Question on Genesis 3:16 Translation

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that in the moments where my own discipleship is being challenged, I feel that it is appropriate to push back. But, as I pointed out earlier, I also think that there is an issue here - and you are contributing to it. You want me to hold the higher standard than these other contributors. But, why? Should these other be allowed to make personal attacks in an uncontested way? I don't often take this route - but I think that sometimes it can be helpful to express what I think rather than simply bottling it up. The fact that you have given up doesn't meant that we shouldn't actually keep addressing the issue from time to time ...

I hold everyone to a high standard to be open.  I typically report those who break the rules, especially calling someone’s faithfulness into question.  I don’t always report teddy when he breaks the rules because I skip his posts when he starts to take an unreasonable position in my view and sometimes miss when it goes personal or obviously judgmental.  I admit I assume it’s his default position these days, but am occasionally surprised by him coming across as more open and loving/inclusive at times (which is why I am still open to the idea his behaviour off line is very different to what I would assume if I didn’t know others he reminds me of).

I actually held you to a lower standard this time by not reporting and instead choosing to discuss it with you in hopes of discouraging you from breaking board rules and more importantly likely contributing to polarization because I figured you were open to suggestions on being more persuasive, less divisive .  I know the delay of reporting isn’t a great feedback system, but people are intelligent here and know when they break the rules, imo.

I have probably gotten teddy at least thread banned a number of times, though since I can’t see others who report, it could have been a joint effort. 
 

I listened to a very thought provoking commentary the other day on some of the reasons why youth tend to swing right and left in cycles, which is why your finishing comment after a thoughtful, persuasive imo discussion struck me as problematic and to be blunt, self sabotaging.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem here, Calm, is that we have a mixed audience. If this were entirely an LDS audience, I think I would accept this critique. But it isn't a purely LDS audience. In another thread right now, we have this discussion in which it is being asserted (on the basis of the King Follett Discourse) that all intelligences were uncreated, and were in some way equal with God. Consider this statement:

This isn't LDS doctrine. It comes from an interpretation of the King Follett Discourse, but the King Follett Discourse isn't an authoritative source. If you challenge ZealouslyStriving on this, you get mocked. I have absolutely no expectation of convincing our borderline (and even not so borderline) fundamentalists here that their perspective is wrong. They are not my audience - even when I am responding to them. And because they are not my audience, I don't particularly feel the need to try and persuade them of the error of their thinking. In fact, I am not sure that there is anything that I could write that would convince them. I think that these posters are convinced that I am on my way to hell. I mean, look at @teddyaware's comments earlier about "Modernist members of the church ..." Modernism begins in the late 1800s. I am not a modernist member of the Church. I am a post-modernist member of the Church. But this is part of the core notion that we attribute to religious fundamentalism: a push towards a literalist understanding of scripture that wants to recontextualize it back into the pre-modern era. And in part of this is the idea that somehow there was a moment in time when the early LDS had some perfect understanding that has since been corrupted by all of us modernist (and perhaps post-modernist) Mormons. The reality is that the LDS Gospel is, in my view, a post-modernist religion (something I have argued about for decades now). It cannot be a living gospel if it is still rooted in outdated beliefs and ethics of the past. And often (as I find in the discussions here lately) it isn't even a real reflection of those early LDS beliefs but a strange mix of stuff that represents neither the religion that was practiced in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young or the religion that is practiced today.

So that's where I am coming from. The challenge is that in the moments where my own discipleship is being challenged, I feel that it is appropriate to push back. But, as I pointed out earlier, I also think that there is an issue here - and you are contributing to it. You want me to hold the higher standard than these other contributors. But, why? Should these other be allowed to make personal attacks in an uncontested way? I don't often take this route - but I think that sometimes it can be helpful to express what I think rather than simply bottling it up. The fact that you have given up doesn't meant that we shouldn't actually keep addressing the issue from time to time ...

I never challenged your discipleship and haven't mocked you (that I recall). 
You, though, leave the impression that anything contrary to your opinion is so utterly false that it is ridiculous to even consider, though you haven't yet offered up (from what I can see) an alternative idea on the subject- just your assertion that the idea (which is based on Ostler's understanding, not Fundamentalist teachings) is just obviously wrong.

So, please, clarify your ideas on the eternal origin and progression of God, and in turn, mankind.

Thanks.

