Neither male nor female in the resurrection for some?

[Stargazer]

On 12/1/2025 at 11:48 PM, The Nehor said:

I’m not convinced there are three separate degrees with the Celestial and the one revelatory statement about three degrees probably just refers to the three general kingdoms.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the revelatory statement does seem quite clearly different to your understanding. You need more than one revelatory statement in order to be convinced?

D&C 131:1-4 ->

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

In the October 2023 General Conference, President Oaks's spoke and said:

Quote

"Another unique doctrine and practice of the restored Church is the revealed commandments and covenants that offer all the children of God the sacred privilege of qualifying for the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. That highest destination—exaltation in the celestial kingdom—is the focus of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

... and he goes on to say ...

"In the “celestial” glory there are three levels, of which the highest is exaltation in the celestial kingdom. This is the dwelling of those 'who have received of his fulness, and of his glory,' wherefore, 'they are gods, even the sons [and daughters] of God' and 'dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.'"

His understanding differs from yours, but perhaps he's wrong. 

Why are you unconvinced? 

I have to jump in and edit this because you explained yourself rather satisfactorily in a later post. Bravo!

But I accept the doctrine as explicated in D&C 131:1-4. If it's wrongly canonical, then so be it. Fortunately, accepting it or not in this life is not a bar to exaltation. I don't think.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 12/3/2025 at 2:59 PM, GoCeltics said:

That presents a good case against the need for a heavenly mother.

I disagree. Mothering is more than the physical act of bearing a child. My own mother died when I was seven, and my father remarried. My stepmother did not bear me, but she loved me as if I had been borne in her own body, and brought me up well. I am a product of both mothers, and love them both. But in the all important arena of upbringing, I argue that my stepmother had a greater influence than my birthmother. 

And there's good reason to suspect that there is a heavenly mother, just from the fact that God Himself told us to call Him Father. If there were no Mother, and only an omnipotent being who created us out of a desire to be worshipped, then He should have eschewed any such mere mortal title as Father. 

[Stargazer]

On 12/4/2025 at 2:19 AM, JAHS said:

D&C 131:
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

It seems pretty clear that there are three levels in the Celestial kingdom, but I have often wondered myself if that is what is meant in that scripture. If there are three levels in the celestial kingdom, who would be the ones who would go to each of the other two levels and what would they do there(ministering angels perhaps?) The Gospel Topics doesn't say anything about the three levels in the Celestial Kingdom. William Clayton is the one who recorded this statement made by Joseph Smith in an informal setting and it is possible that he was just referring to the three main degrees of heaven. Joseph Smith never talked about it anywhere else.

I guess I'm a little skeptical that to be true something needs to be stated more than once. 

[Stargazer]

On 12/4/2025 at 5:01 PM, JVW said:

More like chefs making a primordial soup, delicious.

Needs a little more salt.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I guess I'm a little skeptical that to be true something needs to be stated more than once. 

The problem is even that once is ambiguous because Joseph used “celestial” interchangeably at times with “heaven” as did many in his culture and even nowadays.

It makes sense as either “in the heavenly glory, there are three degrees” meaning “in heaven, there are three degrees” which we have revealed as the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial or “in the celestial kingdom, there are three degrees”….I wonder if there is evidence of him using “glory” for the various kingdoms.  Pretty sure there is indirect evidence as in the glory of the stars, the sun, etc.

Unless he clarified, it is easy to see where confusion crept and it wouldn’t be the first time something was assumed and believed to be a revelation when it most likely wasn’t.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The problem is even that once is ambiguous because Joseph used “celestial” interchangeably at times with “heaven” as did many in his culture and even nowadays.

Unless he clarified, it is easy to see where confusion crept and it wouldn’t be the first time something was assumed and believed to be a revelation when it most likely wasn’t.

True! 

But one of the things that convinces me that there must be more than one degree in the Celestial Kingdom is that exaltation must require celestial marriage -- if not, then there will be exalted beings (i.e. single Gods and single Goddesses) who create spirits from intelligences without a partner. And those who happen to be single and female, the Goddesses in those cases, would set the Lord's prayer to start out "Our Mother who art in Heaven..." Or maybe She reveals Herself (falsely) as male, and insists Her spirit children call her Father.

