God in mormonism

[Prestor John]

If you don't mind I'd like to try to get clearer on what mormons believe. Do you really envision an afterlife in which the gender one has as a human makes an important difference in what you become next, gods or goddesses. You seem to find the idea of women going on giving birth in the afterlife ridiculous. But aside from the birthing function, what else is there to set women apart from men? Could you say more about the different roles you envision for boy gods and girl gods?

Honestly, not much has been revealed on that subject other than we will all enter into family units.

Perhaps they resemble the ideal family that God wants for us here on Earth? We don't really know.

 

[Katzpur]

If you don't mind I'd like to try to get clearer on what mormons believe. Do you really envision an afterlife in which the gender one has as a human makes an important difference in what you become next, gods or goddesses. You seem to find the idea of women going on giving birth in the afterlife ridiculous. But aside from the birthing function, what else is there to set women apart from men? Could you say more about the different roles you envision for boy gods and girl gods?

That's a difficult question to answer. The best commentary I have personally seen comes from the Clementine Homilies, a Jewish Christian document based on a second-century source . Here, the Apostle Peter is speaking to a non-believer by the name of Simon. Simon wants to know if Peter actually believes that God has a human form and that mankind was literally created in His image. Here's how it goes:

And Simon said: "I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God." And Peter said: "I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case... It is the shape of the just God."

For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is imcomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side. But He has the most beautiful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart, may be able to see Him, that they may rejoice because they suffered. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the greatest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him.

Peter believed that God's human-like form was "solely for beauty's sake, and not for use." From that, I would gather that we will appear in heaven much as we appear here on earth (minus our imperfections). Now, you'll have to excuse me if it seems like I'm just copping out with a bunch of quotes from other people. It's just that they've expressed themselves better than I can. I have a book by a Protestant (I believe) author, Anthony DeStefano, called "A Travel Guide to Heaven." I bought it several years ago and have found some intriguing similarities between his perspective and my own. Chapter two of that book is called, "Luxury Accommodation -- Your New Body." He talks about what we human beings are going to look like once we return to Heaven. Here are a couple of paragraphs from that chapter:

"...We'll be able to recognize each other in heaven as the people we knew on earth. In not going to stop being Anthony DeStefano when I get to heaven. I'm going to have my body, my mind, my memories, my personality, my consciousness. I'm going to be me. Whatever makes me the person I am is what I'm going to keep in heaven.

The point is that people don't love their identify when they go to heaven. And that includes their physical identity. If you have brown eyes now, you're taking them with you to heaven. If you're a redhead now, you'll be a redhead in heaven. If you are white, black, or yellow now, you'll have that coloring in heaven....

In other words, if you want to know what you're going to look like in heaven, go take a look in the mirror right now!

But what if I hate the way I look now, you say? What if there are things about my body that I want to change -- that I need to change -- if I am going to be perfectly happy in heaven? Do you mean I have to stay the way I am now for all eternity? Absolutely not!

You have to trust God just a little bit. He knows better than you what is wrong with your body and how is should be fixed so that you will be happiest in heaven. 'Do not be anxious,' Christ said. 'If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you?"

Maybe he's wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Apostle Peter was wrong. Maybe Mormonism is wrong. I don't really concern myself with the reason I believe we'll still have the same appearance in Heaven as we do here on earth. We probably won't be needing all of our body parts, but since God doesn't actually need any of His to be God, I don't think it really matters whether we have genitalia or not.

You are probably unaware of this, but in addition to believing we have a Father in Heaven, we believe that we also have a Mother in Heaven. The thing is, we know virtually nothing about her. The fact that God puts so much emphasis on a man and a woman sharing a life together suggests that He has a female counterpart, an eternal companion. It would stand to reason that she had something to do with the creation of our spirits, but (as I said before) a spirit does not require a period of gestation in a womb like a human baby does. What her role was is unknown, as it is also unknown exactly what goes into the creation of spirits. We do believe that she loves us and cares about our welfare as much as our Father in Heaven does. (We do not, however, pray to her or worship her. At this point, we simply acknowledge that she exists.) I've always liked the idea of the divine feminine. It makes sense to be and is a beautiful concept.

I hope this helps. I'm not sure if it will, but it's about the best I can do.

 

[Prestor John]

That's a difficult question to answer. The best commentary I have personally seen comes from the Clementine Homilies, a Jewish Christian document based on a second-century source . Here, the Apostle Peter is speaking to a non-believer by the name of Simon. Simon wants to know if Peter actually believes that God has a human form and that mankind was literally created in His image. Here's how it goes:

And Simon said: "I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God." And Peter said: "I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case... It is the shape of the just God."

For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is imcomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side. But He has the most beautiful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart, may be able to see Him, that they may rejoice because they suffered. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the greatest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him.