[longview]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

7 hours ago, longview said:

The partnership between man and woman is more powerful than the sum of the parts. Meshing/knitting together provides greater ability to develop better solutions.

These things are irrelevancies to the topic.

The entire thread is a discussion of God's statement in Gen 3:16 describing His expectation of how the man and the woman in marriage is to interact and to teach correct principles to their children. Of how to have a productive partnership in raising a righteous family. How to handle differences and to teach skills for helpful compromises.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's almost as if you have this prepared pattern of deflection away from the real question here.

The real question? Of your obsessive focus on the oppression of women? What "pattern of deflection" have you so sagely detected?

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Which isn't, after all, about feminist ideas, but about whether or not women need to be ruled?

Not the main concern. Please review the posts on Hebrew word related to "with".

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

About whether they have some sort of divinely ordained role as being subservient to their husbands?

LDS teachings is superior to your social justice mantra.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Somehow, of course, it is the men who believe this that are baffled that women generally don't want to marry them ...

Believe what exactly?

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, longview said:

The entire thread is a discussion of God's statement in Gen 3:16 describing His expectation of how the man and the woman in marriage is to interact and to teach correct principles to their children. Of how to have a productive partnership in raising a righteous family. How to handle differences and to teach skills for helpful compromises.

Except that this itself is an interpretation. Why do I say this? Because the generally accepted viewpoint is that Genesis 3:16 doesn't describe God's expectations or teaching of correct principles, but rather the outcome of the fall - a part of the curse - and thus the inevitable conflict that comes to fallen people. After all, having your sorrow increased isn't exactly a way "to have a productive partnership in raising a righteous family" is it. This text isn't advice. It isn't about how God wants anyone to do anything. In fact, those who are arguing that it should mean something like this are in fact arguing for what can only be considered (in LDS thought) a terrestrial state - a fallen state - and nothing at all like what we should be aiming for as a Celestial condition.

This creates a real, and subtle, challenge. Because what it means is that when you argue that this is what God wants, you are putting ideas into God's mouth that represent your desires - your beliefs and expectations.

14 hours ago, longview said:

Not the main concern. Please review the posts on Hebrew word related to "with".

 I think that the best discussion of this idea comes from a parable written by Søren Kierkegaard. It is called the parable of the love letter. He wrote this:

Quote

My listener, how highly do you value God’s Word? Imagine a lover who has received a letter from his beloved. I assume that God’s Word is just as precious to you as this letter is to the lover. I assume that you read and think you ought to read God’s Word in the same way the lover reads this letter. Yet you perhaps say, “Yes, but Scripture is written in a foreign language.” Let us assume, then, that this letter from the beloved is written in a language that the lover does not understand. But let us also assume that there is no one around who can translate it for him. Perhaps he would not even want any such help lest a stranger be initiated into his secrets. What does he do? He takes a dictionary, begins to spell his way through the letter, looks up every word in order to obtain a translation. Now let us imagine that, as he sits there busy with his task, an acquaintance comes in. He knows that the letter has come, because he sees it lying there, and says, “So, you are reading a letter from your beloved.” What do you think the other will say? He answers, “Have you gone mad? Do you think this is reading a letter from my beloved! No, my friend, I am sitting here toiling and moiling with a dictionary to get it translated. At times I am ready to explode with impatience; the blood rushes to my head, and I would just as soon hurl the dictionary on the floor – and you call that reading! You must be joking! No, thank God, as soon as I am finished with the translation I shall read my beloved’s letter; that is something altogether different.

So, 35 years ago, now, that I took my first biblical Hebrew class in university. My professor was a strict traditionalist in his way of reading and understanding the text (he was an assyriologist). I still know more than a little bit of Hebrew. And I don't need to use a lexicon to understand what I am looking at.The problem with the word "with" in English in the text of Genesis 3:14 is that it is a preposition - a single letter in the Hebrew text. And the question of the meaning of the preposition doesn't change the problem of the sentence in Hebrew in the verse - which makes the material you are discussing a part of the curse. Sure we can discuss the implications of the preposition. Here is the short version. Hebrew has several different prepositions. The prefix b- in Hebrew can mean "with" when it is used to express the instrumental use of something. If I kill someone "with a sword", the prefix b- is used. When I hit a nail "with a hammer", the prefix b- is used. There is no sense of "with" in terms of a partnership.

