Adam forgetting all

[Lachoneus]

FWIW, this may help for context of the view of Joseph F. Smith's presidency:

As may this.

Three and a half years after the 1910 statement, President Smith further explained his understanding of Adam's origin:

I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions and that His Son is in His own likeness, and that man is created in the image of God. The Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, His Father, grow and develop to the Supreme Being that He now is. Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

(Joseph F. Smith, Deseret Evening News (

[David T]

As may this.

Three and a half years after the 1910 statement, President Smith further explained his understanding of Adam's origin:

(Joseph F. Smith, Deseret Evening News (

[David T]

You may as well give up, because you are fighting with one of the many evolutionist apologists here on the board. You can't win, they will just end up calling you ignorant or arrogant...

Enter Ad Hominem. Awesome.

[MDalby]

With no claims to revelation on the subject , it appears to me that the First Presidency Statement acknowledging and flat out saying that the revealed word of God has not revealed sufficient on the subject is in fact the most definitive statement on the subject.

The official stand, therefore, of the Church is: While there are many valid (and strongly worded) opinions, there is not sufficient revelation on the subject. Whatever you personally believe, can we at least agree on that?

I agree that we have not had the question FULLY answered, but that does not mean that there is anything that is incorrect in what the brethren have already said. We don't know the details. We can agree that we just don't know the details. But, I see nothing that would indicate the statements that have been made are incorrect.

I am fine waiting for more revelation on the matter though.

[David T]

I agree that we have not had the question FULLY answered, but that does not mean that there is anything that is incorrect in what the brethren have already said. We don't know the details. We can agree that we just don't know the details. But, I see nothing that would indicate the statements that have been made are incorrect.

I am fine waiting for more revelation on the matter though.

Until then, we should probably agree not to assume those who disagree are either ignorant or have weak testimonies then, huh?

[MDalby]

Until then, we should probably agree not to assume those who disagree are either ignorant or have weak testimonies then, huh?

I never thought either of those regarding you or others. I just thought you were wrong.

[David T]

I never thought either of those regarding you or others. I just thought you were wrong.

The feeling is mutual then

[MDalby]

The feeling is mutual then

[TAO]

You seem to believe (and it is your right) that spirit children are engendered via some sort of sexual union. This may be true, but it more likely not. We know essentially nothing about the process of begetting spirit children. It is pointless to speculate on the matter.

Hmmmm.... LeSellers, I have to say, while it's not stated, I would say it is more likely true actually... but yah... that's my personal opinion... if you would like, I could explain why I think so... but yah.

[MDalby]

Hmmmm.... LeSellers, I have to say, while it's not stated, I would say it is more likely true actually... but yah... that's my personal opinion... if you would like, I could explain why I think so... but yah.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

[TAO]

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Well, as said, it's not stated and all, but it's something that persay... makes sense.

D&C 77:2

...

Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?

A. They are ^afigurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing ^bheaven, the ^cparadise of God, the ^dhappiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the ^espirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the ^fbeast, and every other creature which God has created

....

In other words... are spiritual selves are very much similar in 'sight' (to our spiritual eyes) in comparison to our physical selves.

And it leads to thinking... why did God create forests versus something else? Or frogs versus some other animal? Or the material Carbon, which can be organized into many different materials of extraordinarily different properties?

If I have learned one thing about God's nature, it's that he isn't' arbitrary. He doesn't just 'make things up'. No, these things represent something spiritual. I wouldn't be at all suprised if there were forests, or frogs, or a spritual version of the material Carbon in the spiritual world. Everything matching up. Except temptation and sin.

And it also makes one wonder... why did God make us talk? Why did he make us have the ability to see when there could be things better? And in this case... why did he make us procreate in the manner we do?

There is purpose behind it all. And a representation behind it all.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if God made us procreate in the manner we do... because it's similar to how it is done in the Spirit.

Mind you, I would prefer if this conversation did not go to deep into the issue; I can tell you the Spirit has told me God would not like that.

But those are my thoughts.

[LeSellers]

LeSellers,

You, as all the rest of our community, are invited to call me by my name: Lehi. My mother-in-law does, and so did presidents Carter and Clinton.