Peter believed that God's human-like form was "solely for beauty's sake, and not for use." From that, I would gather that we will appear in heaven much as we appear here on earth (minus our imperfections). Now, you'll have to excuse me if it seems like I'm just copping out with a bunch of quotes from other people. It's just that they've expressed themselves better than I can. I have a book by a Protestant (I believe) author, Anthony DeStefano, called "A Travel Guide to Heaven." I bought it several years ago and have found some intriguing similarities between his perspective and my own. Chapter two of that book is called, "Luxury Accommodation -- Your New Body." He talks about what we human beings are going to look like once we return to Heaven. Here are a couple of paragraphs from that chapter:

"...We'll be able to recognize each other in heaven as the people we knew on earth. In not going to stop being Anthony DeStefano when I get to heaven. I'm going to have my body, my mind, my memories, mypersonality, my consciousness. I'm going to be me. Whatever makes me the person I am is what I'm going to keep in heaven.

The point is that people don't love their identify when they go to heaven. And that includes their physical identity. If you have brown eyes now, you're taking them with you to heaven. If you're a redhead now, you'll be a redhead in heaven. If you are white, black, or yellow now, you'll have that coloring in heaven....

In other words, if you want to know what you're going to look like in heaven, go take a look in the mirror right now!

But what if I hate the way I look now, you say? What if there are things about my body that I want to change -- that I need to change -- if I am going to be perfectly happy in heaven? Do you mean I have to stay the way I am now for all eternity? Absolutely not!

You have to trust God just a little bit. He knows better than you what is wrong with your body and how is should be fixed so that you will be happiest in heaven. 'Do not be anxious,' Christ said. 'If God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you?"

Maybe he's wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Apostle Peter was wrong. Maybe Mormonism is wrong. I don't really concern myself with the reason I believe we'll still have the same appearance in Heaven as we do here on earth. We probably won't be needing all of our body parts, but since God doesn't actually need any of His to be God, I don't think it really matters whether we have genitalia or not.

You are probably unaware of this, but in addition to believing we have a Father in Heaven, we believe that we also have a Mother in Heaven. The thing is, we know virtually nothing about her. The fact that God puts so much emphasis on a man and a woman sharing a life together suggests that He has a female counterpart, an eternal companion. It would stand to reason that she had something to do with the creation of our spirits, but (as I said before) a spirit does not require a period of gestation in a womb like a human baby does. What her role was is unknown, as it is also unknown exactly what goes into the creation of spirits. We do believe that she loves us and cares about our welfare as much as our Father in Heaven does. (We do not, however, pray to her or worship her. At this point, we simply acknowledge that she exists.) I've always liked the idea of the divine feminine. It makes sense to be and is a beautiful concept.

I hope this helps. I'm not sure if it will, but it's about the best I can do.

Well done.

 

[Whateverist]

I surely did not mean to put you to so much trouble, Katspur. What had struck my interest was how someone (was it you?) said they didn't think it likely that women spirits would be going around giving birth in heaven. That made me wonder why any gender based differentiation between spirits for any reason.

Honestly, I don't put any stock in the bible and anyhow your reasons are your reasons and nothing I'm in any position to judge. I hope all this effort has been of some intrinsic value for yourself or I will have to feel guilty.

To tell the truth I don't expect an afterlife in any form. I understand plenty do and my older brother converted to Mormonism perhaps twenty years ago or thereabouts. And I have a nephew who married into the faith as well. So I have a little more than a passing interest in knowing what Mormons believe. Thank you.

 

[idea]

I surely did not mean to put you to so much trouble, Katspur. What had struck my interest was how someone (was it you?) said they didn't think it likely that women spirits would be going around giving birth in heaven. ....

I'm not sure who originally posted that - but I am Mormon, and agree that I do not expect women to go around giving birth in Heaven. Eve, in her perfect form, did NOT have children. Jesus - the "only" begotten - ONLY begotten, had to be created through the use of a mortal handmaid. This means God has not other begotten children.

Spiritual birth is what baptism is all about - it is a covenant... Just like you can become married through a covenant, you can also form parent / child relationships with a covenant.

All of the barren women - and there are quite a lot of them - in the scriptures represent a higher order of motherhood.

What we currently know of pregnancy was that it was part of the curse in Eden - pregnancy was Eve's curse - it is the cursed way of having children. In heaven, the curse will be lifted.

Hope pointing that out did not offend anyone. This mortal life is necessary, we are all grateful for our mothers - but we should not confuse the fallen/mortal way of doing things with what is going on in heaven. This cartoonist notion of a bunch of pregnant women running around in heaven is completely false.


Another interesting side note - in perfect Eden, it was not Eve who gave birth to Adam, it was Adam who gave birth to Eve.... and it was not Heavenly Mother who gave birth to Adam - Adam was created by Heavenly Father - so we have 2 examples of the male, rather than the famale - creating life when it comes to creating perfect beings. Everything in this mortal fallen state is perhaps opposite of what we will find beyond the veil.

