revelation like a thunderclap

[RipplecutBuddha]

Why has this never occured to me before?????

In a separate thread, someone asked the following question:

In Genesis 22, we find the story of Abraham being commanded

to sacrifice Isaac. Why is Isaac called Abraham's "only son" when he

had an older half-brother, Ishmael (via Sarah's maid, Hagar)?

Now, because the sacrifice of Isaac is clearly a foretelling of Christ's sacrifice, how much of the surrounding story is representative of the situation surrounding Heavenly Father?

For instance, could this indicate that Lucifer is an older spiritual half-brother to Jesus from another of Heavenly Father's wives?

I know this is opening a few separate cans of worms regarding the existence of a Heavenly Mother to begin with, let alone two of them, but in some ways it would explain Lucifer's situation in an interesting manner. For instance it would partially explain why Lucifer was 'in authority in the presence of God', or said another way according to my understanding, he conducted official meetings.

(I hope this doesn't get locked right off the bat)

[JudoMinja]

I love those "thunderclap" moments, and this is one that never occurred to me before. Of course, we won't ever be able to say for certain what the exact situation was, since this would require discussion on many things that have not yet been revealed to us. However, I believe this is certainly a possibility and could also possibly have been hinted at with situations where someone other than the firstborn was given a birthright or children from a "favorite" wife were favored above those who were born before.

[Vort]

No offense intended, but I do not believe this doctrine even for a small moment, nor do I believe it was a divine revelation.

[applepansy]

Remember the Spirit speaks to us in a "still small voice."

[Vort]

Don't mean to be negative, RB. I know the "Aha!" feeling. Our brains are marvelous, even miraculous, pattern finders. Sometimes that unparalleled ability allows humanity to discover aspects of the world around us that otherwise would remain hidden. Other times, it is like seeing ducks and boats in cloud shapes -- entertaining and even interesting, but not deeply meaningful. I suspect your "Aha!" moment is one of the latter.

In any case, not every such realization, whether true or false, is a divine revelation. Sometimes it's just our brain doing its brain thing.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I know it's not likely, but I had to share the moment at least. I have had true revelation given to me in this same manner before, so it got my attention when it happened. All the same I haven't had time to pray about it so my final decision is already leaning towards -not really true-.

Having said that there is a bit of a fascinating discussion to be had in how specifically Heavenly Father has established his patterns in the Gospel throughout the dispnesations of time. I would readily grant that the main focus has always been specifically upon Jesus Christ and his immediate actions. For this reason I easily have reservations about what occured to me in pondering the question I read.

At the same time I can't help but entertain the 'what if' element. Ah the weakness of the flesh...

[Seminarysnoozer]

For instance, could this indicate that Lucifer is an older spiritual half-brother to Jesus from another of Heavenly Father's wives?

I know this is opening a few separate cans of worms regarding the existence of a Heavenly Mother to begin with, let alone two of them, but in some ways it would explain Lucifer's situation in an interesting manner. For instance it would partially explain why Lucifer was 'in authority in the presence of God', or said another way according to my understanding, he conducted official meetings.

(I hope this doesn't get locked right off the bat)

Even if we were to take the idea of our Heavenly Father having more than one wife (which is nowhere in our doctrine and a made up idea of men) how would that explain anything about Lucifer's situation?

I think you are trying to imply some genetic-like concept that certain things would be passed from one mother and not the other or some kind of inheritance is available to one and not the other. This idea is not part of LDS doctrine, as far as I know.

I would think that the right to authority is only based in being valiant and faithful. I would have a hard time accepting a spiritual "birthright" based in who one's parents are.

Here is where that concept is impossible (in my understanding); all who make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom are recipients of ALL the Father has. And they are the ones who will have the privilege to have eternal increase. If any spirit has a Heavenly Mother with less of something than another Heavenly Mother than you would be expressing a disbelief in the idea that all those that receive the highest glory of the Celestial Kingdom inherit ALL that the Father has. You would have to support some idea that there are those that get a partial inheritance but still have the right to eternal increase.

In other words, a spirit child from any pair of Heavenly Parents (if that is possible) would have the same rights, privileges and prospects as any other child as the potential Parents would not differ by definition of them having ALL that the Father has. What trait or privilege or inheritance could be missing if all Heavenly Parents have ALL? There is nothing in our doctrine that suggests the possibility of being a "lesser" parent.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Even if we were to take the idea of our Heavenly Father having more than one wife (which is nowhere in our doctrine and a made up idea of men) how would that explain anything about Lucifer's situation?

As I reply, keep in mind that I posted my complete and total thoughts about the scenario. I am well aware that there's no scriptural foundation for God practicing polygamy, and I said as much above, but perhaps not clearly enough.