It makes no logical sense for an exalted being to be without a partner. If an exalted being can be either single or married, or, in other words, you don't need a partner, why bother with partners at all? It breaks the algorithm, in my humble opinion.

So, DC 131:1-4 makes perfect sense to me. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I agree.  Paul affirmed the existence of other gods elsewhere while denouncing the worship of idols (which is also done through the Old Testament as well).

But if humans and elements are mere creations, then they are both creations and therefore have no species or kind of being relationship to God, and that would not help Paul's argument.  And if humans have no relationship to God, then why couldn't God be gold or silver or stone?

What are you talking about? Nobody thought that any of their gods were actually the gold or silver or stone statues. That is not what Paul is arguing against. There was a belief that they could be an image of the deity. This is the way that many early Christians understood Jesus, as a living equivalent of an idol carrying the image and/or name of God. A superior version of an idol. This is how he transitions to Jesus and the resurrection.

I'm simply stating Paul's argument, which was this: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device."  In other words, since we are the same kind of being as God, why should we think of deity as like unto gold or silver or stone?  That was Paul's argument against worshiping idols.

I realize that most people in that day did not believe the actual gold or silver or stone object was the god, but it was an index of that god, and that the material media of the idol was a channel to the presence to those deities.  But the argument that Paul used was common, even in the Old Testament (for example, Isaiah 44:9-20, Psalm 115 and 135, Jeremiah 10:1-5).  And Paul recognized this, because he says in his epistle to the Corinthians that idols are "nothing" but that they are really sacrificing to "devils".

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a poem. It is poetic. You’re also really hung up on this definition to the point that context seems to not matter at all.

The context does matter, but so does the word that was used to describe their relationship to Zeus in this case.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Even the near contemporary Greek Stoic philosopher, Epictetus (c 50 - 135 AD), understood humankind's relationship to Zeus that way.   In Epictetus Discourses, 1:13, he wrote:

"Slave yourself, will you not bear with your own brother, who has Zeus for his progenitor, and is like a son from the same seeds and of the same descent from above? But if you have been put in any such higher place, will you immediately make yourself a tyrant? Will you not remember who you are, and whom you rule? that they are kinsmen, that they are brethren by nature, that they are the offspring of Zeus? "

Zeus didn’t birth or even create humanity in Greek myth. Prometheus did. This is just acknowledging Zeus as the supreme deity. It is not suggesting a similarity in kind.

The Greeks understood it as humanity's shared connection to the rational, the divine nature of the universe, which is why the Greek word génos is important to that connection as expressing the same kind of being, one that is rational and capable of reasoning.  You keep focusing on the procreation aspect and I'm talking about the kind of being meaning of the word which is the important point.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think Paul chose that word specifically (from the Greek philosopher) to make his logical argument, so of course I'm putting a lot of importance on Paul's choice of words.

He did choose it carefully for his argument and it works (to a point). It does not support the LDS theology of gods and humanity being of the same type of being.

But that was exactly what Paul was teaching, that God and humanity are the same kind of being.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The meaning of génos just doesn't seem to allow for the figurative relationship that you describe above.  There's a very good reason that the Latin word genus and the English word "genes" is derived from the Greek word génos .

It clearly does because the philosopher claims to be the offspring of Zeus when, again, Zeus did not create humanity much less birth them.

Again, the point is that they are the same kind of being, that's what génos means.  That Zeus did not create humanity much less birth them doesn't change that point.  The Greek gods and humans share a rational divine nature or essence, which when Paul applies the same phrase to the true God of the Bible it does support the LDS theology of gods and humanity as the same kind of being.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what Paul was teaching nor does it establish in any way that humanity and the gods are the same kind of being.

Can you please explain what you think Paul was teaching and how it makes sense in the context of that chapter?  Because I'm not seeing how what you are saying makes sense in that context.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I guess I'm a little skeptical that to be true something needs to be stated more than once. 

I can't count the number of times I have heard non-LDS Christians use the argument that baptism for the dead is only mentioned one time in the Bible, and therefore they are inferring that it is suspect.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But one of the things that convinces me that there must be more than one degree in the Celestial Kingdom is that exaltation must require celestial marriage -- if not, then there will be exalted beings (i.e. single Gods and single Goddesses) who create spirits from intelligences without a partner.

Why is the only possible partnership to create spirits seen as husband and wife?  It’s not apparently needed in anything else, at least in the sense we need to know about it.

