What does it mean to be destroyed?

[Anddenex]

I love J. Reuben Clark as much as the next man, but that does not make his characterization TRVTH. The very phrase "half-mortal" doesn't make sense, any more than "half-pregnant".

 

Correct, this talk doesn't make it automatically true; although, it does give credence that it was taught by church leaders, and published in a teaching manual.  The concept doesn't make sense in light of the correlation "half-pregnant" I agree, as no woman would ever be half-pregnant, but in light of President J. Reuben Clark he stated "half-divine" and "half-mortal."  Mathematically, two halves make a whole.  

 

A white woman marries a black man and they have a baby.  The baby is considered half-black, half-white, or half-african and half caucasian.  Nothing that doesn't make sense here.  The characterization is true.  The baby is half-black (african) and half-white (caucasian), doesn't mean though the mother is half-white or half-black pregnant.

[Anddenex]

I believe that parents will have the chance to bring up children who died in infancy - I do not believe they will need to give birth to them again though.  Resurrection is never described as anyone re-creating new bodies through birth that I know of.  Adam and Eve also did not seem to be created through birth - rather formed out of earth, and then a spirit breathed in.  

 

This appears to be an actual teaching of the Church, at least the concept that children who have passed will be resurrected in the state they passed away, i.e., a nine year old who passes away will be resurrected as a nine year old and then will further progress.

 

The concept of giving birth again has never crossed my mind.  Let me see if I can clarify what I was asking by being more direct.  

 

Will husbands and wives be able to bear children in the millennium?  There will be a thousand years where those who live during this time will be in a similar, if not the same state, as Adam and Eve in the garden (at least from what I have read from leaders of the Church).

 

As Bruce R. McConkie, "For that matter, all those billions of people who will be born during the millennium."

[Vort]

Correct, this talk doesn't make it automatically true; although, it does give credence that it was taught by church leaders, and published in a teaching manual.  The concept doesn't make sense in light of the correlation "half-pregnant" I agree, as no woman would ever be half-pregnant, but in light of President J. Reuben Clark he stated "half-divine" and "half-mortal."  Mathematically, two halves make a whole.  

 

A white woman marries a black man and they have a baby.  The baby is considered half-black, half-white, or half-african and half caucasian.  Nothing that doesn't make sense here.  The characterization is true.  The baby is half-black (african) and half-white (caucasian), doesn't mean though the mother is half-white or half-black pregnant.

 

"Mortal" means "subject to death". What does "half-mortal" mean? Only the legs are subject to death? Only the left side? The term makes no sense.

[Anddenex]

"Mortal" means "subject to death". What does "half-mortal" mean? Only the legs are subject to death? Only the left side? The term makes no sense.

 

Our Savior, was not subject to death like you and I.  His divinity allowed death to be subject to him.  No human, no beast, no disease could have taken his life.  He was the only mortal, due to his divinity, which could halt death.  He had to freely give of his life due to his divinity (given by his Father).

 

The term may not make sense to you and that is OK; although, the term does make sense to me and others, as the idea of "half-black" and "half-white."  These terms do not mean, nor do they imply, a person who is half-white (half-black) will have a leg white and a leg black, an arm white or an arm black, nor does it imply that the lower half is white and the upper half is black. It means they are blended equally -- half and half -- and in turn they make a whole.  A mortal body given to him by his mother, and his divinity by his Father.  He was mortal and he was divine.  Some, as President Clark, specify this to be half divine and half mortal.  

[james12]

"Mortal" means "subject to death". What does "half-mortal" mean? Only the legs are subject to death? Only the left side? The term makes no sense.

I guess the term half-mortal is a bit strange, but I take it to mean that through his mother he had power to lay down his life and through his father he had power to take it up. Here are Elder Talmage's words in Jesus the Christ:

 

What other man has lived with power to withstand death, over whom death could not prevail except through his own submission? Yet Jesus Christ could not be slain until His "hour had come," and that, the hour in which He voluntarily surrendered His life, and permitted His own decease through an act of will. Born of a mortal mother He inherited the capacity to die; begotten by an immortal Sire He possessed as a heritage the power to withstand death indefinitely. He literally gave up His life; to this effect is His own affirmation: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." And further: "for as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." Only such a One could conquer death; in none but Jesus the Christ was realized this requisite condition of a Redeemer of the world. (p 20-21)

[cobbettjus]

Thanks for the replies.