So in the OP, we get this question:

On 11/8/2025 at 9:26 PM, bluebell said:

“Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. … Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ …

Can anyone confirm that statement about the Hebrew word they claim is being used, and what it means?

The word that is translated as "rule over" is יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ. So the part with the proposition is just that last bit: בָּךְ - the 'you' comes in the last letter. Kah is the Hebrew second person singular pronoun. It is used as a suffix in this way, and is attached to nouns, verbs, and propositions to indicate that an action is directed at a single individual or a possession belongs to a single individual. Since this isn't attached to a noun (but to a verb), we have an action and the action is attached to the individual referenced by the pronoun. We can see something akin to the suggestion of "with" in the similar word in Nahum 1:15 (or 2:1 in the Hebrew text): לַעֲבָר- בָּךְ - and here the translation is "through thee" (through you). This is the implication of the "with" as instrumental (See @PacMan earlier). If we read "rule with you," then the "you" is the instrument of the rule. A king might "rule with you" in the sense that the king has given you the power to rule in his place. The king rules with/through you. But it would never be a situation where we have a partnership or an equal relationship. Such a reading makes no sense in any context in Genesis 3:16. Any other reading requires us to emend the text. Given the textual difficulties earlier in the verse, the focus is usually there - but, I suppose we could talk about changing the verb to שׁלב. It would be easy enough to see the loss of the final bet in the verb because of the subsequent prefix. This verb means "to join" and you could work something out about being "joined to him". But in the end, the first concern about the idea of the curse is just really to much to overcome here - that problem would remain even if we proposed an emended Hebrew text that would imply something other than "to rule over you".

14 hours ago, longview said:

LDS teachings is superior to your social justice mantra.

What LDS teachings? Like this one?

Quote

Latter-day Saint theology teaches that gender difference does not superimpose a hierarchy between men and women

The problem, from my perspective is not about social justice (I love you toss around these politically loaded terms as if they really mean something). It's about what the gospel really teaches. I think that part of our problem is that we are unwilling to recognize that (as Elder McConkie pointed out) we don't have to accept past scripture as trumping modern revelation. We don't have to take extraordinary steps to reinterpret scripture to make it fit. We can simply recognize that sometimes scripture represents a past understanding that we now know is incorrect. And we move forward without having to try and find a way to force those scriptures into our new beliefs, and we can embrace the gospel as we understand it today (and recognize that we will yet receive more light and knowledge that helps us remove other problematic ideas from the past).

14 hours ago, longview said:

Believe what exactly?

That men should have dominion over women in some way. (This isn't a direct poke at anyone on this forum). It's not a new issue - it's one that's been discussed my entire lifetime ... but it is an issue that has gotten new life in recent years.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[CV75]

On 11/9/2025 at 8:10 PM, longview said:

How about:

Puzzle over gospel challenges with yearnings in holy matrimony for the highest blessings in the Celestial Kingdom.

-------------parable-----------------desire---------with------------

I thunk some more and you diagrammed it out! 

Puzzle over gospel challenges - parable

with yearnings in - desire (to overcome challenges together as one)

holy matrimony for the highest blessings in the Celestial Kingdom - "with," not over.

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So, please, clarify your ideas on the eternal origin and progression of God, and in turn, mankind.

I'll try not to derail this thread - but I will make a couple of points.

1: LDS theology currently suggests that "All things were created spiritually before they were created physically." 

2: "The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth —a fulness of which can be obtained by mortal man only through obedience to eternal laws. ... Intelligence (the light of truth) has always existed and cannot be created. Members of the Church can lose light and truth through disobedience."

3: "Each person on earth has a dual nature and is composed of a mortal, physical body born to earthly parents and of an eternal spirit created by our Heavenly Father in the premortal life. Our spirits were organized to receive knowledge and intelligence (see Abraham 3:18–19, 21; see also Hebrews 12:9; D&C 88:15; 93:29–38; Moses 3:7; Abraham 5:7). ... Inasmuch as questions arise concerning the nature and origin of “intelligence,” it is imperative for the gospel teacher to consider the following statement by President Joseph Fielding Smith: “Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. [1963], 4:127)."

Given this, Spirits are created in a process that adds something (our spirits) to intelligence. Our post creation existence (including mortality) is a process of our increasing the intelligence (the light and knowledge of God). Our expectation is that God went through a similar process. And if intelligence is the glory of God, then exaltation is our being given that same glory (the same intelligence) that God has.