It makes sense to me both male and female are needed (assuming doctrine is correct and that is how eternally speaking sexual identity falls into categories) when both sexes are being created if part of creation requires the sharing of some personal element, which idea I am very fond of (literally giving a part of yourself to your children to carry with them as an eternal bond), but not necessarily marriage depending on what being parents actually mean in a community of Gods (and gods?) that are one.

Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I can't count the number of times I have heard non-LDS Christians use the argument that baptism for the dead is only mentioned one time in the Bible, and therefore they are inferring that it is suspect.

It’s not presented as something the writer does himself, which weakens it as a global Christian teaching imo.

Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It’s not presented as something the writer does himself, which weakens it as a global Christian teaching imo.

It's not presented as a teaching at all, it's mentioned in passing in a positive way as a reason to believe in the resurrection from the dead.  It's obviously something that his readers would understand, but that also just emphasizes the importance of the verbal teachings of the apostles in that time and that we shouldn't expect everything they taught to be found in their epistles.

[The Nehor]

On 12/6/2025 at 4:59 PM, Stargazer said:

True! 

But one of the things that convinces me that there must be more than one degree in the Celestial Kingdom is that exaltation must require celestial marriage -- if not, then there will be exalted beings (i.e. single Gods and single Goddesses) who create spirits from intelligences without a partner. And those who happen to be single and female, the Goddesses in those cases, would set the Lord's prayer to start out "Our Mother who art in Heaven..." Or maybe She reveals Herself (falsely) as male, and insists Her spirit children call her Father.

It makes no logical sense for an exalted being to be without a partner. If an exalted being can be either single or married, or, in other words, you don't need a partner, why bother with partners at all? It breaks the algorithm, in my humble opinion.

So, DC 131:1-4 makes perfect sense to me. 

The question is more whether you need a partner to get into the Celestial Kingdom at all so that all those who enter that kingdom are partnered and single people cannot reach that kingdom at all or if the Celestial glory includes subdivisions where single people dwell in the lower ones.

Both work. I think the former is more likely to be the intended reading. Why introduce the idea of three subdivisions without clarifying what they are beyond how you get into the highest? If it is talking about the three general degrees of glory then revelation already gives a (limited) description so it makes sense not to expound on them.

That is assuming this summary is accurate which is a difficult question to answer.

Edit: The difficulty here is that Baptism and Confirmation are often taken as opening the gate to Celestial glory. One theory I have heard about the three subdivisions of the CK idea is that Baptism gets you into the lowest and the other temple ordinances get you into the middle one. I have also heard that the Priesthood gets you into the middle one but that would mean the middle part is (currently) only accessible to men. Another take is that men who qualify but aren’t partnered go to one of the three subdivisions and women in the same condition go to another subdivision. That seems weird to me. It implies a kind of segregation. Plus it suggests that the two subdivisions that aren’t the highest are equally high which sounds off. Or maybe one is higher but that opens a HUGE can of worms.

Edited December 8, 2025 by The Nehor

[GoCeltics]

On 12/6/2025 at 5:05 PM, Stargazer said:

And there's good reason to suspect that there is a heavenly mother, just from the fact that God Himself told us to call Him Father. If there were no Mother, and only an omnipotent being who created us out of a desire to be worshipped, then He should have eschewed any such mere mortal title as Father. 

Mosiah portrays Jesus as a Heavenly Father.

“And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters”.

Does this imply he is married or that we need to be nurtured by his wife?

[GoCeltics]

On 12/5/2025 at 2:00 PM, InCognitus said:

Paul was teaching that humans are the same kind of being as God, and not providing the mechanics of how that was done.  I don't find any reason to speculate beyond what is actually said there.

So you take it Paul was teaching when we were born as spirits, we were gods too; the same type of being God is – a god. Is it accurate?

Edited December 8, 2025 by GoCeltics

[GoCeltics]

On 12/5/2025 at 10:12 AM, teddyaware said:

Why not just be resurrected with anatomically incorrect bodies, like Barbie and Ken, rather than have to spend all eternity encumbered with goofy looking vestigial organs that serve no purpose? To me, this is another perfect example of how some who are able to see are still unable to see.

Those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms won't have spirit children but there's nothing to indicate they are resurrected with fewer organs.

