Heavenly Parents

[Traveler]

The doctrine of heavenly parents has been strongly imbedded in LDS theology as long as I can remember, and I have been alive and attending the LDS Church for the time period of most of our Latter-day prophets.   However, this subject seems to be a topic of increasing discussion, especially on the internet, as of late.  Most of the discussion seem to center on our heavenly mother.  I have thought to open a thread concerning this doctrine of heavenly parents.

It is my personal understanding that scripture is very explicit in verifying divine gender and the concept of divine family as the basis of the society of Heaven.  As I became aware of other religions and their theology, I was greatly surprised that in general, Abrahamic religions are rather unhappy and distant from the idea of a divine family.  I believe that this is strongly embedded in the religious notion that G-d is a unique one of a kind being and that G-d would not allow any other being like themselves to ever exist.  I have never been sure if it is because such thinking is that G-d lacks the power to replicate or that it is a matter of “will not” replicate.  But I did not intend to debate what other religious notions are – mainly because I do not understand other notions in this matter, nor do I see the logic to support it.

It is interesting that outside of Abrahamic religions – the concept of divine family is both common and persistent.   What has always been a surprise to me is the amazing lack of scripture and revelation on this notion of heavenly parents.  My first surprise is that there are very few scriptures and revelations about our Father in Heaven beyond the concept that he exists and that we should pray to him.  There is even less scripture and revelation about our Mother in Heaven – what little there is – is rather ambiguous, which allows wide and wild interpretations (my personal insertion or impression).  Beyond that we LDS believe we have a heavenly mother – I do not think we have much solid doctrine to go on.

There are some “fringe” doctrines or ideas of divine females.   For example, there is Lilith (the possible first wife of Adam, that decided to become the consort of Lucifer).  I do not know of any latter-day revelation that confirms anything close to this doctrine.  There is a name that seems to be popular among certain LDS concerning the possibility of a heavenly mother.  This name is Asherath (and variations on this name).   I am very concerned that this name is being suggested for our mother in heaven because it is the name of the prime consort of Baal – especially in the ancient lexicon of Canaan and Phoenicia.

I am open to ideas and notions – but I strongly believe that the doctrine of heavenly parents, and especially our heavenly mother, is a subject we out to tread very carefully concerning.  I believe we have been warned by our prophets to avoid attitudes of worship towards our heavenly mother, though I do not understand so much why.

I am fascinated with the concept of the oneness of G-d in our ancient scripture.  The Hebrew word for this oneness is “ehad” and is the same word for oneness used to describe the marriage of a man and a woman before G-d.  In contrast the word for one unique individual is “yahead”.  I apologize if I have used the incorrect English spelling of these terms.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I believe we have been warned by our prophets to avoid attitudes of worship towards our heavenly mother, though I do not understand so much why.

Probably because:

1. We are commanded to worship the Father and no one else.  (That said, IMO, if we worship the Father, then in a way, we also worship anyone who is one with Him, even if not directly...)  Given that we covenant to obey God, that should be enough.  (One might argue that the full definition of God is "an exalted couple who are parents", but even so, I don't think it helpful to then try to separate them out in ways we have not been commanded.)

2. Because in the absence of revealed truth, any such effort is almost certain to go astray and to leave one open to deception by Satan.

3. Perhaps demonstrating above, it's entirely possible, some might say probable or certain, that God is sealed to multiple wives.  If so, then only one of them is Heavenly Mother to any given individual, and how is one to know which?  Shall we spend our time trying to determine our spiritual maternity...?  Sounds like a mess waiting to happen (while in mortality).

IMO, better to leave it alone as one more thing to look forward to in a future phase of our existence.

[mikbone]

Yup too many unknowns.

Viviparous spiritual birth?  

Mortal birth should require - love, sexual reproduction, genetic combination (fertilization), conception (implantation) gestation, delivery

Spiritual birth probably is likely very different - except for the love part.