I have to say, while it's [a spiritual form of sexual intercourse as the means of spiritual procreation is] not stated, I would say it is more likely true actually... but yah... that's my personal opinion..

While I can appreciate your position, I think it raises a host of questions that need addressing. You seem (correctly, in my view) reticent about discussing them.

The primary one, though, in my mind, is the fact that Father and Mother must produce billions or trillions of children for each earth They populate. Even were we to assume a short gestation for each of us, that would be a monumental task. Spirits, as we know, are not confined to any physical container except their own bodies (and even then, it's a temporary thing until resurrection). So keeping them/us within Her body would present a problem, however our spiritual bodies might be initiated according to your preference.

My view is that Mother and Father each have a certain Priesthood calling and that, together and only together, They can "inspiritate" intelligences. The method and procedure is a sacred Patriarchal Priesthood ordinance, and this is the core of Exaltation.

While I admit freely that my sketch of Their celestial work and glory is both limited and supposition, it fits with the things we do know of Them in ways that individual, or even multiple, spirit gestation misses.

Lehi

[David T]

Joseph seemed to understand spirits/intelligences as being synonyms, both of which were co-eternal with God (As far as I'm aware, Joseph never spoke of 'begetting spirit children'). The only form of parent-child relationship that appears to be would allow for this is that of Adoption, or that of Covenant Father (the way Christ is the Father of those who enter into Covenant with Him, and accept Him as Lord.)

[Lachoneus]

The primary one, though, in my mind, is the fact that Father and Mother must produce billions or trillions of children for each earth They populate. Even were we to assume a short gestation for each of us, that would be a monumental task.

What does "time" matter to eternal beings?

Spirits, as we know, are not confined to any physical container except their own bodies (and even then, it's a temporary thing until resurrection). So keeping them/us within Her body would present a problem, . . ..

What is the "physical" interaction between a nascent spirit and the spirit body of its exalted, resurrected Mother-to-Be?

Joseph seemed to understand spirits/intelligences as being synonyms, both of which were co-eternal with God

Have you used an 1820s dictionary to study the definitions of the words "spirit" "soul" "intelligent" or "mind"? I found it instructive. See also the 28 March 1841 quote below.

(As far as I'm aware, Joseph never spoke of 'begetting spirit children').

I found this statement from Joseph helpful, especially his use of the word "gender." You may also.

Next Meeting Meeting on sunday Joseph Reads the 38th Ch

[Ceeboo]

Perhaps I can help in the seeming mass confusion.

Heavenly mother is the one who forgot (Not Adam)

Allow me to expalin further,

The night that Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father conceieved Adam, Heavenly Mother was heavily medicated (fighting a bad bronchial infection) and thus, she simply forgot the entire evening.

Anyway, hope that helps to clarify this thread a little.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[David T]

Have you used an 1820s dictionary to study the definitions of the words "spirit" "soul" "intelligent" or "mind"? I found it instructive.

I have. They are, and especially as used by Joseph, quite synonymous.

I found this statement from Joseph helpful, especially his use of the word "gender." You may also.

In the context, the statement of the individual summing up Joseph's idea is that of combining or sorting together. The spirit is not said to be begotten, nor is the physical body. The agreement is that tabernacles will be formed so that the two can be combined/united together.

What relationship does Christ have to the Father? Was he "adopted"?

Christ is called the Only Begotten, the Only Son. Interesting enough, so is Isaac in an Abrahamic context, even though we are well aware of the existence of Ishmael. It is also the consistent teaching of the Church that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a literal virgin. We do not know the details of the sacred means of the conception of the Lord in the flesh, save that it involved Mary being overcome by the Spirit of the Lord.

What we do know, is that there is a unique, sacred, and preeminent relationship between Our Father, and His Son.

[TAO]

You, as all the rest of our community, are invited to call me by my name: Lehi. My mother-in-law does, and so did presidents Carter and Clinton.

Sorry Lehi, I forgot yah XD. My mind sometimes drifts off a bit...

While I can appreciate your position, I think it raises a host of questions that need addressing. You seem (correctly, in my view) reticent about discussing them.

Yah, I have a feeling that it is on the border of 'too sacred for discussion'. That's why I try and be a bit vauge about it... also... cuz it's so sacred, I'm not very sure how much God would reveal to us about the subject. That's why I'm so... hesitant.