Edited December 8, 2025 by GoCeltics

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

On 12/5/2025 at 12:00 PM, InCognitus said:

Paul was teaching that humans are the same kind of being as God, and not providing the mechanics of how that was done.  I don't find any reason to speculate beyond what is actually said there.

So you take it Paul was teaching when we were born as spirits, we were gods too; the same type of being God is – a god. Is it accurate?

Nope.  As I said, Paul was teaching that humans are the same kind of being as God, and not providing the mechanics of how that was done. 

Do you believe spirits = God or gods?  Do you believe eternal spirits = God or gods?  Or is there more to it than that?  What is a "God" to you?

The Bible says when we are "born again" we become "new creatures".  What type of "new creature" is that?

Edited December 8, 2025 by InCognitus

[JAHS]

On 12/6/2025 at 7:17 PM, Calm said:

On 12/6/2025 at 2:59 PM, Stargazer said:

But one of the things that convinces me that there must be more than one degree in the Celestial Kingdom is that exaltation must require celestial marriage -- if not, then there will be exalted beings (i.e. single Gods and single Goddesses) who create spirits from intelligences without a partner.

Why is the only possible partnership to create spirits seen as husband and wife?  It’s not apparently needed in anything else, at least in the sense we need to know about it.

It makes sense to me both male and female are needed (assuming doctrine is correct and that is how eternally speaking sexual identity falls into categories) when both sexes are being created if part of creation requires the sharing of some personal element, which idea I am very fond of (literally giving a part of yourself to your children to carry with them as an eternal bond), but not necessarily marriage depending on what being parents actually mean in a community of Gods (and gods?) that are one.

Edited Saturday at 07:30 PM by Calm

The D&C says about those who don't choose eternal marriage:
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Exaltation means the ability to increase in glory by the creation of spirit children and in that way to have eternal increase. And there are those who do not marry
 according to God's law and are appointed angels to those who did do that. In order for those people to be angels to those who are exalted they woud have to be in the same glory in order to be angels to those people. I don't think the angels could be those who inherit a Terrestrial glory.

Edited December 8, 2025 by JAHS

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The D&C says about those who don't choose eternal marriage:
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Exaltation means the ability to increase in glory by the creation of spirit children and in that way to have eternal increase. And there are those who do not marry
 according to God's law and are appointed angels to those who did do that. In order for those people to be angels to those who are exalted they woud have to be in the same glory in order to be angels to those people. I don't think the angels could be those who inherit a Terrestrial glory.

Good point.

Still since it’s a thought experiment or so it seemed to me, I am not talking about nonexalted beings though I don’t rule them out because even if the glory goes to another, why wouldn’t someone of that level of spirituality (assuming here three levels in the Celestial Kingdom) want to contribute in any way they could to another’s glory?  

However, in this case, I am focusing on the oneness that exists between those who have fully accepted Christ’s atonement and why wouldn’t there be very close friendships and partnerships between those of the opposite sex given there won’t be an issue with inappropriate feelings?

Is it likely given the revelation we currently have that such partnerships would contribute to spirit creation?  No, but given the incompleteness of revelation and given Stargazer was talking about the possibility of single beings who were exalted (and therefore our current understanding is incorrect) and given we don’t know the process of creation of spirit children—which may be adoption or forming out of elements or providing a spirit body for a person of intelligence, whatever that may be, it seemed appropriate in that thought experiment to point out there is already more than one form of partnership revealed for the act of creation.

Even assuming only married couples get exalted (which is most likely given current revelation) and therefore are the only beings in the Celestial Kingdom (if celestial three degrees refer to the three kingdoms), why do we assume parenthood is only within the bonds of a couple given the ultimate oneness centered around Christ and God among the exalted?  We know little about Heavenly Mother and the role she fills.  I would say we only know she exists at this point and has some sort of parent relationship with us, but that still leaves so many possibilities and the right answer is likely one we can’t comprehend, so it’s kind of amusing to me we are saying it can’t be this or that.

I am thinking more along the lines of a couple being the focus of the group and others contributing to them through some sort of spiritual exchange…maybe the couple provides the spiritual elements and others provide additional spiritual energy needed to bind the elements together than unmarried male and female producing spirits on their own.

If creation of children is the highest act of creation exalted beings are blessed to be involved in, it seems odd to me with the huge emphasis on oneness that at that point of most profound creation, the community who are one with the couple are excluded in participating.