 

[Katzpur]

I surely did not mean to put you to so much trouble, Katspur.

No trouble at all!

 

[Katzpur]

All of the barren women - and there are quite a lot of them - in the scriptures represent a higher order of motherhood.

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion -- that barren women represent a higher order of motherhood. I'm not saying there should be any guilt or shame attached to a woman being barren, but a "higher order of motherhood"? Where, in the scriptures, is that implied?

What we currently know of pregnancy was that it was part of the curse in Eden - pregnancy was Eve's curse - it is the cursed way of having children. In heaven, the curse will be lifted.

I've got to disagree. Eve's body was designed to bear children. A physical human being has to have a place in which the body can grow and develop until it can survive on the outside. To me, that's so obvious that I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why you think it's "a cursed way of having children." How else could we human beings (as well as other mammals) have been able to bear our young? Are you saying that if Eve had not transgressed, the whole means of human procreation would have been different than it is?

Hope pointing that out did not offend anyone. This mortal life is necessary, we are all grateful for our mothers - but we should not confuse the fallen/mortal way of doing things with what is going on in heaven. This cartoonist notion of a bunch of pregnant women running around in heaven is completely false.

I agree with you there, but we're talking about two different things: the creation of a spirit and the creation of a physical body. Both processes are necessary, and neither one is inherently superior to the other, in my opinion.

Another interesting side note - in perfect Eden, it was not Eve who gave birth to Adam, it was Adam who gave birth to Eve.... and it was not Heavenly Mother who gave birth to Adam - Adam was created by Heavenly Father - so we have 2 examples of the male, rather than the female - creating life when it comes to creating perfect beings. Everything in this mortal fallen state is perhaps opposite of what we will find beyond the veil.

Huh? Neither Adam nor Eve gave birth to the other. They were husband and wife, not parent and child. And when it gets right down to it, Heavenly Father didn't "give birth" to either of them. I'm really surprised to hear you say some of this stuff. You're usually a whole lot more "traditional" in your perspective. None of this sounds like anything I've ever heard you say before.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But don't 3rd century expositors inform one about the intent of the scriptures close in time when they were written? That's like saying a judge should look at a law in a vacuum and without considering legislative intent.

What scale should we use? 3rd century is close? Is America "close" to the lifestyles and interpretations of colonials only three centuries before? If 3rd century is close, is the late 1800s far? (You would say no, because Mr. Smith is a revelator, but you wouldn't say some 3rd century conservative or some 3rd century known heretic is a revelator, would you? Of course not.) Do you see my point?

Also, and I'm not trying to nitpick, but saying someone commentating on writings three centuries later know their legislative intent, while studiously avoiding the actual writings... I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is frustrating to say so-and-so likely espoused LDS doctrine three centuries after Christ if I can't find the same doctrine in the writings of Christ, the NT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That’s refreshing. Someone who does not take every opportunity to cry “offended” or make someone feel guilty for saying what is on their mind.

These last times truly are as Isaiah saw, for he said that there would be “scorners”,

“That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” (Isaiah 29:21)

This PC age is a fulfillment of long foreseen prophesy. How easily people are offended today is sickening. They also go out of their way to destroy the lives of men and women who have opposing opinions. They lay traps to try and ensnare people in their twisting war of words. Their pursuit for “equality” has caused them to set aside justice.

Isaiah has them pegged.

I believe that Isaiah 29 also talks about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of Christ’s Church in the latter days.

That’s a relief.

That’s good. You should always talk to the missionaries.

However, while they are on their missions they dedicate themselves to studying and preaching the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and not much more.

Don’t expect them to be perfectly versed in LDS Church history or in what we call “deep doctrine”. That is not their calling. They are free to study those things both before and after their mission, but not during.

Yes, we do not believe exactly as you do on that subject. We believe that certain things are most definitely assured, but some things are not.

The Holy Spirit of God can help everyone make an accounting of their progress.

Basically, you should ponder on the covenants you have made and if you have faithfully kept them. The Spirit will then direct you, through feelings of joy or shame or otherwise, if you have been faithful and if you are worthy or if you need improvement.

We believe that through the Fall of Adam and Eve two deaths entered this world. Both physical and spiritual death.

We believe that the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ overcomes both of these deaths.

He offers Mankind salvation from physical death through a universal bodily Resurrection for all.

He also offers salvation from spiritual death (separation from God the Father) by suffering all the punishments for all of our sins. With His suffering, we are able to repent of our sins and change our ways.

Even though the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ offers all of us the opportunity to overcome the effects of the Fall we do not believe that that was the only reason for the Atonement.

We believe that the Atonement can also cause us to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ. We become more like Him as we make sacred covenants with Him, strive to be faithful to those covenants by following His example and keeping His commandments.