I think you are trying to imply some genetic-like concept that certain things would be passed from one mother and not the other or some kind of inheritance is available to one and not the other. This idea is not part of LDS doctrine, as far as I know.

At this point I'm operating within what had occured to me at the point of my posting, and I assure you none of this was on my mind. I was simply seeking a possible matching pattern that most likely isn't there. For what it's worth, nothing of what I would have been pondering would have had anything to do with the spiritual status of the parents, but would have been wholly due to the choices and decisions of Lucifer and Jehovah insofar that we know we had agency then.

I would think that the right to authority is only based in being valiant and faithful. I would have a hard time accepting a spiritual "birthright" based in who one's parents are.

I agree, and up to the moment of rebellion there's no reason to assume Lucifer was anything less than valiant and faithful.

Here is where that concept is impossible (in my understanding); all who make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom are recipients of ALL the Father has. And they are the ones who will have the privilege to have eternal increase. If any spirit has a Heavenly Mother with less of something than another Heavenly Mother than you would be expressing a disbelief in the idea that all those that receive the highest glory of the Celestial Kingdom inherit ALL that the Father has. You would have to support some idea that there are those that get a partial inheritance but still have the right to eternal increase.

Perhaps I hadn't examined the example of Hagar sufficiently becaue none of this has any part of my reasoning. It seems you are equating Lucifer's situation with the worthiness of his mother, which again I don't see as relevant since Lucifer had his own agency to answer for that. As it stands we commonly assume Lucifer was the son of Heavenly Father and his spouse, so I'm unsure where your line of reasoning concludes regarding celestial inheritance.

In other words, a spirit child from any pair of Heavenly Parents (if that is possible) would have the same rights, privileges and prospects as any other child as the potential Parents would not differ by definition of them having ALL that the Father has. What trait or privilege or inheritance could be missing if all Heavenly Parents have ALL? There is nothing in our doctrine that suggests the possibility of being a "lesser" parent.

I'm simply going to chalk this up to you having thought through the scenario far more in depth than I have. I wasn't intending to imply that ALL of the situation about Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar MUST have direct connection to Heavenly Father. That line of thought could then be rationally concluded to mean that I believe that Heavenly Father's mortal name was Abraham. I don't believe that at all either.

It was just a matter of me having the moment to reflect upon an unrelated question when something unique occured to me. Almost immediately I had my doubts, but as I stated above, I had to ask for input from others, and between you and Vort, I think I'm on the right track in dismissing it. I do appreciate your input and comments, so thank you.

Edited April 16, 2012 by RipplecutBuddha

[Seminarysnoozer]

As I reply, keep in mind that I posted my complete and total thoughts about the scenario. I am well aware that there's no scriptural foundation for God practicing polygamy, and I said as much above, but perhaps not clearly enough.

At this point I'm operating within what had occured to me at the point of my posting, and I assure you none of this was on my mind. I was simply seeking a possible matching pattern that most likely isn't there. For what it's worth, nothing of what I would have been pondering would have had anything to do with the spiritual status of the parents, but would have been wholly due to the choices and decisions of Lucifer and Jehovah insofar that we know we had agency then.

I agree, and up to the moment of rebellion there's no reason to assume Lucifer was anything less than valiant and faithful.

Perhaps I hadn't examined the example of Hagar sufficiently becaue none of this has any part of my reasoning. It seems you are equating Lucifer's situation with the worthiness of his mother, which again I don't see as relevant since Lucifer had his own agency to answer for that. As it stands we commonly assume Lucifer was the son of Heavenly Father and his spouse, so I'm unsure where your line of reasoning concludes regarding celestial inheritance.

I'm simply going to chalk this up to you having thought through the scenario far more in depth than I have. I wasn't intending to imply that ALL of the situation about Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar MUST have direct connection to Heavenly Father. That line of thought could then be rationally concluded to mean that I believe that Heavenly Father's mortal name was Abraham. I don't believe that at all either.

It was just a matter of me having the moment to reflect upon an unrelated question when something unique occured to me. Almost immediately I had my doubts, but as I stated above, I had to ask for input from others, and between you and Vort, I think I'm on the right track in dismissing it. I do appreciate your input and comments, so thank you.

Thanks for your response. I am only so passionate about it because I (if you have read any of my other posts in other threads could see) am still trying to understand the apparent significance of mortal inheritance given in the scriptures. Why does the paternal or maternal origin of the mortal body make any difference at all for this life or the next? We can't say that it doesn't make a difference because we believe in a Savior that is described as the Only Begotten. This is at the heart of our religion. More so in the old testament, a person's mortal parentage was significant. But why? I would say that that is not very well described.