Then there is the difference between the birth of spirit children & the birth of Adam & Eve.

It would be easier to figure out the birth of Adam and Eve.  But we have absolutely no consensus concerning Adam’s birth let alone the Adam’s rib scripture.

Good parents love their children, and usually don’t tell them about the birds and the bees until they are of accountability.  We obviously are not spiritually accountable yet.

[Traveler]

@zil2 talked a little bit about worship and that we should only worship The Father.  I understand the sentiment, but I do not understand all the possible extensions of that commandment.  My problem is that whenever I listen to someone attempting to define worship, I realize that it is easily applied to other beings.    For example, we petition Jesus or use the name of Jesus to seek redemption of our sins – this looks like a very strong element of worship to me.  I believe we can worship the Father through Jesus Christ – in fact, I have come to believe that the greatest possible worship of the Father is through Jesus Christ.  It makes sense to me, especially for women, to model their worship of the Father by fully exercising their divine femininity.   In short, to worship The Father through the realization of the divine role of motherhood.  But the problem is that we do not have clearly defined working models of this.

@mikbonetalked about the birth of Adam and Eve.  From my scientific background I wonder why Eve did not come first.  We are told that she was called Eve because she is the mother of all living.  I find the word “all” to be the most operative word here.  I have speculated that creation is a form conception and birth – which requires a mother.  Perhaps there is a Mother in heaven through which all living things are given life?  My personal thought on this is that women are more important than generally taught in religious circles.  But since I do not know and have no personal revelation that I am certain of – I can only speak with speculation – realizing that throughout my life that speculation is seldom, if ever, spot on.  I do not have a good reason to understand why our spiritual understanding is so uncertain.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

The doctrine of heavenly parents has been strongly imbedded in LDS theology as long as I can remember, and I have been alive and attending the LDS Church for the time period of most of our Latter-day prophets.   However, this subject seems to be a topic of increasing discussion, especially on the internet, as of late.  Most of the discussion seem to center on our heavenly mother.  I have thought to open a thread concerning this doctrine of heavenly parents.

It is my personal understanding that scripture is very explicit in verifying divine gender and the concept of divine family as the basis of the society of Heaven.  As I became aware of other religions and their theology, I was greatly surprised that in general, Abrahamic religions are rather unhappy and distant from the idea of a divine family.  I believe that this is strongly embedded in the religious notion that G-d is a unique one of a kind being and that G-d would not allow any other being like themselves to ever exist.  I have never been sure if it is because such thinking is that G-d lacks the power to replicate or that it is a matter of “will not” replicate.  But I did not intend to debate what other religious notions are – mainly because I do not understand other notions in this matter, nor do I see the logic to support it.

It is interesting that outside of Abrahamic religions – the concept of divine family is both common and persistent.   What has always been a surprise to me is the amazing lack of scripture and revelation on this notion of heavenly parents.  My first surprise is that there are very few scriptures and revelations about our Father in Heaven beyond the concept that he exists and that we should pray to him.  There is even less scripture and revelation about our Mother in Heaven – what little there is – is rather ambiguous, which allows wide and wild interpretations (my personal insertion or impression).  Beyond that we LDS believe we have a heavenly mother – I do not think we have much solid doctrine to go on.

There are some “fringe” doctrines or ideas of divine females.   For example, there is Lilith (the possible first wife of Adam, that decided to become the consort of Lucifer).  I do not know of any latter-day revelation that confirms anything close to this doctrine.  There is a name that seems to be popular among certain LDS concerning the possibility of a heavenly mother.  This name is Asherath (and variations on this name).   I am very concerned that this name is being suggested for our mother in heaven because it is the name of the prime consort of Baal – especially in the ancient lexicon of Canaan and Phoenicia.

I am open to ideas and notions – but I strongly believe that the doctrine of heavenly parents, and especially our heavenly mother, is a subject we out to tread very carefully concerning.  I believe we have been warned by our prophets to avoid attitudes of worship towards our heavenly mother, though I do not understand so much why.