[longview]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That men should have dominion over women in some way. (This isn't a direct poke at anyone on this forum). It's not a new issue - it's one that's been discussed my entire lifetime ... but it is an issue that has gotten new life in recent years.

That I agree.

14 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

14 hours ago, longview said:

LDS teachings is superior to your social justice mantra.

What LDS teachings? Like this one?

Quote

Latter-day Saint theology teaches that gender difference does not superimpose a hierarchy between men and women

The problem, from my perspective is not about social justice (I love you toss around these politically loaded terms as if they really mean something). It's about what the gospel really teaches. I think that part of our problem is that we are unwilling to recognize that (as Elder McConkie pointed out) we don't have to accept past scripture as trumping modern revelation. We don't have to take extraordinary steps to reinterpret scripture to make it fit. We can simply recognize that sometimes scripture represents a past understanding that we now know is incorrect. And we move forward without having to try and find a way to force those scriptures into our new beliefs, and we can embrace the gospel as we understand it today (and recognize that we will yet receive more light and knowledge that helps us remove other problematic ideas from the past).

The reason that I am pushing back at some of your posts is that I sense a strong undercurrent of cynicism and murmurings in a few places. Although you have many positive statements, certain points you have made appear to be influenced by radical leftist agendas. For example, your hard-headed insistence that the Proclamation on the Family has distinctions between biological sex (basically male and female) and fluid genders (radical social engineering dialectical materialism false narratives).

[the narrator]

27 minutes ago, longview said:

certain points you have made appear to be influenced by radical leftist agendas

BWAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

[longview]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Given this, Spirits are created in a process that adds something (our spirits) to intelligence. Our post creation existence (including mortality) is a process of our increasing the intelligence (the light and knowledge of God). Our expectation is that God went through a similar process. And if intelligence is the glory of God, then exaltation is our being given that same glory (the same intelligence) that God has.

Agree.

Do you agree that each "intelligence" has self-awareness and has no beginning or ending (co-eternal with God)? Do you believe that there are infinite numbers of intelligences? How else will the Plan of Happiness continue with endless generations, unending Eternal Rounds?

Although we do not know what appearances the intelligences had before the First Estate, do you agree that their spirit bodies were made in the image of God? Anthropomorphic?

If there are infinite numbers of intelligences, does this necessitate an infinite universe? No big bangs, no contractions?

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

do you agree that their spirit bodies were made in the image of God?

Can you please explain what it means for a non-material thing to have an image?

6 minutes ago, longview said:

Anthropomorphic?

Our physical bodies are shaped the way they are because of our DNA. I don't have Asian eyes because my premortal spirit had them; it's because my mother is Japanese. Likewise, I have a chin, an opposable thumb, spotty hair on my back, stand upright, a relatively larger brain compared to my body, and no tail because of that same DNA. My physical body at birth was entirely formed the way it was in gestation because of DNA. That is where our physical form comes from, and that form is very clearly seen as a billions-years-long process of natural selection, going back to when the earth was covered in slime made up of our simple single-celled ancestors.

But going back to the (nonsensical) image idea. What does it mean for a non-material being to have a shape--especially an anthropomorphic one? How big are these spirits anyways? Are their shapes fixed? And how does a material being create immaterial beings through sexual intercourse? Does God's material testes produce spiritual sperm with spirit DNA? What is spirit DNA composed of? (Spiritual adenine, thymine, cytosine, or guanine?) The list of why this makes no actual sense can go on and on and on and on. (To paraphrase the late DZ Philips, it makes sense to have a talking kettle in a fairy tale; it makes little sense to have a talking kettle in reality.)

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, longview said:

Do you believe that there are infinite numbers of intelligences?

Can something have unending numbers but not unending creation?

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, the narrator said:

What does it mean for a non-material being to have a shape--especially an anthropomorphic one?

But Saints believe spirit is a material and can be seen if not touched***, such as Christ’s spirit before his birth.

***which may have to do with the type of material rather than being no material…we can see our warm breath in cold air or smog for example, but in day to day experience we typically would describe it as not being able to be touched, the shape felt by our hands though we might say we feel it when the air currents move

[Benjamin McGuire]

54 minutes ago, longview said:

Do you agree that each "intelligence" has self-awareness and has no beginning or ending (co-eternal with God)? Do you believe that there are infinite numbers of intelligences? How else will the Plan of Happiness continue with endless generations, unending Eternal Rounds?