I think now we are okay with saying it does not make a difference, we can all be adopted into a tribe of Israel. Why where one's mortal, throw away, genes came from in the first place makes any difference at all is still something I ponder. I lean on the side of it all being metaphoric and not literal, that's the only way I can make sense of it.

[skippy740]

RB, I know what you mean (regarding receiving an inspiration regarding scripture).

In fact, just yesterday, I was listening to the speakers, and I get an idea in my mind regarding D&C 19:6-12

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

This passage made me think and wonder what else we think we understand in the scriptures... that might not be what we thought they were. (And no, I don't want to debate this here, just making an observation.)

[Vort]

between you and Vort, I think I'm on the right track in dismissing it.

I wasn't trying to beat you down or rain on your parade, RB. Just expressing my opinion.

[mnn727]

Interesting speculation. Probably not something we will learn the answer to in this life though.

[annewandering]

Since Abraham only had one son by Sarah and the other by his wife's handmaiden does that change the inheritance rules? I would guess it does. There is no way the son of the handmaiden is going to be given rights of 1st inheritance over the son of his wife.

[volgadon]

Or, it could be really simple, "only" in this case refers to a special status as the beoved, in other words, Isaac is uniquely beloved. Levenson's "The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son" is an amazing study of the status of a beloved son and its ties to sacrifice.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I wasn't trying to beat you down or rain on your parade, RB. Just expressing my opinion.

no worries here. It's why I posted in the first place. I always welcome input for this kind of stuff. I'm the last person to trust his own first impressions alone. I've been wrong too many times for that

[Blackmarch]

Why has this never occured to me before?????

In a separate thread, someone asked the following question:

In Genesis 22, we find the story of Abraham being commanded

to sacrifice Isaac. Why is Isaac called Abraham's "only son" when he

had an older half-brother, Ishmael (via Sarah's maid, Hagar)?

Now, because the sacrifice of Isaac is clearly a foretelling of Christ's sacrifice, how much of the surrounding story is representative of the situation surrounding Heavenly Father?

For instance, could this indicate that Lucifer is an older spiritual half-brother to Jesus from another of Heavenly Father's wives?

I know this is opening a few separate cans of worms regarding the existence of a Heavenly Mother to begin with, let alone two of them, but in some ways it would explain Lucifer's situation in an interesting manner. For instance it would partially explain why Lucifer was 'in authority in the presence of God', or said another way according to my understanding, he conducted official meetings.

(I hope this doesn't get locked right off the bat)

The only problem i see is that Christ is referred to as the first in quite a few referrences so i don't think that lucifer would have been older..

Was he in a postition of authority? quite likely if i recall right he was in line right after Christ.

[JudoMinja]

The only problem i see is that Christ is referred to as the first in quite a few referrences so i don't think that lucifer would have been older..

Was he in a postition of authority? quite likely if i recall right he was in line right after Christ.

There are many instances, however, where He is also referred to as the first AND the last. A few for example: Revelations 1:17, 2:8, 22:13, D&C 110:4, Isaiah 44:6, 48:12....

Now the context of these scriptures tend to be speaking about His role and purpose, but with how much symbolic things tend to relate to things literal I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be dismissing this notion right off the bat. I personally think it has potential merit. There is no way we could ever find out the actual answer to this question without further revelation on the matter, but I don't see why this possibility seems so very unlikely.

I'm not committed enough to say I think that it is true, but I do think it is possible.

[Blackmarch]

There are many instances, however, where He is also referred to as the first AND the last. A few for example: Revelations 1:17, 2:8, 22:13, D&C 110:4, Isaiah 44:6, 48:12....

Now the context of these scriptures tend to be speaking about His role and purpose, but with how much symbolic things tend to relate to things literal I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be dismissing this notion right off the bat. I personally think it has potential merit. There is no way we could ever find out the actual answer to this question without further revelation on the matter, but I don't see why this possibility seems so very unlikely.

I'm not committed enough to say I think that it is true, but I do think it is possible.

Scripture hunting, brb.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Since Abraham only had one son by Sarah and the other by his wife's handmaiden does that change the inheritance rules? I would guess it does. There is no way the son of the handmaiden is going to be given rights of 1st inheritance over the son of his wife.

(I know you know this Anne, just trying to clarify this to make sure I am on the right page with my understanding)

The thing is though, those rules are only metaphoric in their significance for the eternal application of inheritance. One can't take those rules and apply them directly to what they mean for eternal inheritance.

Being the "son of a handmaiden" possibly is the metaphor for not living the gospel covenants 100% and then, of course, that person would not have the same rights to inheritance that a person who lived by their covenants would. The rules are only a preparatory concept to help understand the greater law. Now that we have the fullness of the gospel those rules really have no eternal significance if one were to try to apply them in a literal sense.