I am fascinated with the concept of the oneness of G-d in our ancient scripture.  The Hebrew word for this oneness is “ehad” and is the same word for oneness used to describe the marriage of a man and a woman before G-d.  In contrast the word for one unique individual is “yahead”.  I apologize if I have used the incorrect English spelling of these terms.

 

The Traveler

"The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

"But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth." (Joseph Smith) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/12

In connection with the redemptive work of Christ (and He is The Covenant, in that He is the way, the truth, the light, the law and the life, etc. -- Moroni 10:33), it is very clear in this world with Whom and in Whose name we covenant in all these appendages. I think it is as simple as that.

[Vort]

8 hours ago, mikbone said:

Viviparous spiritual birth?

I'm thinking oviparous, giving new meaning to Easter eggs. And the expression "to come out of one's shell". And "My yolk is easy..." And, hey, maybe even "white and delightsome".

Edited May 25, 2024 by Vort

[laronius]

If this world is meant to teach us of our premortal world and the principles we are taught here pertaining to families are eternal in nature, then a good place to start in learning about our Heavenly Parents would be to look at what the Lord sees as the ideal husband/wife/child relationship.

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and 
protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

Perhaps Heavenly Mothers are stay at home moms as well, focused more on nurturing and rearing their spirit children, preparatory to mortality at which point Heavenly Father takes over in providing the necessities of eternal life and protection against Satan. These wouldn't necessarily be a strict and rigid division of responsibilities but rather where greatest emphasis is placed.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

@zil2 talked a little bit about worship and that we should only worship The Father.  I understand the sentiment, but I do not understand all the possible extensions of that commandment.  My problem is that whenever I listen to someone attempting to define worship, I realize that it is easily applied to other beings.    For example, we petition Jesus or use the name of Jesus to seek redemption of our sins – this looks like a very strong element of worship to me.  I believe we can worship the Father through Jesus Christ – in fact, I have come to believe that the greatest possible worship of the Father is through Jesus Christ.  It makes sense to me, especially for women, to model their worship of the Father by fully exercising their divine femininity.   In short, to worship The Father through the realization of the divine role of motherhood.  But the problem is that we do not have clearly defined working models of this.

@mikbonetalked about the birth of Adam and Eve.  From my scientific background I wonder why Eve did not come first.  We are told that she was called Eve because she is the mother of all living.  I find the word “all” to be the most operative word here.  I have speculated that creation is a form conception and birth – which requires a mother.  Perhaps there is a Mother in heaven through which all living things are given life?  My personal thought on this is that women are more important than generally taught in religious circles.  But since I do not know and have no personal revelation that I am certain of – I can only speak with speculation – realizing that throughout my life that speculation is seldom, if ever, spot on.  I do not have a good reason to understand why our spiritual understanding is so uncertain.

 

The Traveler

I think we grow into the working model first established as children of God as we mature and become sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I’ve heard it said that women do not have a role model as men do; they have less structure in their path to attain godliness (e.g., priesthood office, missions, etc.).  But to put it in more positive terms, they have more flexibility in attaining priesthood power along the way to receiving it more fully in the temple endowment and sealing; so many things are optional: missions, education that may or may not be applied to a profession, etc., requiring constant effort to attend to the voice of the Spirit without the “training wheel” of submitting to the requirements of priesthood office. I think this dichotomy between male and female progress befits the general nature and wiring of our minds and essential gender characteristics. As men and women cultivate the covenant relationships with the Father and the Son, they become godlike and discover they are their becoming their own male and female role models, especially once they are sealed and have a vertical covenant relationship with God, a horizontal covenant relationship with each other and with ancestors, children and descendants as family ties expand.