How would I know ... on any of these questions. These are not things on which we have authoritative statements. What I do think is that any scriptural references to these issues come from contexts which do not match up to our current knowledge - and so are actually less than helpful in developing real understanding.

57 minutes ago, longview said:

Although we do not know what appearances the intelligences had before the First Estate, do you agree that their spirit bodies were made in the image of God? Anthropomorphic?

No, I don't think that I agree with this. I think that there is a great deal that is unknown (and probably - at least in our current context - unknowable).

1 hour ago, longview said:

If there are infinite numbers of intelligences, does this necessitate an infinite universe? No big bangs, no contractions?

No. And in fact, all of the evidence that we have points to a finite universe. One of the great challenges here (in all of this speculation) is that we all start with assumptions that aren't generally articulated. Could God create a universe? Mormonism's scriptures contain flawed cosmological models. There is something truly flawed with trying to understand those cosmological models in scripture in terms of our own modern understanding. And in another couple of hundred years, our expectation should be that our understanding of our universe will make today's knowledge seem very poor and very outdated. It's not hard to believe. In my lifetime we have overturned historically certain ideas about the nature of the earth with new theories that have proven to be much more accurate. There are lots of alternate theories to the big bang - that include a finite nature of the universe. My personal favorite is that our universe is the leading edge of a nova from a massive 4th dimensional star turned super-nova. The fact that I like the theory doesn't mean that I think it is the best explanation. But what I do believe is that our universe is a finite space. And if God is responsible for the creation of our universe, then He is responsible for all of it. There may be other universes that have been created. But, we have nothing to do with them - and at this point in time, we have no way of proving or disproving their existence. The assumptions we bring to all of this about God and about the nature of creation determine much of how our arguments are formed. The thing is, the scriptural accounts (as I mention above) aren't really useful in creating theory, or in defending theory. We can only try to reinterpret scripture to fit our theories - and I find that such exercises don't have any real point to them.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No, I don't think that I agree with this. I think that there is a great deal that is unknown (and probably - at least in our current context - unknowable).

What of Christ’s appearance to Nephi or the Brother of Jared before he was born?  

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

What of Christ’s appearance to Nephi before he was born?  

When Moses has God speak to Him from the burning bush, was there a bush that was on fire? It wasn't consumed. (By the way, in our search for details, there is a lot of history behind the belief that the bush was in fact a blackberry bush). Does God have to appear in a specific way or in a specific form? Could Jesus alter His appearance (assuming that he had one)? There was, when I was younger, that myth going around about the painting of the red-robed Christ, and it's accuracy. If we go by most of our art, Jesus was Caucasian, right? I think that what we see in these experiences isn't what other would see if they had those same experiences. This is part of my fascination of the narrative of Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life (and the comparison of it to Lehi's vision of the same thing). The fact that Christ may have appeared to Nephi before He (Christ) was born isn't some indicator that what Nephi saw is exactly what Jesus would look like in His mortality. It wouldn't matter one way or another. We get that other thing - which is that we get hung up on Hebrews 1:3 - and assert that Jesus being the express image of the Father means that Jesus looks exactly like God. And this brings us to that perpetual conundrum. Were Abraham's descendants favored because they looked like God (has the same ethnic features that God the Father does) or did they come to develop those ethnic features because God favored them? And at this point, we start realizing that perhaps all of this is problematic in its own way. Literalist interpretations drawn from texts that weren't written to convey that meaning moves us into strange territory. We hang on to bad interpretations because we tend to favor these literalist ideas. But they don't always really work (and just see where that has taken this forum in terms of speculation in recent years). We don't get to get both the "not one hair will be lost" in the resurrection and the correction of birth defects at the same time. (Not to mention having to ask if that means all of the hair we have grown or if there is some sort of perfect length). I had a roommate in college my second year who used to joke that everyone would achieve that perfect height in the resurrection: 5 foot 4 inches (which coincidentally was exactly how tall he was). I think that if Jesus were to appear to us, a great deal of that appearance would conform to our expectations. Our self-identities in the pre-existence and in the resurrection are not going to be driven, I think, by our perceptions of our own flawed physical forms. And yet, it is easy for people to assume that somehow, everything in the pre-existence was predetermined. Our place of birth, our ethnicity, the color of our eyes - all of this was predetermined so that our mortal genetics would conform to that spiritual creations. I don't believe it.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

there is a lot of history behind the belief that the bush was in fact a blackberry bush

That’s interesting. I love blackberries.    That’s a story I want to dig out.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

he fact that Christ may have appeared to Nephi before He (Christ) was born isn't some indicator that what Nephi saw is exactly what Jesus would look like in His mortality.