Becoming like our Lord Jesus Christ (and thus His Father) is what we call exaltation and it is difficult for some members of the Church to differentiate between salvation (overcoming the effects of the Fall) and exaltation (becoming like our Father in Heaven) because to achieve exaltation someone must first obtain salvation.

Both salvation and exaltation would be impossible for anyone to receive if it were not for the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, His constant guidance and our reliance on His grace.

There are some things that are assured us regardless of what we do and then there are some things assured us only when we keep our covenants.

A covenant is a two-way promise between us and our Father in Heaven. If we are faithful to our half of the promise, then He is bound to keep His half of the promise. If we are unfaithful, then He is not bound to keep His half and we have no assurance or promise.

We are all assured a bodily Resurrection (thus gaining victory over the grave), where our spirits and physical bodies will be reunited, never to be separated again. These bodies will be glorious and not subject to death, pain, sickness, injury or age.

We are all also assured to eventually be forgiven of all our sins (thus gaining victory over Hell), exempting those who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is unpardonable. However, for everyone else, when and how they will be forgiven depends on their performance in this life.

The Book of Mormon talks about this at great length and explains how universal the effects of the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ are. I’d like to quote (a rather large portion) from a discourse delivered by Jacob, the son of Lehi and younger brother to Nephi,

“For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

And because of the way of deliverance of our God, the Holy One of Israel, this death, of which I have spoken, which is the temporal, shall deliver up its dead; which death is the grave.

And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect.

Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

O the greatness and the justice of our God! For he executeth all his words, and they have gone forth out of his mouth, and his law must be fulfilled.

But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever.

O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.” (2 Nephi 9: 6-24)

**

Basically, you should ponder on the covenants you have made and if you have faithfully kept them.

I did make a covenant to accept a free gift but "free" and "gift" are indicative of my lack of obligation, I think.

I have spent some time pondering the covenants of the Bible and have trouble finding significant two-party covenants with God. For example, God plans to meet Abraham and they are to perform a ceremony, but Abraham falls into a deep sleep and God performs the entire ceremony. Adam is put to sleep before receiving the gift that is woman. Paul fights the believers but Jesus tells Paul what He shall be doing in the future. David and Solomon get everything from peace with their enemies to land grants, unasked.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now let me make the main points clear,

1.) We believe that everyone regardless of their actions in this life (even those who commit the unpardonable sin) will receive a bodily Resurrection through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2.) We believe that everyone regardless of their actions in this life (exempting those who commit the unpardonable sin) will eventually be forgiven of all of their sins, either in the flesh or in the spirit and will eventually enter into the Kingdom of God.

3.) We believe that how we perform in this life will affect the type of Resurrection we receive and will also affect where we will be allowed to go and what we will be authorized to do within God’s Kingdom. This is in reference to the “Three Degrees of Glory” you may have heard about. The Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms within God’s Kingdom and also exaltation, or becoming like the Father.

Salvation from both physical and spiritual deaths are assured to us all through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ unless we commit the unpardonable sin.

When and how we are forgiven of sin depends on how we perform in this life.

What type of Resurrection we receive and where we will be allowed to go and what we will be allowed to do in God’s Kingdom are also affected by our performance in this life.

Those who commit the unpardonable sin will receive a bodily Resurrection, but they will not be allowed to enter into God’s Kingdom and they will be cast out into Outer Darkness.

I was actually referring to Church leaders that lived and taught before the compilation of the Bible. Many of whom were contemporaries of the original disciples of Christ. They often spoke of the deification of Man which agrees with the LDS understanding of it.

I understand your position, but I do not agree with it.

I believe that the original disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ received pure unsullied truth from Him, therefore, the closer we get to that truth, the purer it will be.

I believe that many changes happened within the Church and also within the scriptures from the time that the original Apostles died and around the time of the compilation of the Bible.

Sounds good. You are welcome.

I think depending on your time scale(s) I'd disagree regarding the canonicity and compilation of the Bible. If you like, I can point you to position papers and books that are conclusive that the Bible was known as canon and scripture long before many say it was, so that anyone past the first century is a commentator on canon, not an assembler of canon.

For example, the Nicene and other councils were called to affirm orthodoxy and resist heresy, and you can find statements of the council attendees that they met to assess, collate and affirm commonly held canon notions, not to pick and choose. Here's a prime example: they could say the Maccabees, and indeed all inter-testamental apocrypha, were indeed apocrypha and not scripture, because the Jewish people had already rejected them and affirmed all we think of as the Hebrew scriptures.

More to the point, and I apologize for digressing, I've long thought the unpardonable sin is the rejection of Christ, that is, the rejection of the free gift of salvation, and I can share scriptures and exposition if you want more. Do you think rejecting the atonement is the unpardonable sin, or is it something else?