Perhaps one way to look at the births of Adam and Eve: given that Eve came from Adam’s rib, she was coexistent with him all along. To worship the Father and the Son is to worship their “Eves” who are always with Them as well, with whom they are eternally one – they cannot be the Father and the Son without Their respective “Eves” any more than Adam was never without Eve in one form or another. Eve was both in this world as a rib and yet operating in another estate until she came forth in a new form. Another indicator of flexibility.

[Traveler]

On 5/24/2024 at 3:55 PM, CV75 said:

"The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

"But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth." (Joseph Smith) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/12

In connection with the redemptive work of Christ (and He is The Covenant, in that He is the way, the truth, the light, the law and the life, etc. -- Moroni 10:33), it is very clear in this world with Whom and in Whose name we covenant in all these appendages. I think it is as simple as that.

Our Apostles and Prophets have also formally declared the eternal nature of families.  In the Family Proclamation we are given a glimpse into the eternal society of Heaven as fully and completely dependent on the structure of family relationships.  That the very purpose of Christ, the atonement and the great plan of salvation is the extension of family:

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

As I understand Jesus Christ is the path, way or means to an end (all that you posted).  It is that we can have eternal life in the presents of the Father where men and women are sealed forever in that marriage covenant ordained of G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think we grow into the working model first established as children of God as we mature and become sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I’ve heard it said that women do not have a role model as men do; they have less structure in their path to attain godliness (e.g., priesthood office, missions, etc.).  But to put it in more positive terms, they have more flexibility in attaining priesthood power along the way to receiving it more fully in the temple endowment and sealing; so many things are optional: missions, education that may or may not be applied to a profession, etc., requiring constant effort to attend to the voice of the Spirit without the “training wheel” of submitting to the requirements of priesthood office. I think this dichotomy between male and female progress befits the general nature and wiring of our minds and essential gender characteristics. As men and women cultivate the covenant relationships with the Father and the Son, they become godlike and discover they are their becoming their own male and female role models, especially once they are sealed and have a vertical covenant relationship with God, a horizontal covenant relationship with each other and with ancestors, children and descendants as family ties expand.

Perhaps one way to look at the births of Adam and Eve: given that Eve came from Adam’s rib, she was coexistent with him all along. To worship the Father and the Son is to worship their “Eves” who are always with Them as well, with whom they are eternally one – they cannot be the Father and the Son without Their respective “Eves” any more than Adam was never without Eve in one form or another. Eve was both in this world as a rib and yet operating in another estate until she came forth in a new form. Another indicator of flexibility.

I have never figured out the symbolism of Eve created (born) from a rib of Adam.  I have many questions, why this symbolism is utilized.  Every human sole since is born with the primary sacrifice of a mother that in essence gives the gift of life.  The scriptures speak with the symbolism of another phrase – “The Breath of Life”.  I have no idea what is meant by the breath of life.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have never figured out the symbolism of Eve created (born) from a rib of Adam.  I have many questions, why this symbolism is utilized.  Every human sole since is born with the primary sacrifice of a mother that in essence gives the gift of life.  The scriptures speak with the symbolism of another phrase – “The Breath of Life”.  I have no idea what is meant by the breath of life.

Same here, a few options I have considered.

1) The rib is a figurative term used to denote that Adam and Eve are equal. This is my belief by the way.

2) Eve could be a clone of Adam. This would have required God to have removed some of Adam's bone marrow (Doctors usually harvest bone marrow from the sternum or pelvis bones but a rib could also be used.) Anyway, after harvesting the bone marrow he would then have to isolate a pluripotential stem cell (young cell that contains and can express all the genetic material of the host). This stem cell then could be placed into an Ovum (Mother's unfertilized egg cell), and then implated into the woman's Uterus. Cloning of animals has already occurred using this technology. God of course could have easily done it, but WHY? 

3) Adam and Eve could be identical twins. Identical twins occur when one fertilized egg divides into 2 separate eggs. So you could make the argument that God manipulated the very young embryo that was Adam and removed a portion of him (the rib) and made another embryo - Eve. In almost all cases identical twins are of the same gender. God would have had to have removed the Y sex chromosome and duplicate the X sex chromosome for Eve though.  Seems a bit far fetched.