Anddenex - I understand that D&C 132 references destruction of the body as well as the soul. Is there any indication that the verse in question (64) is a reference to the latter?

Edited October 15, 2015 by cobbettjus

[Guest]

"Mortal" means "subject to death". What does "half-mortal" mean? Only the legs are subject to death? Only the left side? The term makes no sense.

 

I completely agree that Jesus is not half-mortal, half-divine.  He was fully mortal and fully divine when he was in his mortal ministry.

 

I don't understand half-mortal either as a state of being.  The way I understand it when I hear prophets say he is half-man is simply a literal indication of his parentage.  It's a simple phrase to state the fact that Joseph was not his biological father.  He was born into existence through a divine miracle through mortal flesh of a woman.  The phrase doesn't imply anything beyond that.

[cdowis]

Changed,

 

Just curious.  What church do you belong to.  It sounds very similar to the LDS church, but has significant differences in doctrine.  Perhaps Community of Christ,, etc.

[Guest]

Changed,

 

Since we're apparently continuing this threadjack here,  I'll ask the same question cdowis did.  What church do you actually call home?  

 

If you say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, here's a follow up:  Who has been guiding you in doctrinal studies?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

I for one am NOT upset.  I don't think that's the word to describe what is going on here.  Puzzled or befuddled is more like it.

 

We're all aware of all the references you've provided.  But please notice that (as far as I can tell) everyone else -- even those who are often on opposite sides of every issue -- are all united in being puzzled at your interpretations of those same references.  So, either you've worded things very badly.  Or your interpretations are really off.  I'm voting for the latter.

 

I've got some references at my home computer.  When I get there I'll walk you through some things and see what you think.

[Guest]

Cob,

 

Sorry I missed this comment before.  I went back through to look for something else and found it. 

The way I have understood verse 65 seems to be how Joseph understood it.

 

... https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Good link.  But there is a subtlety you missed.

 

The one who holds the keys (verse 64 "keys to this power") to plural marriage (the prophet only) is allowed to proceed if directly commanded by God to do so.  ALL other men must get their wife's permission because they are not speaking to God directly.  They are given the charge by the prophet.  Then they need to get their wife's permission.

 

Background:  Emma was warned by this revelation that this could happen.  Emma had "bouts" of faith / doubt on the matter.  She rejected it, then accepted it, then rejected it again...  It is difficult to know just what she knew and so forth.  Notice that in your link you provided the few sentences you cut off.  So much was kept between Joseph and Emma that we really don't know all the agreements between them.

[Guest]

​You say "It puzzles me why more have not come to the same conclusions".  Probably because it is already established that some of your conclusions are incorrect. What is it that we're raising our eyebrows at?

 

1) You speak of "first birth" and so forth, these are not LDS doctrines.  You've brought them over from your minister or pastor of your previous faith.  

2) You say that Mary was another wife of the Father.  Nope.  She was His child like the rest of us.

3) You say that perfect beings cannot have children.  Yes, they can.  See below.

4) You say that the Father was just another intelligence like the rest of us.  (This one is complicated, so I won't really go over that one).  He may have been at one time.  But he was much more advanced before we even became spirits.

5) You say that the Father "adopted" us.  No.  We were born as spirit children (see below).

6) You say that polygamy is somehow linked to the condescension of God.  I'd really like to see any detail you have on the Condecension of God.  As far as I know, very little has ever been revealed on the topic.  And it is always talked about in very vague terms.

 

See the following commentary backed up by references.  These have been well established doctrines for over a century.

 

Intelligences are the amorphous inexpressible entities that we all are at our core.  It is the indescribable essence of what makes us individual living beings for all eternity.  Some faiths call it our "soul".  We really have no idea if this is with shape or form or dimensions or substance or anything.  We really don't know much about this form or lack thereof.

 

"... we first existed as intelligences and ... were given form, or spirit bodies, by God, thus becoming His spirit children—sons and daughters of heavenly parents." (emphasis added).

                --Elder D.Todd Christofferson, Why Marriage? Why Family?

 

Perfect beings are able to have children -- spirit children.  Our "first estate" was when our intelligences were organized and housed in spirit bodies. This is how we became spirit children of our Heavenly Parents.  It was no adoption or taking care of a pet.  We are his spirit children because he formed our spirits just as our physical parents formed our physical bodies.