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not sure who originally posted that - but I am Mormon, and agree that I do not expect women to go around giving birth in Heaven. Eve, in her perfect form, did NOT have children. Jesus - the "only" begotten - ONLY begotten, had to be created through the use of a mortal handmaid. This means God has not other begotten children.

Spiritual birth is what baptism is all about - it is a covenant... Just like you can become married through a covenant, you can also form parent / child relationships with a covenant.

All of the barren women - and there are quite a lot of them - in the scriptures represent a higher order of motherhood.

What we currently know of pregnancy was that it was part of the curse in Eden - pregnancy was Eve's curse - it is the cursed way of having children. In heaven, the curse will be lifted.

Hope pointing that out did not offend anyone. This mortal life is necessary, we are all grateful for our mothers - but we should not confuse the fallen/mortal way of doing things with what is going on in heaven. This cartoonist notion of a bunch of pregnant women running around in heaven is completely false.


Another interesting side note - in perfect Eden, it was not Eve who gave birth to Adam, it was Adam who gave birth to Eve.... and it was not Heavenly Mother who gave birth to Adam - Adam was created by Heavenly Father - so we have 2 examples of the male, rather than the famale - creating life when it comes to creating perfect beings. Everything in this mortal fallen state is perhaps opposite of what we will find beyond the veil.

Very interesting perspectives.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[idea]

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion -- that barren women represent a higher order of motherhood. I'm not saying there should be any guilt or shame attached to a woman being barren, but a "higher order of motherhood"? Where, in the scriptures, is that implied?

There is this talk - that I really love - https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/...ing-women-of-greater-faith-in-christ?lang=eng

I have never questioned why our mother in heaven seems veiled to us, ... Doctrine and Covenants 52, we read the Lord’s words: “I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived.” ...We have all recognized the relationship between Abraham and Isaac that so parallels God’s anguish over the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as women, do we stretch ourselves and also ask about Sarah’s travail in this experience as well? We need to search in this manner, and we need always to look for deeper meaning.

Abraham and Isaac parallel Heavenly Father and Jesus,
Sarah had to use a handmaid → Jesus was born of a handmaid
Now both Sarah and Abraham were let off the hook at the last minute → Abraham did not actually have to sacrifice his son, and Sarah was finally able to have a child, but in the case of our Heavenly parents? Jesus really died, and he was really born to a handmaid...

Do a scripture search for the word "barren" and see what comes up - you get things like:

Isaiah 54:1, 3 Nephi 22:1,
Galatians 4: 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

It is the spirit of adoption whereby we cry "Abba", Father → look up all the scriptures with "adoption" too. Adoption = taking care of someone you did not give birth to. ...

We become children through making and keeping covenants → see Because of the covenant ye shall be called the children of Christ, Mosiah 5:7

Another interesting note - why was Jesus baptized? He was already perfect, it was not to remove sin. He was already the child of Heavenly Father... perhaps this is where he became a child of Heavenly Mother? The author of the voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son" is never identified as Heavenly Father. I think this might have been the voice of Heavenly Mother... especially considering one of the disciples responded by quoting the matriarchal lineage of Jesus after hearing this voice...

I've got to disagree. Eve's body was designed to bear children. A physical human being has to have a place in which the body can grow and develop until it can survive on the outside. To me, that's so obvious that I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why you think it's "a cursed way of having children." How else could we human beings (as well as other mammals) have been able to bear our young? Are you saying that if Eve had not transgressed, the whole means of human procreation would have been different than it is?

Read Genesis (especially in the original Hebrew) the curse on eve was pregnancy - Gen 3:16 - yalad link
Gen 3:16
Unto the woman H802 he said, H559 I will greatly H7235 multiply H7235thy sorrow H6093 and thy conception; H2032 in sorrow H6089 thou shalt bring forth H3205 children; H1121 and thy desire H8669 shall beto thy husband, H376 and he shall rule H4910 over thee.


↑ this is our curse! I know people don't like to talk about it, women are supposed to love our current role, nevertheless, that's the curse - and this curse is going to be lifted....

I agree with you there, but we're talking about two different things: the creation of a spirit and the creation of a physical body. Both processes are necessary, and neither one is inherently superior to the other, in my opinion.

Not superior? Our resurrection into a perfect body will be far superior to our imperfect birth to an imperfect body to an imperfect world.

Huh? Neither Adam nor Eve gave birth to the other. They were husband and wife, not parent and child. And when it gets right down to it, Heavenly Father didn't "give birth" to either of them. I'm really surprised to hear you say some of this stuff. You're usually a whole lot more "traditional" in your perspective. None of this sounds like anything I've ever heard you say before.

Eve came out of Adam - no bellybutton perhaps, but life came out of man in Eden (not life coming out of a woman).

 

[idea]

Very interesting perspectives.

Thank you for sharing.

Glad you aren't offended by it! Some people are...

In any event - one of the unique beliefs in Mormonism is the belief that we have both a Father and a Mother in Heaven - but Mother is one of the mysteries.