God has much more knowledge then current scientists or doctors. He could have done all kinds of stuff to make Adam and Eve. But I think that our first Mortal Parents created Adam and Eve in the old fashioned way. They procreated and had two healthy children the boy was first named Adam. The second child was a female, Eve.

Edited May 26, 2024 by mikbone

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, mikbone said:

Same here, a few options I have considered.

1) The rib is a figurative term used to denote that Adam and Eve are equal. This is my belief by the way.

2) Eve could be a clone of Adam. This would have required God to have removed some of Adam's bone marrow (Doctors usually harvest bone marrow from the sternum or pelvis bones but a rib could also be used.) Anyway, after harvesting the bone marrow he would then have to isolate a pluripotential stem cell (young cell that contains and can express all the genetic material of the host). This stem cell then could be placed into an Ovum (Mother's unfertilized egg cell), and then implated into the woman's Uterus. Cloning of animals has already occurred using this technology. God of course could have easily done it, but WHY? 

3) Adam and Eve could be identical twins. Identical twins occur when one fertilized egg divides into 2 separate eggs. So you could make the argument that God manipulated the very young embryo that was Adam and removed a portion of him (the rib) and made another embryo - Eve. In almost all cases identical twins are of the same gender. God would have had to have removed the Y sex chromosome and duplicate the X sex chromosome for Eve though.  Seems a bit far fetched.

God has much more knowledge then current scientists or doctors. He could have done all kinds of stuff to make Adam and Eve. But I think that our first Mortal Parents created Adam and Eve in the old fashioned way. They procreated and had two healthy children the boy was first named Adam. The second child was a female, Eve.

I appreciate your response – Thanks.  Coming from your background brings a lot of credence.   I am very much in agreement with your last paragraph but with perhaps one caveat.  This is the concept that all things witness that there is a G-d.  This logically convinces me that Adam and Eve both had belly buttons and were not created in a petri dish.  A little side note here:  When Michale Angelo was painting the Sistine Chappel, he asked if Adam should have a belly button.  That question nearly started a civil war among the religious experts of the time.  Since Adam has a belly button, we know how that conflict ended.

This is a segway into the opening of one big can of worms – that I intend to highlight in another post.

 

The Traveler

[ZealoulyStriving]

If we give creedance to Zecheriah Sitchin's interpretation of ancient Sumerian, they had an idea that there was gene manipulation early on. Not relying wholly on his conclusions, could we still not postulate that there was much more "science" going on in the creation than creedal Christianity has passed down to us? The Book of Abraham seems to hint at "science" with phrases like:

"And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good."

Abraham 4:21

 

 

Edited May 26, 2024 by ZealoulyStriving

[Jersey Boy]

On 5/24/2024 at 1:23 PM, Traveler said:

The doctrine of heavenly parents has been strongly imbedded in LDS theology as long as I can remember, and I have been alive and attending the LDS Church for the time period of most of our Latter-day prophets.   However, this subject seems to be a topic of increasing discussion, especially on the internet, as of late.  Most of the discussion seem to center on our heavenly mother.  I have thought to open a thread concerning this doctrine of heavenly parents.

It is my personal understanding that scripture is very explicit in verifying divine gender and the concept of divine family as the basis of the society of Heaven.  As I became aware of other religions and their theology, I was greatly surprised that in general, Abrahamic religions are rather unhappy and distant from the idea of a divine family.  I believe that this is strongly embedded in the religious notion that G-d is a unique one of a kind being and that G-d would not allow any other being like themselves to ever exist.  I have never been sure if it is because such thinking is that G-d lacks the power to replicate or that it is a matter of “will not” replicate.  But I did not intend to debate what other religious notions are – mainly because I do not understand other notions in this matter, nor do I see the logic to support it.

