being knowledgeable but obedient, just the same as my husband has a sense of what it is like to give birth as he has seen it happen 4 times, but will never really know what it feels like. He knows what it is to give birth, the mechanics of it, the process but can't do it himself. If his body were to somehow acquire female anatomy (first of all I would leave him ... but) he wouldn't have to acquire any further knowledge to give birth.

I tend to think if they were so naive about the whole thing, just like some 12, 13 year olds, would be curious and accidentally procreate not really understanding. If all the reproductive parts are there, I think one would have to consciously abstain with knowledge of the consequences and thus not need any training about 'seeds'. But if the reproductive parts weren't even there .... then one could safely 'grow up' naive and be taught about 'seeds' etc. as they were married and sex would not be a sin and they were told to multiply. I can't see that there would be anything holding them back from trying if they had to learn about it and they had the physical capability before the fall. Its like giving the keys to the car to the 15 year old before driving lessons are completed, it would not be wise to hand over the keys until the license is obtained.

I don't think you would even call it a transgression if there was no sense of every other time being obedient. If it was a completely ignorant choice it would have simply been called a 'choice' to eat the fruit and not even a transgression. There had to be some foreknowledge to call it a transgression, especially a transgression that deserves permanent consequences. Anyways .... its an interesting topic, and I will continue to ponder all these possibilities. Thanks for your responses Justice.