You know how Jewish people will not say the name of G-d because it is too holy? Same thing with Mormons and their Mother. It is one of the "mysteries" that is left for individuals to discover Her on their own...

You know how there are all these different names for God and for Jesus in the scriptures?

Well, She goes by a lot of different names too... some are obvious like "Wisdom" and "Tree of Life"

Proverbs 3:
13 ¶Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
14 For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.
15 She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.
16 Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour.
17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.
18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

Some of Her other names are more controversial, and you can go a little mad and tread some dangerous waters in finding them out...

remember how everyone was always in trouble for worshiping in groves? What was the deal with trees they were so drawn to?

Genesis 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.
See the original of 21:33 → link

a tamarisk tree,... and perhaps someone who is Jewish might know the difference between Yĕhovah and el

Even Abraham worshiped in groves (before it was forbidden)... tree of life, that She is.

Joseph Smith's first vision happened in a sacred grove too.... dangerous business though, getting to know Her in this life.

 

[Katzpur]

There is this talk - that I really love - https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/...ing-women-of-greater-faith-in-christ?lang=eng

I have never questioned why our mother in heaven seems veiled to us, ... Doctrine and Covenants 52, we read the Lord’s words: “I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived.” ...We have all recognized the relationship between Abraham and Isaac that so parallels God’s anguish over the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as women, do we stretch ourselves and also ask about Sarah’s travail in this experience as well? We need to search in this manner, and we need always to look for deeper meaning.

Abraham and Isaac parallel Heavenly Father and Jesus,
Sarah had to use a handmaid → Jesus was born of a handmaid
Now both Sarah and Abraham were let off the hook at the last minute → Abraham did not actually have to sacrifice his son, and Sarah was finally able to have a child, but in the case of our Heavenly parents? Jesus really died, and he was really born to a handmaid...

Do a scripture search for the word "barren" and see what comes up - you get things like:

Isaiah 54:1, 3 Nephi 22:1,
Galatians 4: 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

It is the spirit of adoption whereby we cry "Abba", Father → look up all the scriptures with "adoption" too. Adoption = taking care of someone you did not give birth to. ...

We become children through making and keeping covenants → see Because of the covenant ye shall be called the children of Christ, Mosiah 5:7

You raise some interesting points and I agree with them to an extent. Still, I don't see how any of the passages of scripture you have listed imply that being barren is "a higher order of motherhood" than having children. But if that's your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it.

Another interesting note - why was Jesus baptized? He was already perfect, it was not to remove sin. He was already the child of Heavenly Father... perhaps this is where he became a child of Heavenly Mother? The author of the voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son" is never identified as Heavenly Father. I think this might have been the voice of Heavenly Mother... especially considering one of the disciples responded by quoting the matriarchal lineage of Jesus after hearing this voice...

Well, you're doing an awful lot of speculating, and again -- that's your prerogative. Personally, I believe that, like us, Jesus was offspring of Heavenly Parents, that He was their Son long before His baptism or even His birth on Earth.

Read Genesis (especially in the original Hebrew) the curse on eve was pregnancy - Gen 3:16 - yalad link
Gen 3:16
Unto the woman H802 he said, H559 I will greatly H7235 multiply H7235thy sorrow H6093 and thy conception; H2032 in sorrow H6089 thou shalt bring forth H3205 children; H1121 and thy desire H8669 shall beto thy husband, H376 and he shall rule H4910 over thee.


↑ this is our curse! I know people don't like to talk about it, women are supposed to love our current role, nevertheless, that's the curse - and this curse is going to be lifted....

Okay, but how on earth would a fertilized egg become an infant without pregnancy? Is this what you think God had in mind when He put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

Not superior? Our resurrection into a perfect body will be far superior to our imperfect birth to an imperfect body to an imperfect world.

You are completely misunderstanding me. I never implied that a mortal body is equal in any way to an immortal body. But I don't think the time will ever come when we will be creating babies (human, mortal infants) without pregnancy. I believe that those who attain exaltation will be given procreative powers, but not (apparently) in the same way you do. If we are ever given the power to create new life, I believe this new life will be in the form of spirit offspring, who will exist independently of physical bodies as we once did. The idea that we would be creating either adult humans or babies just seems way off the wall to me. I guess we'll eventually find out, though, won't we?

Eve came out of Adam - no bellybutton perhaps, but life came out of man in Eden (not life coming out of a woman).

So you believe that God literally took a rib out of Adam and created Eve from it? Okay. Well, to each his own. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point, too.

 

[Katzpur]

Glad you aren't offended by it! Some people are...

Obviously, you're referring to me, since I'm the only other Mormon who responded to you post. Ii wasn't offended in the slightest. Why would I be? I just think you're wrong about some things, that's all. I'm almost never offended when people offer a different opinion than mine. It's only rude people who offend me, and I didn't think your post came across as rude.