It is interesting that outside of Abrahamic religions – the concept of divine family is both common and persistent.   What has always been a surprise to me is the amazing lack of scripture and revelation on this notion of heavenly parents.  My first surprise is that there are very few scriptures and revelations about our Father in Heaven beyond the concept that he exists and that we should pray to him.  There is even less scripture and revelation about our Mother in Heaven – what little there is – is rather ambiguous, which allows wide and wild interpretations (my personal insertion or impression).  Beyond that we LDS believe we have a heavenly mother – I do not think we have much solid doctrine to go on.

There are some “fringe” doctrines or ideas of divine females.   For example, there is Lilith (the possible first wife of Adam, that decided to become the consort of Lucifer).  I do not know of any latter-day revelation that confirms anything close to this doctrine.  There is a name that seems to be popular among certain LDS concerning the possibility of a heavenly mother.  This name is Asherath (and variations on this name).   I am very concerned that this name is being suggested for our mother in heaven because it is the name of the prime consort of Baal – especially in the ancient lexicon of Canaan and Phoenicia.

I am open to ideas and notions – but I strongly believe that the doctrine of heavenly parents, and especially our heavenly mother, is a subject we out to tread very carefully concerning.  I believe we have been warned by our prophets to avoid attitudes of worship towards our heavenly mother, though I do not understand so much why.

I am fascinated with the concept of the oneness of G-d in our ancient scripture.  The Hebrew word for this oneness is “ehad” and is the same word for oneness used to describe the marriage of a man and a woman before G-d.  In contrast the word for one unique individual is “yahead”.  I apologize if I have used the incorrect English spelling of these terms.

 

The Traveler

The ordinances of the temple reveal great in plainness the role of exalted women as forever brides, exalted mothers, queens of heaven, and holy priestesses in eternity. If any fail to see and comprehend the perfectly obvious teachings of the temple (sacred things that aren’t as yet revealed with equal clarity in our present-day canon of scripture), then I imagine they will have to prepare themselves to continue grouping around in the darkness for answers that have already been graciously given unto them in simplicity. The key here is to understand that eternal progression is one eternal round, and that God the Father was once a man who was sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to a faithful woman who became our Mother in Heaven, and that they unitedly overcame the fallen nature and obtained exaltation through faith in the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of God, the great offering of Spirit, heart and soul through which all things exist. But I guess there should be no surprise in the fact that many fail to see what is so obviously placed before them because “looking past the mark,” and unnecessarily overcomplicating things, has always been one fallen man’s most common failings. 

Edited May 26, 2024 by Jersey Boy

[mikbone]

30 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

The key here is to understand that eternal progression is one eternal round, and that God the Father was once a man who was sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to a faithful woman who became our Mother in Heaven, and that they unitedly overcame the fallen nature and obtained exaltation through faith in the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of God, the great offering of Spirit, heart and soul through which all things exist.

Who served as the savior for Heavenly Father?

[ZealoulyStriving]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Who served as the savior for Heavenly Father?

I believe He was the Savior, and His Father a Savior before that, etc... I believe there is a specific eternal lineage of Saviors.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have never figured out the symbolism of Eve created (born) from a rib of Adam.  I have many questions, why this symbolism is utilized.  Every human sole since is born with the primary sacrifice of a mother that in essence gives the gift of life.  The scriptures speak with the symbolism of another phrase – “The Breath of Life”.  I have no idea what is meant by the breath of life.

 

The Traveler

I believe it refers to a lateral relationship – a sealing to each other in conjunction with, a vertical relationship with God*. 3 points: the rib is the only bone that can regenerate (so Adam’s grew back!); its stem cells can be used to create new tissues, organs, etc.; and, the word for “rib” is also the same one that is used for “chamber” (which could refer to the periosteum, a tissue surrounding the bone like a banana peel surrounds the fruit). So, there may be a literal description going on here as well.