I was thinking more along the lines as what it could tell us about the basic form of spirits vs specific features such as hair and eye color….that he had a nose vs whether or not the nose was long, wide, narrow, button, hooked….

 Unless prophets also saw visions of Jesus during his mortal life, they would have nothing to compare his likeness to (no painting or photo).  And if they did see such visions, it makes sense to me if the visions were accurate portrayals, the premortal Christ would choose to appear the same whether he was or not to avoid confusion and not necessarily how he would appear to others in the Spirit World who had no need to see his future mortal existence (just as I believe my husband’s grandfather chose to appear young and in his typical overalls 60 years after his death to his grandmother on her death bed to help her move past her fear of dying and not being recognized by her husband….those overalls were long gone and what resurrected being would choose overalls as a fashion statement  ).

It is correct though there is no strong reason to assume even the basic form that was seen was not also taken on like the specific appearance for just that time and purpose or projected to the prophets’ minds to avoid confusion.  If one assumes it is likely that way because it’s the simplest explanation, then the same reasoning must deal with the burning bush, pillar of cloud, and other visualizations of the spirit of God.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Our place of birth, our ethnicity, the color of our eyes - all of this was predetermined so that our mortal genetics would conform to that spiritual creations. I don't believe it.

This started a line of speculation in my head that similarities in families could be a result of similarities in intelligences that arose (but can something eternal even be said to ‘arise’?) from us being in vicinity of each other and God grouping us as families according to these similarities of intelligence that then get expressed spiritually and physically….but it’s not an appealing idea to me because first, parents who are abusive to their kids and the kids end up not wanting to be identified as like them at all with them (telling them they are inherently, eternally like their abusive parents just seems wrong to me) and second, that would mean God is promoting in-group behaviour (like always with like) rather than encouraging us to engage with people very different than us since the eternities past of our existence, which seems counterproductive to promoting our ability to love all of his children as one.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But Saints believe spirit is a material and can be seen if not touched***, such as Christ’s spirit before his birth.

I'm fully aware of what many/most "Saints believe"--or, rather "claim." Perhaps this is my autistic/Wittgensteinian brain at work, but (like much of LDS "doctrine"), I see the words being used but little clarity in what those words mean. What does it mean for spirit to be "material." Is it material like a gas? Composed of atoms? Plasma? Photons?

What exactly is this "material" that cannot be measured, seen with normal eyes, described, defined, pointed to, heard, touched, etc?

Or is it material in the same way if I said that "the number seven is material," "Santa's magic is material" or "uneasiness is material"?

Edited November 11, 2025 by the narrator

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I see the words being used but little clarity in what those words mean. What does it mean for spirit to be "material." Is it material like a gas? Composed of atoms? Plasma? Photons?

Yep, I go there too.  We talk as if we understand the mysteries so much better than others, but don’t define much of the why and how in that much more useful ways once we get past the statements of what God’s work and glory is and we are the literal children of God, imo…ends up being it’s turtles all the way down.  At best we have taken it a few steps further (and I love the direction it goes, so highly invested in we are part of God’s family and he wants to bring us fully along to where he is, etc).

I have lots of speculative fun trying to figure out the possible physics behind the revelations, I tend to approach the atonement and why it happened that way more from how it changes our material nature, changes of state (and then I move to psychological) rather than economics (using the idea of debt for a situation that involves a Lord of infinite resources never made sense to me) or social theories of justice and mercy…while recognizing they are really two different categories, so probably don’t inform each other and we certainly have no revealed doctrine on basic physical mechanics beyond nothing is created out of nothing.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

we get past the statements of what God’s work and glory is and we are the literal children of God

There is another phrase that has a religious meaning about our value, but it makes zero sense to say we are "literal" children of God. I know what it means to say that I am a "literal child of my parents"--meaning that they sexually reproduced me, involving DNA from my father's sperm combining with DNA from my mother's egg, which were then gestated in my mother's womb until she gave me birth. I even know what it means to say that my adopted cousin is literally the child of my uncle and aunt through an adoptive framework (btw, this is what seems to be clearly taught in Abraham 3, where ALL intelligences/spirits [which seem to be synonymous  in Joseph's thought] are eternally uncreated, and God, as the supreme intelligence offers to help them reach his intelligence).