 

[idea]

Okay, but how on earth would a fertilized egg become an infant without pregnancy? Is this what you think God had in mind when He put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?.

In other forums I have raised a rucus - I did not mean you Katz!

Sorry for the misunderstanding - not about how Adam and Eve had children (they had to transgress to have children, that is the fallen way), but how Adam and Eve were created.

How were Adam and Eve created? I don't think Adam and Eve had belly-buttons → their perfect bodies were not formed through pregnancy. I do not think our perfect resurrected bodies will be formed through pregnancy,

Our new perfect bodies will not be formed through fertilizing an egg - they will be formed as Adam's was, from the dust... We will not come forth from a Mother's womb - it will be our Father who gives us life, and it sounds like we will come out of our own graves (not a stomach).

I will open your graves, and cause you to come up: Ezek. 37:12 .
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: Dan. 12:2 .
graves were opened; and many bodies … arose: Matt. 27:52 . ( 3 Ne. 23:9 . )
Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them: John 5:21 . ( Rom. 4:17 ; 1 Tim. 6:13 . )

We are given many hints of how perfect bodies are formed and it is not through pregnancy, hence, there is no support - quite the opposite - for a bunch of pregnant women running around in heaven.

I think it goes against free agency to bring a child into the world → it is impossible to make an informed choice about something you have never experienced. Each set of parents on earth is getting a little spirit into something they did not fully understand, and that is a bit of a transgression imo. If Eve was physically able to have children in her perfect form or not, I do not know → obviously some physical changes happened to them both when they ate the fruit.... to not have children through choice (remain a virgin), or to no t have children due to a different physical body I do not know. Either way, they did not beget children in their perfect forms.

 

[Watchmen]

What scale should we use? 3rd century is close? Is America "close" to the lifestyles and interpretations of colonials only three centuries before? If 3rd century is close, is the late 1800s far? (You would say no, because Mr. Smith is a revelator, but you wouldn't say some 3rd century conservative or some 3rd century known heretic is a revelator, would you? Of course not.) Do you see my point?

Also, and I'm not trying to nitpick, but saying someone commentating on writings three centuries later know their legislative intent, while studiously avoiding the actual writings... I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is frustrating to say so-and-so likely espoused LDS doctrine three centuries after Christ if I can't find the same doctrine in the writings of Christ, the NT.

I don't believe in Joseph Smith's stories, the NT itself reveals it is the the be-all-end-all of what Jesus and his followers said and did. You're a Bible purist. I get it. But that limits you because it leaves out the context of what was actually happening at the time and shortly thereafter, which happenings can inform the intent of the writers.

 

[Prestor John]

In other forums I have raised a rucus - I did not mean you Katz!

Sorry for the misunderstanding - not about how Adam and Eve had children (they had to transgress to have children, that is the fallen way), but how Adam and Eve were created.

How were Adam and Eve created? I don't think Adam and Eve had belly-buttons → their perfect bodies were not formed through pregnancy. I do not think our perfect resurrected bodies will be formed through pregnancy,

Our new perfect bodies will not be formed through fertilizing an egg - they will be formed as Adam's was, from the dust... We will not come forth from a Mother's womb - it will be our Father who gives us life, and it sounds like we will come out of our own graves (not a stomach).

I will open your graves, and cause you to come up: Ezek. 37:12 .
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: Dan. 12:2 .
graves were opened; and many bodies … arose: Matt. 27:52 . ( 3 Ne. 23:9 . )
Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them: John 5:21 . ( Rom. 4:17 ; 1 Tim. 6:13 . )

We are given many hints of how perfect bodies are formed and it is not through pregnancy, hence, there is no support - quite the opposite - for a bunch of pregnant women running around in heaven.

I think it goes against free agency to bring a child into the world → it is impossible to make an informed choice about something you have never experienced. Each set of parents on earth is getting a little spirit into something they did not fully understand, and that is a bit of a transgression imo. If Eve was physically able to have children in her perfect form or not, I do not know → obviously some physical changes happened to them both when they ate the fruit.... to not have children through choice (remain a virgin), or to no t have children due to a different physical body I do not know. Either way, they did not beget children in their perfect forms.

I believe that the Earth is technically the "mother" of our physical bodies by supplying the "dust" that was used by the Father to form Adam.

However, this "dust" was comprised of Element and Intelligence that had previously been Chaotic Matter and had no beginning.

I am of the opinion that our Heavenly Mother selected the original Element and Intelligence from Chaotic Matter and refined it into Spirit Matter and presented it to our Heavenly Father who organized it into our spirit body.

So, they both are equal partners in the creation of our spirit bodies and are literally the Mother and Father of our spirits.

That is way out there and I don't even know how we got this far!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't believe in Joseph Smith's stories, the NT itself reveals it is the the be-all-end-all of what Jesus and his followers said and did. You're a Bible purist. I get it. But that limits you because it leaves out the context of what was actually happening at the time and shortly thereafter, which happenings can inform the intent of the writers.