The primary one, though, in my mind, is the fact that Father and Mother must produce billions or trillions of children for each earth They populate. Even were we to assume a short gestation for each of us, that would be a monumental task. Spirits, as we know, are not confined to any physical container except their own bodies (and even then, it's a temporary thing until resurrection). So keeping them/us within Her body would present a problem, however our spiritual bodies might be initiated according to your preference.

Well I've looked at things, and it seems to me as if time means very little to them. It's almost as if... it doesn't exist at all. Or in the limited sense it does, it has very little meaning to us. And I think it is far more than trillions... perhaps quintillions of people, of souls. Even more numerous than the sands in the sea. An enormous amount. But I think, it the state they exist in (it looks very close to timeless to us), it doesn't matter how long it takes for them to produce us. It IS a monumental task - in fact, it is the most important task in the universe. So important, that everything in life is leading up to it.

That is an interesting point, that of spirits not being confined to any physical container except their own bodies. And I was thinking... is it possible for something spiritual to contain that which is spiritual? I'm not sure if it will be in this way or another than souls will remain in their kingdom of glory, you most definitely could be right. But perhaps a spiritual container? Or... although I have no idea how this would work... an 'emotional' container... similar to us not wanting to be in the presence of the Father if we sin so much, because it is so painful.

But I'm not even sure I'm going in the right direction yah...

My view is that Mother and Father each have a certain Priesthood calling and that, together and only together, They can "inspiritate" intelligences. The method and procedure is a sacred Patriarchal Priesthood ordinance, and this is the core of Exaltation.

I think this is correct. It takes a priesthood power to develop that... a priesthood power designated by their parents.

While I admit freely that my sketch of Their celestial work and glory is both limited and supposition, it fits with the things we do know of Them in ways that individual, or even multiple, spirit gestation misses.

It does fit, that it does. Even if their form of creating spirits is similar to how we form physical bodies, I think there is most certainly a priesthood part of it. Much like the many gifts of the priesthood here on this earth, the power is amazing, that it is. The priesthood can remove mountains, and split waters, I think it is most certainly a part of this thing, that it is.

[baddonkey]

I agree that Brigham Young taught physical procreation. It's a key part of his Adam-God developing understanding. (I believe his speculations, in their context, were way off.)

Joseph F. Smith was attempting to re-interpert his words to teach something closer to understood orthodoxy.

In short: The intent of JFS's letter is different than the intent of Brigham Youngs' sermons.

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have replied sooner but I was out of town. Do you think that Brigham Young believed that they forgot all by eating physical food and their bodies becoming more physical than spiritual? Maybe this was overlooked when the church removed Adam/God teachings from the endowment? I seem to remember that they were removed in the early 1900's.

[David T]

Thanks for pointing that out. I would have replied sooner but I was out of town. Do you think that Brigham Young believed that they forgot all by eating physical food and their bodies becoming more physical than spiritual? Maybe this was overlooked when the church removed Adam/God teachings from the endowment? I seem to remember that they were removed in the early 1900's.

Brigham Young appeared to agree with Orson Pratt with the idea that Adam ate a literal contaminated fruit that charged his body with mortal and material matter, which would allow him to create mortal offspring. One of they key (VERY key) differences between them was that Brigham Young taught that the person who partook of the fruit was the Resurrected Michael, who was also the father of all spirits (the son of Jehovah, and Grandson of Elohim), and had the responsibility to make physical bodies for his own begotten spirits.

While Joseph F. Smith may have eventually conceded and believed the concept of physical procreation, he did highly disagree with those other key elements of Brigham Young's teachings, and set firmly in place the identities of Elohim, (father of spirits), Jehovah (Jesus Christ), and Michael (Adam - the son of Elohim). The Father and the Son was a very important document which truly codified and proclaimed these classifications for the first time.

I don't think modern Mormons understand how much Joseph F. Smith did to codify and clarify and correlate and just plain set in order much of what we understand today, and how we understand it, concerning doctrine and practice.

[baddonkey]

I seem to remember one instance of Joseph F. Smith agreeing with Brigham Young while he was still alive.

I'll have to look that one up.