Edited December 8, 2025 by Calm

[GoCeltics]

On 12/8/2025 at 10:32 AM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe spirits = God or gods?  Do you believe eternal spirits = God or gods?  Or is there more to it than that?  What is a "God" to you?

The Bible says when we are "born again" we become "new creatures".  What type of "new creature" is that?

No created spirit is a God or god.  Except for God, I don't believe spirits are eternal.  I would define God as the one, eternal, uncreated, supreme being.  By a new creature, it’s a change in mind and heart. Some day it will involve a resurrected body.

Would you fill in the blanks?:  God is a ---?  The offspring of a --- is by nature a --- ?

Edited December 10, 2025 by GoCeltics

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

No created spirit is a God or god.  

Agreed. 

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Except for God, I don't believe spirits are eternal. 

 

You can believe what you like.

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

 I would define God as the one, eternal, uncreated, supreme being.  

 

As written and how I understand those terms... Agreed.

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

By a new creature, it’s a change in mind and heart. Some day it will involve a resurrected body.

 

No objections here.

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Would you fill in the blanks?:  God is a ---?  The offspring of a --- is by nature a --- ?

God is a(n) eternal being.

The offspring of a(n) eternal being is by nature a(n) eternal being.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Would you fill in the blanks?:  God is a ---?  The offspring of a --- is by nature a --- ?

I see where you are going with this.  Does that mean you believe that when the apostle Paul taught (in the Bible) that we are all the offspring of God, that he was teaching that we are all gods?  Or if you believe that Paul was only teaching that we are mere creations of God, does that mean you don't believe the Bible (since the Bible says we are God's "offspring")?

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

No created spirit is a God or god.  Except for God, I don't believe spirits are eternal.

The Bible doesn't say spirits are created, does it?  The Bible says our spirits came from God and they return to God. So why wouldn't you believe that spirits are eternal, like God is eternal?

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I would define God as the one, eternal, uncreated, supreme being. 

I define God as "the Supreme Being in whom we believe, whom we worship, and to whom we pray. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things."

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Would you fill in the blanks?:  God is a ---?

See the definition above.

6 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Would you fill in the blanks?:  God is a ---?  The offspring of a --- is by nature a --- ?

I believe Paul was teaching that we are the same kind of being as God, meaning we are eternal spirits that came from God.  That is our nature, our eternal core.

But as noted above, to be "God" is much more than that.  None of us are the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge.  But God is offering us that through the atonement of his Son, Jesus Christ.  Through him those who overcome can sit with God in his throne in the same way Jesus sits on the throne with his Father.

Edited December 10, 2025 by InCognitus

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I believe Paul was teaching that we are the same kind of being as God, meaning we are eternal spirits that came from God.  That is our nature, our eternal core.

Did I write something that makes you think that I think differently?

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did I write something that makes you think that I think differently?

No, sorry that was a misquote.  I scrolled back to quote that section of the post by GoCeltics and grabbed your post by mistake.  I just edited my post and fixed that.

Edited December 10, 2025 by InCognitus

[GoCeltics]

On 12/10/2025 at 1:36 PM, InCognitus said:

I see where you are going with this.  Does that mean you believe that when the apostle Paul taught (in the Bible) that we are all the offspring of God, that he was teaching that we are all gods?  Or if you believe that Paul was only teaching that we are mere creations of God, does that mean you don't believe the Bible (since the Bible says we are God's "offspring")?

If there is a heavenly mother and father then the offspring of a human male (a God) and human female (a God) is a God.

 

On 12/10/2025 at 1:36 PM, InCognitus said:

The Bible doesn't say spirits are created, does it?  The Bible says our spirits came from God and they return to God. So why wouldn't you believe that spirits are eternal, like God is eternal?

There is ample support for spirits being created.

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). What “returns” to God must have come from God. An eternal spirit does not exist outside of God. Therefore, the spirit has its origin in God Himself.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Adam’s spirit is directly received from God.

“The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zechariah 12:1). The spirit originates from God’s creative will.

“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9). God as Father of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:6) means He brought the nation into existence. God as Father of lights (James 1:17) implies He created the heavenly lights. For God to be “Father of spirits” means He is the source from which spirits proceed, not merely the ruler over them.