 

 

As spirits we were still beings and as such could accurately be called "intelligences" as well, as is done in the book of Abraham.  Talmage tries to differentiate by using the term "spirit-intelligences" (Jesus the Christ, Ch 2).   We can tell that he was talking about spirits because we were "organized".

 

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was..."

                --Abraham 3:22

 

"...I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh."

                --Moses 6:51

 

Raw intelligences were never created.  They were co-eternal with God.  Yet He MADE us before we were flesh.

 

We had our "first estate" as spirits.  We are now in our "second estate".  "Estate" means a condition or period in life.  Since our intelligence is not a condition or period, we must assume then that "spirit-intelligences" were our first estate (or temporary condition).

 

"God has taken these intelligences, given to them spirit bodies, and given them instructions and training. Then he proceeded to create a world for them and sent them as spirits to obtain a mortal body."

                --President Spencer W. Kimball, Our Great Potential

 

 

*******************************************************************************

So the first point I wanted to drive home was that you seemed to think what we normally refer to as "intelligences" were the same as "spirits".  This is incorrect.  They were different.  

 

The second point is that we were not "adopted" by the Father.  He is our Father because He created our spirit bodies.  That is the literal meaning of literal spirit children.  No, adoption does not make us literal children.  I was adopted and sealed to my earthly parents.  I don't think anyone considers me a "literal" son of these parents.  I'm adopted.

 

It's late so I don't have time for the reference on this last point, but the "adoption" occurs when we become the reborn spirit children of Christ.  Then He becomes our adopted father.

 

*************************************************************************************

The next thing is that you're reading far too much into Mary being the "handmaid" of the Lord.  "Handmaid" is simply a handmaid.  There were several connotations of this term.  It must be appropriate to the context.  It in NO WAY means she was another wife to the Father.  It simply meant that she was His willing servant.  Thus it has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

 

There are only five significant references to "handmaid" in the scriptures.

     1) Sarah's handmaid Hagar

     2) Ruth (to Boaz)

     3) Hannah, mother of Samuel

     4) Mary, mother of Jesus

     5) Emma Smith

     

You really want to equate Mary to Hagar based on the meaning of one word -- handmaid.

 

Ruth was giving a statement of humilty and devotion to someone who showed kindness to her (Ruth 2:13).  She certainly wasn't saying she was ready to marry him.  This was before she knew Boaz was a near kinsman.

 

Hannah certainly was not carrying a baby that was begotten by the Father.  Yet she called herself the handmaid of the Lord.  And the first wife in that case was not the one who was barren.  Hannah was the second wife and she was barren.

 

Mary didn't really have any idea what the Angel was really saying to her until later.  

 

 

Emma Smith, the Lord called her His own handmaid.  Emma certainly didn't carry a baby for Him.

 

The meaning of the word in Mary's case is looking a lot more like the other three than the one.

 

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 ...Elisabeth...

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

Notice the vague language of verse 35.  That is about as detailed as it gets.  Why do you think the angel added verse 37?  Because even the angel did not give Mary any further details except that it would be miraculous.  She had no idea what the actual process would be.

 

Carb: She was essentially a surrogate mother.  But they didn't have such a word back then, so handmaid was the closest thing.

 

Changed: "Surrogate Mother" doesn't appear in a search on LDS.org.

 

That's the extent of your argument?  Have you heard Mary called a "chosen vessel"?  This is a surrogate mother.

 

Nowhere on LDS.org are you going to find a detailed description of exactly what happened.  It is a sacred topic, not just a mystery.  Such is really none of our business.  We need to have faith that the scriptures tell us that the condescension of God occurred and recognize the great love the the Father and the Son had for us to complete it.  For you to somehow equate that with Mary being another wife of the Father astounds me.

 

Our Heavenly Mother was NOT barren.  The child she would bear would be unable to die.  So a mortal vessel was chosen to give "that holy thing" the ability to die.  Yet with divine power, He would be able to hold off on death to suffer more than it is possible for man to suffer until He voluntarily gave up the ghost.

 

And please don't treat me like an idiot.  I read every word.  And yes, I see how you can interpret what you have from the words written.  But it is wrong.  

 

**********************************************************************

No, polygamy is not a "mystery".  It is pretty straight forward.  That portion is not what is being debated.