I'm totally fine if someone says "I'm a child of God and that means I'm special," and I think that the religious meaning of that phrase--espousing one's value--is clear and what most Mormons are conveying when they testify and say they are a "child of God." However, if you don't know or cannot say what it means to be a "literal child of God" then it makes no sense to claim as much.

[Benjamin McGuire]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have lots of speculative fun trying to figure out the possible physics behind the revelations, I tend to approach the atonement and why it happened that way more from how it changes our material nature, changes of state (and then I move to psychological) rather than economics (using the idea of debt for a situation that involves a Lord of infinite resources never made sense to me) or social theories of justice and mercy…while recognizing they are really two different categories, so probably don’t inform each other and we certainly have no revealed doctrine on basic physical mechanics beyond nothing is created out of nothing.

Again though, I think that this is a problematic route. To use an example, lets look at plasma (that narrator mentions). It is discovered in 1879. As a general principle, Joseph Smith simply cannot be referring to plasma when he speaks of spirit as matter. For us to understand Joseph Smith's discussion (i.e. what Joseph Smith meant), we don't ask about the ways in which it can be explained through physics or through our modern knowledge. We have to ask ourselves what did Joseph Smith think of the language he used. When he uses it, he is speaking to a specific audience - and we ask what did that intended audience think of the language that he used. The moment that we move this language into our discussion is the moment that we separate it from its intentions. And while this isn't itself bad, what is bad is for us to draw some conclusions about the meaning of these words - divorced from their context - and then to push those conclusions (the meaning that we create) and pretend that this is exactly what Joseph Smith meant. The same problem exists for scripture. And this creates a second problem. As much as we don't like the idea of ambiguity, such a way of looking at scripture or truth requires us to believe on some level that we have arrived at the truth - that we have (through our experience and knowledge) become uniquely prepared to understand it (in its original context). And yet, in another few decades, we will have a new group of people with new experiences and new knowledge that feel the same way, completely displacing our own perspective of being uniquely prepared to receive that knowledge. It is okay to liken scripture unto ourselves - but we have to recognize that we are recontextualizing it and changing its message. It is not nearly so appropriate to suggest that all scripture was meant especially for us - and not really for anyone who came before (especially those first audiences) or anyone who will come after.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

I'm a child of God and that means I'm special

I see the meaning of “literal children” as “we belong to him as family” rather than being special since every human has that relationship with him according to LDS doctrine….meaning for me it’s an all in relationship for all of us, one I believe we chose…which is different than our mortal families from a mortal point of view (we don’t chose our parents in this life because we aren’t present when the choice is made).

I hesitated to use “literal” because it isn’t doctrinally defined in the sense we know the mechanics of the relationship, how it happened, so I don’t usually use it to describe my own beliefs, but it’s commonly used in my experience*** and I was approaching the fundamental ideas we have as doctrine even if we don’t know what lies underneath that “fundamental level”.

Not as common in general conference as I thought though….

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Again though, I think that this is a problematic route.

Which is why it’s a pure fun exercise meant to entertain my brain and not anything I would teach as informing doctrine or think this is the way God conveyed it to prophets, especially not in the past.  I believe God speaks to prophets and others in the way they are familiar with, pushing expectations of boundaries at time to help us become better people, by why would he leave us with confusion, which is what I see happening if God used the language or ideas of modern physics with Joseph or others.  Hopefully no one takes my “speculation alerts” seriously because they are not meant that way.

Quote

It is okay to liken scripture unto ourselves - but we have to recognize that we are recontextualizing it and changing its message.

My mother got this idea started for me back in my youth (perhaps unintentionally now I think about it given some of her book choices later on, though perhaps she just got caught up in the woo stuff because finally she found others besides me who enjoyed talking about the mind and spirit in new ways), but online discussions have embedded this into my psyche by now.   

Edited November 11, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

9 hours ago, longview said:

Do you agree that each "intelligence" has self-awareness and has no beginning or ending (co-eternal with God)? Do you believe that there are infinite numbers of intelligences? How else will the Plan of Happiness continue with endless generations, unending Eternal Rounds?

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Can something have unending numbers but not unending creation?

I think you misread the last two phrases.