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalm 139:13–14). God forms the inner person, not merely the outer body. This includes the conscience, mind, or soul/spirit.

Then we have angels (spirits) that are a separate creation from humans. “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” (Psalm 104:4, Hebrews 1:14). Jesus makes a distinction between flesh-and-bone humans and angels in Luke 24:39.

“Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created” (Psalm 148:2-5).

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:16). Jesus created Lucifer too.

Human spirits are redeemed by Christ who became human. Angels are not redeemed by Christ’s incarnation (Hebrew 2:14–17).

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

If there is a heavenly mother and father then the offspring of a human male (a God) and human female (a God) is a God.

Only if you imagine that spirit beings come into existence (and didn't exist previously) through procreation of a male and female, and that they are born possessing all other attributes that are required to be "God" as explained previously. Do you really imagine that spirit children of heavenly parents emerge as the Creators, Rulers, and Preservers of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge?  Those attributes are all part of the biblical definition of "God", and you are ignoring that part. 

Spirit beings are eternal, they co-exist with God.  They become children of heavenly parents in some way that is not explained, and that sets them up with the potential to gain the attributes of God (Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge) assuming they keep God's covenants and follow the plan that God set up for them to do that.

I know you don't believe the Bible when it says we are the offspring of God, but that's exactly what it says.  Shouldn't we should be basing our doctrines on what the Bible teaches instead of trying to reinterpret it (or ignore it) to fit what we want to believe?

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

There is ample support for spirits being created.

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). What “returns” to God must have come from God. An eternal spirit does not exist outside of God. Therefore, the spirit has its origin in God Himself.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Adam’s spirit is directly received from God.

These verses both support the fact that spirits are eternal and co-exist with God.  They have origin from God himself indeed, for we are his "offspring", and God is the "Father of spirits".  So this doesn't help your position.

And God putting into Adam his spirit is an indication that the creation of man (his physical body which was formed from the dust of the earth) is completely separate from the origin of his spirit.

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zechariah 12:1). The spirit originates from God’s creative will.

You are adding "God's creative will".  That's not indicated in this verse.

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9). God as Father of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:6) means He brought the nation into existence. God as Father of lights (James 1:17) implies He created the heavenly lights. For God to be “Father of spirits” means He is the source from which spirits proceed, not merely the ruler over them.

Yes, God is the "Father of spirits".  But you are trying to interpret this in some figurative way, when the context of the verse is comparing our literal earthly fathers (fathers of our flesh) with our Heavenly Father (the Father of our spirits).  This supports what I was saying above and doesn't show that God "created" spirits. 

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalm 139:13–14). God forms the inner person, not merely the outer body. This includes the conscience, mind, or soul/spirit.

This says nothing about God forming the inner person. You added that.  God shapes us and forms us by drawing us to follow him and his plan.

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Then we have angels (spirits) that are a separate creation from humans. “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” (Psalm 104:4, Hebrews 1:14). Jesus makes a distinction between flesh-and-bone humans and angels in Luke 24:39.

Here is the ESV translation of Psalm 104:4, "he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire.".  Here's the ESV translation of Hebrews 1:7, "Of the angels he says, 'He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.'"   This isn't talking about God creating the spirits, it's talking about how God uses spirits (or "winds") as his messengers (angels) and "flaming fire" to serve him and assist in his work.

And Hebrews 1:13-14 says, "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?  Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" God organizes the spirits of men to serve as his "angels" (messengers).  This doesn't say anything about God creating them.

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created” (Psalm 148:2-5).

God created the position of "angels" (his messengers) for the spirits of men that he called into that service, along with his "hosts", which (biblically speaking) are the stars and objects in the sky.  So this doesn't help your claim either.

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:16). Jesus created Lucifer too.

That verse says nothing about Jesus creating Lucifer.  The "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" are the governing forces, as it is explained in Titus 3:1, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work". (Titus 3:1)

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Human spirits are redeemed by Christ who became human. Angels are not redeemed by Christ’s incarnation (Hebrew 2:14–17).

Hebrews 2:14-17 doesn't say what you are claiming about the redemption of Christ, above.

So really there is no biblical support for the idea that spirits are created, and the first two verses you quoted prove the opposite.  Our spirits are co-eternal with God and we originated from God.

Edited December 13, 2025 by InCognitus