Adam’s body was made of the dust (element), and Eve’s body was made of a higher order of dust, living dust. The X chromosome has 10 times the genetic material as the Y, so an XX may represent this higher order of dust over the XY. That this was done while Adam was asleep is telling! Meaning that the particulars aren’t important to know right now 😊

* https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/34carpenter?lang=eng

The “Breath of Life” seems to be more straightforward – it is the power of God to turn the key of life to connect spirit and element by exposing the light of Christ (D&C 88: 6 - 15) to the spirit and element, connecting them. The Hebrew term is nišmat ḥayyîm, which means both the “spirit” and “excitement” or “spark” of "life," which is why I lean toward the interpretation that it is the light of Christ which “quickeneth” and “governeth” all things.

ETA: I know this may wax esoteric, but the reason the XX is of a higher order is because the womb is where the covenant is transmitted to children born in the covenant. The female initiatory has wording that indicates the womb is consecrated for this purpose much as a temple is consecrated for the transmission of covenants to the living and the dead.

Edited May 26, 2024 by CV75

[mikbone]

5 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

I believe He was the Savior, and His Father a Savior before that, etc... I believe there is a specific eternal lineage of Saviors.

So what happens to those that obtain exaltation yet were not Saviors. 

Will they be able to have spirit children?  And if so, who will serve as their children’s Savior?  

For those branches that depart from the Savior lineage, the father - son relationship will no longer hold true.

Eventually you will have mortals looking toward a Great Great Spiritual Uncle and dependent upon a firstborn firstborn, firstborn in a galaxy far far away for their salvation?

 

Edited May 27, 2024 by mikbone

[ZealoulyStriving]

59 minutes ago, mikbone said:

So what happens to those that obtain exaltation yet were not Saviors. 

Will they be able to have spirit children?  And if so, who will serve as their children’s Savior?  

For those branches that depart from the Savior lineage, the father - son relationship will no longer hold true.

Eventually you will have mortals looking toward a Great Great Spiritual Uncle and dependent upon a firstborn firstborn, firstborn in a galaxy far far away for their salvation?

 

I currently personally am toying with the idea that the children born to us on our Celestialized earth will have Jesus as their Heavenly Father on the earth we created for them with His firstborn son acting as Savior for them.

[mikbone]

9 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

I currently personally am toying with the idea that the children born to us on our Celestialized earth will have Jesus as their Heavenly Father on the earth we created for them with His firstborn son acting as Savior for them.

OK, we create spirit children.  But the real relationships that they have are with Jesus Christ (who they perceive as their God the Father). And Jesus Christ’s firstborn will serve as their Savior. Right?

But all the honor continues to go to the royal line.  

We create spirit children - then give them up for adoption?

 

And if that is so, then we might actually not be the spirit children of heavenly father…?

Edited May 27, 2024 by mikbone

[ZealoulyStriving]

22 minutes ago, mikbone said:

OK, we create spirit children.  But the real relationships that they have are with Jesus Christ (who they perceive as their God the Father). And Jesus Christ’s firstborn will serve as their Savior. Right?

But all the honor continues to go to the royal line.  

We create spirit children - then give them up for adoption?

Do we not become the adopted sons and daughters of Jesus Christ upon entering into the eternal covenant? This earth becomes our celestial home with Jesus reigning as our God and Father. We don't return to God the Father's celestial residence - which would be the same earth upon which His fellows would dwell which faithfully passed through their probationary cycle.

[ZealoulyStriving]

50 minutes ago, mikbone said:

And if that is so, then we might actually not be the spirit children of heavenly father…?

"But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:63)

"Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny." (The Family Proclamation)

*** I believe this may be non-specific enough to allow for my current idea that our spiritual parentage may be from various celestial marriages, but as they are united in purpose, we as children are to direct all worship to the Father-Son lineage who represent all the spiritual parents. Elohim being plural may be much more expansive than our current understanding.