 

The various meanings and aspects of motherhood are also not being debated.  All you said about that from Sr. Holland's talk is perfectly accurate.

 

Even the excerpt from your post on LDS.org (BTW, the link only took me to your profile) isn't false doctrine as it's written.

 

Most of the people on this very thread are very well read and well versed in gospel doctrine.  I myself grew up in the Church and have been a student of the scriptures since I was 8.  I've been trained in logic, forensics, epistemology, and exegesis since I was 10.  We are not a bunch of wide-eyed innocents that never question anything.  Nor are we lacking in critical thinking skills.  All of us agree.  You've got it wrong.  I'm not trying to be harsh.  But it seems like bluntness may be the only way to get through those "I'm a genius" headphones you've got on.

 

I gave it my best.  If you're going to continue believing this false doctrine you've concocted in that magnificently large brain of yours then I guess that's your choice.  But I wouldn't expect many people to believe it.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Guest

[cobbettjus]

The one who holds the keys (verse 64 "keys to this power") to plural marriage (the prophet only) is allowed to proceed if directly commanded by God to do so.  ALL other men must get their wife's permission because they are not speaking to God directly.  

 

Interesting. So verse 64, the threat of destruction for not accepting plural marriage, is directed only at the wife of a prophet (who holds the keys to this power), in this context it was a threat specifically addressing Emma.

[Guest]

...If you were raised by adopted parents, perhaps this is why this subject is so tender to you?  ...

 

Oh! PLEASE!  Don't try to sympathize with a pain that does not exist.  I feel no "tender pains" because of my adoption.  Most of that is just Hollywood BS.

 

I have a question for you.  Do you believe marriage covenants to be a higher bond than the bond of parents to birthchild? ...

 

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  Try to focus.  The only reason you made this argument is that you realize that we are in fact literal spirit children.  But for some reason you WANT to be adopted. This makes no sense to me.  If you're a natural born child, your parents have no need to adopt you.  But you think being adopted is somehow BETTER than being literal children?  You lost me on that one.

 

In mortality we know fallen families, and fallen ways of creating families... There will be perfect families in heaven.  Perfectly formed as Adam was formed and our resurrected bodies will be formed and our hearts have been formed.  Perfectly united in one heart and one mind - we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known within a bond that transcends anything we could possibly imagine in our current fallen state.  The only way to reach heaven, is to first gain experience here on Earth. The birth of pain and blood on Earth is not the birth of choice, covenants, and baptism through which we are born in heaven.  The fallen process of childbirth should not be confused with what makes someone a literal mother or father.  It is not what makes someone a literal child. 

 

Here you go again.  Your concept of the fall is simply not based on LDS doctrine.  Everything about it is just a bit off.  Just about every sentence in this paragraph has some doctrinal error in it.

 

In my last post I gave a list of doctrinal errors you have posted.  I tore apart your arguments with real references and scriptural knowledge and background.  My logic was sound.  And all was done with the background of a lifetime of study and learning.

 

All my references refute what you said.  They cannot be taken to support your interpretations.  When Elder Christofferson

said "THUS becoming His spirit children...sons and daughters of Heavenly Parents..." This cannot be mistaken for adoption.  How can you possibly take this statement to mean adoption?

 

None of the topics here are mysteries.  They're not deep doctrine.  They are basic tenets of our faith that you somehow skipped over because as you heard them, they were colored by your previous faith and thus took it the wrong way.

 

Can you at least admit to yourself the possibility that when this many knowlegeable people are telling you that your interpretations are incorrect, that maybe you ought to look at it again?

 

Let me put it in scientific terms.  In discussing how Newton's laws of motion need to be modified the only way to make your theory work is by stating:

 

     When matter and energy convert back and forth, their mass/energy doubles.  Thus, perpetual generators are attainable.

 

What on earth are we supposed to do with that?  How much evidence and solid theory are you going to have to come up with to convince someone of this?  But you have done the doctrinal equivalent.  All your theories have holes in them.  The evidence is shaky based on the most basic & fundamental principles.

 

Unlearn what you have learned and prayerfully discover things as they really were, and are, and are to come.

[Guest]

He's the only one who holds the keys TO THIS POWER.

[Guest]

It has officially become a religious debate.  I gave references and you refused to read them or acknowledge them.  You're making stuff up and accuse me of the same.

 

My give up.