As a Jewish believer, I also have the Talmud and can picture or have participated in many of the rituals that pepper the testaments. As a classics fan, I have Josephus, Suetonius, etc. and as a student of the original languages, I have some grasp on the context.

The Bible, however, does not say passion for the scriptures and adherence to the Bible limits us. The opposite is what it says, actually.

 

[Prestor John]

I did make a covenant to accept a free gift but "free" and "gift" are indicative of my lack of obligation, I think.

That would not qualify as a “covenant” then because a covenant requires both parties to fulfill their obligations.

However, in the case of covenants between God and Man, Man has the obligation to first fulfill their part of the covenant before God would be obligated to fulfill His.

To me, the idea that the “saved” feel that they have no obligation is evidence of Apostasy.

The disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ felt obligated to do and suffer much for His sake.

They also spent a significant amount of time counseling others to live by certain standards.

I do not believe that the New Testament teaches what you are selling and I am willing to discuss whichever examples you want to use to support your belief, however I only ask that you do so one example at a time.

I have spent some time pondering the covenants of the Bible and have trouble finding significant two-party covenants with God.

Near the very beginning of the Bible we have evidence of a covenant being made between God and Man when the first animal sacrifice is recorded.

All sacrifices offered were done so in obedience to a covenant made with the Lord which had not been recorded in the Bible.

This covenant was obviously made in the days of Adam, for his son Abel offered sacrifice, in accordance to some unmentioned covenant, and the Lord found it acceptable according to unrecorded requirements.

The Lord mentioned this covenant to Noah when He promised that His covenant would be reestablished with Noah after the Flood.

Even though the exact details of these covenants are not mentioned in the text, the fact that sacrifices took place are direct evidence that there was such a covenant.

I can think of two other significant covenants mentioned in the Bible:

-the Abrahamic Covenant recorded in Genesis 17 and

-the covenant with the House of Israel recorded in Exodus 19

Throughout the history of Israel we see that the Lord is there for them when they honor the covenant that they made, yet when they fail to do their part, the Lord withdraws Himself and they are plagued by their enemies. It is as I said before, as long as we fulfill our part, the Lord is bound to fulfill His part, however if we fail to do our part, we have no promise.

A prime example of this was when the Lord told Solomon that the reason that He was going to take the kingdom from him was because, “thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee” (1 Kings 11:11)

I would say that all the blessings offered to any of the Israelites was done so by obedience to the covenant that had been made. None of it was “unasked for”. All the promises from the Lord had already been given and how anyone was to receive them had already been explained.

The righteousness of Solomon and David were met with many blessings, because they honored the covenant that had been made, but when they fell short and forsook the covenant, they lost those blessings and more.

I think depending on your time scale(s) I'd disagree regarding the canonicity and compilation of the Bible. If you like, I can point you to position papers and books that are conclusive that the Bible was known as canon and scripture long before many say it was, so that anyone past the first century is a commentator on canon, not an assembler of canon.

I agree that the books of the New Testament were written within the first century and a half or so after the Lord’s departure, but I believe that any formal recognition of those books did not take place until a couple centuries later.

Feel free to share whatever you’d like.

For example, the Nicene and other councils were called to affirm orthodoxy and resist heresy, and you can find statements of the council attendees that they met to assess, collate and affirm commonly held canon notions, not to pick and choose.

How is assessing, collating and affirming not “picking and choosing”?

Here's a prime example: they could say the Maccabees, and indeed all inter-testamental apocrypha, were indeed apocrypha and not scripture, because the Jewish people had already rejected them and affirmed all we think of as the Hebrew scriptures.

Yet, the Jews also rejected the Lord. Does not sound like the most accurate measure with which to mete.

More to the point, and I apologize for digressing, I've long thought the unpardonable sin is the rejection of Christ, that is, the rejection of the free gift of salvation, and I can share scriptures and exposition if you want more. Do you think rejecting the atonement is the unpardonable sin, or is it something else?

Yes and No.

In order for a person to commit the unpardonable sin they must sin “against the Holy Ghost”.

The confirmation of the Holy Ghost is a more sure witness than anything, even sight.

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that to commit the unpardonable sin is to gaze up at the sun at noonday and claimed that it does not shine.

Basically, only those that KNOW, without the shadow of any doubt, through the witness of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world and Redeemer of all men can commit the unpardonable sin by denying Him.

An example of this would be Judas Iscariot, who had firsthand experience with the Lord and followed Him because he knew that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Yet in time he grew bitter and resentful and eventually acted against the surety of knowledge he had received and betrayed our Lord.

A person must first have a perfect knowledge of the truth before they can commit the unpardonable sin.

Not just anyone who rejects the Lord commits the unpardonable sin.