Edited May 27, 2024 by ZealoulyStriving

[mikbone]

13 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

"Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny." (The Family Proclamation)

Your argument is valid.  I just don’t like it.

The KFD and Lorenzo Snow’s couplet suggest so much more though.

As well as scriptures like 3 Ne 27:27 and D&C 122:7-8

[Traveler]

I wanted to go into another problem that can be very difficult to deal with.  In part, I think our poster @CV75 deals with the core of this problem with the statement:

"The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion."

The statement itself is not the problem as much as what individuals interpret and think this means.  Before diving deep into describing what I think will turn out to be an excellent can of worms, I need to make clear an observation and opinion that I have.  This concerns the Proclamation on the Family and the importance of traditional families to stability and sustainability of societies – not just here in mortality but in eternity also.   Without fathers and mothers loving and merciful towards each other and their children as a predominant principle defining a society – all other societies (anything else) are unstable, unstainable, corrupt and unjust.

Now I will attempt to highlight the problem with one word – sex.  Not just as a reference of gender but as a core principle of marriage and family.  Perhaps I am wrong and misinterpreting trends within religion but there seems to be a reluctance within many religious circles to openly acknowledge the importance of sex in relationship to the salvation of mankind.  What part does the doctrines of sex have to do with the above quote concerning Jesus Christ and the atonement?  Answer: - In essence – I believe it is the means of creation of life, the foundation of family and the reason for the Law of Chasity.   It is why there is gender and the reason that male and female are created in the image and likeness of G-d.

Because we believe in a mother and father in heaven, I have had discussions with many religious people that are concerned that sexual relationships would take place in eternity.  That G-d would so act or that Jesus would marry is not believed in any way to define G-d or within the nature of G-d.  That no one in heaven is married or involved in sex.  But why would I believe that it is marriage?  (Note - that marriage must occur here in mortality and be sealed here by the same power given to Peter to seal on earth that which will be sealed in heaven.  Because there is no initiation of marriage that takes place in heaven – it must be done here.)  We are starting to see why marriage is necessary and an attribute of G-d, unfolding in these Last days.  We are seeing why the Proclamation of the Family was prophetic and given by prophecy directly for our time.  The columniation of the LGBTQ+ movement is reaching its pinnacle and purpose with the explanation of what the LGBTQ+ movements calls non-binary.   Non-binary for LGBTQ+ is the transcendence to the divine.  Because it is so widely believed that G-d the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are the divine expression of non-binary.  The logical and inevitable result of no marriage between a husband and wife, father and mother defining family is a non-binary society as defined by the LGBTQ+ movement.  Satan has taken the arguments against the Saints and turned it against our critics in ways our critics did not foresee nor understand.   The notion that we worship a different Jesus (G-d) is not a claim we initiated.

Many times, I have been told that eternal marriage is not necessary nor in any way defines divine society.  Now we can see, not only why the doctrine of family is true but why it is necessary to go against what is the traditional doctrine of our other Christian cousins.  G-d created us to be binary in the image and likeness of G-d and the binary he has created is male and female.  This binary is the way and means by which every person is born and able to be obedient to the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (sex).

There is one other thing I believe.  We all have our agency and if some guy wants to identify as something other than that guy created by G-d or some girl that wants to identify as something else – that is their choice.  I believe G-d still loves them and so I will try to love them too, but they will never be a part of the glory of G-d or have increase.

 

The Traveler

[ZealoulyStriving]

12 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Your argument is valid.  I just don’t like it.

The KFD and Lorenzo Snow’s couplet suggest so much more though.

As well as scriptures like 3 Ne 27:27 and D&C 122:7-8

I don't mean to imply that we become merely (spiritual) baby-making machines for the "higher-ups". I think all the Elohim are very involved in the progress of their family. I think our concept of family ( ie... MY family and YOUR family) may need to be reframed as OUR family and OUR children- a unity we can't quite comprehend now.

Edited May 27, 2024 by ZealoulyStriving