The message of the metaphor is that we live our lives with 100% dedication to the gospel of the firstborn, with all of our heart, might, mind and soul and that would make us heirs to the inheritance of the "firstborn". Not that it actually has anything to do with birth order or who one's mortal parents are. If a person does not live up to their covenants, then it is as if they are not like the "firstborn". Jesus is the example of this as He lived His covenants perfectly.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The only problem i see is that Christ is referred to as the first in quite a few referrences so i don't think that lucifer would have been older..

Was he in a postition of authority? quite likely if i recall right he was in line right after Christ.

Why do you have to take "first" as referring to a birth order?

[RipplecutBuddha]

There are many instances, however, where He is also referred to as the first AND the last. A few for example: Revelations 1:17, 2:8, 22:13, D&C 110:4, Isaiah 44:6, 48:12....

Now the context of these scriptures tend to be speaking about His role and purpose, but with how much symbolic things tend to relate to things literal I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be dismissing this notion right off the bat. I personally think it has potential merit. There is no way we could ever find out the actual answer to this question without further revelation on the matter, but I don't see why this possibility seems so very unlikely.

I'm not committed enough to say I think that it is true, but I do think it is possible.

Here's my take on it after some prayerful consideration.

It is indeed possible, and some may even think it likely. There's a problem with it right up front though, and that is it's foundation is far more speculation than revelation.

We know God commands and allows polygamy, but does he practice it himself? We don't know. It could go either way.

We know Lucifer held a position of authority before he rebelled, but that's all we know about it. We don't know what the basis was for his position, how he obtained it, how he maintained it, etc. We know next to nothing about the organizational structure of Heaven.

The final reason that I'm not too attached to it (even though it was my original thought) is that there's really no redemptive quality about the conclusions; it doesn't further my salvation or clarify questions about how best to approach Heavenly Father. It's more of a 'gee, that's kinda cool...if it's true' bit of information.

It's not that I feel it's a bad idea or somehow evil, just not what I need to be really focusing on at the moment. There's just nowhere to go with it, really. At least not until we get more revelations. Perhaps in time we'll get more information about this from HF and be able to put more peices together. For now though, I feel the discussion has been very good in itself. We'll have to wait and see for any conclusions beyond that I feel.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is indeed possible, and some may even think it likely. There's a problem with it right up front though, and that is it's foundation is far more speculation than revelation.

I think your biggest point of speculation has to do with the concept that authority is tied into who one's parents were. This was an issue for many members of the church when Joseph Smith died. Those that realized that who one's parents were does not give authority directly are the one's who stayed with the church that maintained priesthood authority and followed Brigham Young. Those that speculated over that idea, that authority is tied into who one's parents are went another direction and formed another church.

[Blackmarch]

Why do you have to take "first" as referring to a birth order?

or the first to be raised to whatever point as an intelligene to become a spirit. And no it not just referring to his premortal state. he is the first of many things.

Nor do i think in this case would there be a similar situation as there was with abraham in regards to wives and handmaidens. And I havent seen anything to indicate that he was not the first spirit to be raised up under God.

Firstborn

tg Firstborn

Edited April 17, 2012 by Blackmarch

[LeKook]

We know God commands and allows polygamy, but does he practice it himself? We don't know. It could go either way.

Gee, thanks for opening up a new mental can of worms for me!!!

[HEthePrimate]

Why has this never occured to me before?????

In a separate thread, someone asked the following question:

In Genesis 22, we find the story of Abraham being commanded

to sacrifice Isaac. Why is Isaac called Abraham's "only son" when he

had an older half-brother, Ishmael (via Sarah's maid, Hagar)?

Now, because the sacrifice of Isaac is clearly a foretelling of Christ's sacrifice, how much of the surrounding story is representative of the situation surrounding Heavenly Father?

For instance, could this indicate that Lucifer is an older spiritual half-brother to Jesus from another of Heavenly Father's wives?

I know this is opening a few separate cans of worms regarding the existence of a Heavenly Mother to begin with, let alone two of them, but in some ways it would explain Lucifer's situation in an interesting manner. For instance it would partially explain why Lucifer was 'in authority in the presence of God', or said another way according to my understanding, he conducted official meetings.

(I hope this doesn't get locked right off the bat)

I thought Jesus was the eldest son. And I've never heard that Lucifer conducted official meetings. Lucifer may have held a position of authority, but not necessarily the only position of authority, or the highest. In any case, though the parallels are interesting, I wouldn't read too much into it. Isaac's life was spared, after all, and Jesus' life was not spared. There are types, and symbols, and parallels, and parables, and shadows, and reflections, all through the scriptures. They serve a useful purpose, but if you push the similarities too hard, and try to pile too much meaning on them, they'll fall apart and you may mislead yourself.