The souls of men?

[inquiringmind]

D&C 132:63 says that wives are sealed to men "for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men."

But what's meant by "the souls of men"?

Would they be spirit children (like we were in our pre-mortal existence), or children born with bodies of flesh and bone (like the bodies of the mothers that bear them)?

[LDS Guy 1986]

D&C 132:63 says that wives are sealed to men "for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men."

But what's meant by "the souls of men"?

Would they be spirit children (like we were in our pre-mortal existence), or children born with bodies of flesh and bone (like the bodies of the mothers that bear them)?

Exalted couples will have the opportunity to have Spirit Children just like Heavenly Father did with his wife.

I see no support in the scriptures or theology of the LDS Church to propose that exalted couples who have more children of flesh and blood after they become gods, this verse seems to only be able to logically refer to spirit children.

[inquiringmind]

I see no support in the scriptures or theology of the LDS Church to propose that exalted couples who have more children of flesh and blood after they become gods, this verse seems to only be able to logically refer to spirit children.

I didn't ask if they'd have more children of "flesh and blood," I asked if the children of "flesh and bone" parents would be "flesh and bone."

How could the physical union of embodied parents (with bodies of flesh and bone) produce unembodied ofspring?

II don't understand that (can anyone help?)

[LDS Guy 1986]

I didn't ask if they'd have more children of "flesh and blood," I asked if the children of "flesh and bone" parents would be "flesh and bone."

How could the physical union of embodied parents (with bodies of flesh and bone) produce unembodied ofspring?

II don't understand that (can anyone help?)

I answered this in my above post, once we are exalted we no longer have children of flesh and blood, but can only produce spirit children. What we do not know is the how of this celestial procreation, it seems illogical that two physical forms having intercourse could produce a spirit child instead of a physical child, of course it also seems illogical that a man could be perfect and sinless and that the willing sacrifice of that one perfect man can pay for the transgressions of every man, woman, and child that ever lived.

Someday we can know the how, but for now we simply know that it is. Celestial parents do not have physical children they have spiritual children, they make only spirits through there celestial procreation.

Seeing that Heavenly Mother is the mother of Billions of Spirits I doubt procreation of Spiritual Children is anything like procreation of a physical child, one operates on a lower law and the other a higher.

If Heavenly mother created our spirits the same way a mortal mother creates a child in here womb, then we are talking about literally constant birth and labor for a near infinite amount of time (remember that 1 day on Kolob is 1,000 year to us). We do know through Genesis that there wasn't suppose to be pain during childbirth so the issue of labor isn't a problem, to me the bigger problem is the length of time needed to conceive each spirit child.

God can create the world and everything in it in 6 days, but it takes Heavenly Mother 9 celestial months to produce 1 spirit child (approximately 36,000 year) seems to be not make much sense to me personally.

The important thing to remember here is we live by a lower law a temporal law, and the Gods live by the Celestial Law, it two completely different concepts of time and physic so I doubt that temporal birth and spiritual birth have much similarity at all.

[inquiringmind]

Seeing that Heavenly Mother is the mother of Billions of Spirits I doubt procreation of Spiritual Children is anything like procreation of a physical child, one operates on a lower law and the other a higher

I was told that "Heavenly Mother" is speculation, not doctrine.

Is it doctrine?

[LDS Guy 1986]

I was told that "Heavenly Mother" is speculation, not doctrine.

Is it doctrine?

Most definitely, "All human beings

[inquiringmind]

These critics fail to remember (most likely because they are not active LDS or even LDS at all) that the inspired words of the Living Prophet (such as the Proclamation) are also scriptures and part of the Standard Works of the Church (even if they are not printed in the Quads or Triple Combinations)

But Brigham Young was a Living Prophet, and not everything he said was inspired (unless the Adam/God thing is doctrine?)

Doesn't a teaching have to be voted on before it's Doctrine?

[LDS Guy 1986]

But Brigham Young was a Living Prophet, and not everything he said was inspired (unless the Adam/God thing is doctrine?)

Doesn't a teaching have to be voted on before it's Doctrine?

For Young's time it was doctrine, but more recent prophets have said it isn't and like we are told "a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet".

The living Prophet approved the Proclamation as First Councilor to President Hinckley, this proclamation was also sustained by unanimous vote in General Conference making it doctrine of the Church like you said we do.

So either way to look at it, the concept that we have Heavenly Parents (which means a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother) is doctrine.

Your best bet to find current LDS doctrine is the Standard Works found at: http://lds.org/scriptures/?lang=eng

and the Official websites of the Church found at www.lds.org and www.mormon.org

[TAO]

inquiringmind, there may be several different meanings of that verse, LDSguy has provided the one I like the best, but remember also, women are a 'help meet' for men, and I guess it could be meant in that way also.

I'd ask the spirit, that I would... perhaps there will be a deeper answer for you.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[Lachoneus]

I answered this in my above post, once we are exalted we no longer have children of flesh and blood, but can only produce spirit children. What we do not know is the how of this celestial procreation, it seems illogical that two physical forms having intercourse could produce a spirit child instead of a physical child, of course it also seems illogical that a man could be perfect and sinless and that the willing sacrifice of that one perfect man can pay for the transgressions of every man, woman, and child that ever lived.

In the April 1977 priesthood session of general conference President Kimball quoted Brigham Young's explanation that

when our spirits receive our bodies, and through our faithfulness we are worthy to be crowned, we will then receive authority to produce both spirit and body.

Spencer W. Kimball,

[LDS Guy 1986]

In the April 1977 priesthood session of general conference President Kimball quoted Brigham Young's explanation that

Spencer W. Kimball,

[CV75]

Would they be spirit children (like we were in our pre-mortal existence), or children born with bodies of flesh and bone (like the bodies of the mothers that bear them)?

There's another thread that goes into the idea of Adam being a physical as well as spiritual child of Heavenly parents.

[zerinus]

D&C 132:63 says that wives are sealed to men "for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men."

But what's meant by "the souls of men"?

Would they be spirit children (like we were in our pre-mortal existence), or children born with bodies of flesh and bone (like the bodies of the mothers that bear them)?

You are quoting that passage out of context. "Bear the souls of men" refers to their mission here on earth, not in heaven. Eternal marriage is for their "exaltation in the eternal worlds," but "bearing the souls of men" refers to what takes place here on earth.

[TAO]

You are quoting that passage out of context. "Bear the souls of men" refers to their mission here on earth, not in heaven. Eternal marriage is for their "exaltation in the eternal worlds," but "bearing the souls of men" refers to what takes place here on earth.

Nack, I don't think this is quite correct, the context uses the word 'that' meaning that the second clause may be inclusive in the first (or it may not at the same time).

The Earth part is mentioned with 'multiply and replish the earth', whereas this part is after the talk about exaltation in the eternal worlds.

So I think inquiringmind's question is thoughtful, that it is, and deserves some pondering over.

Best Wishes,

TAO =P

[zerinus]

Nack, I don't think this is quite correct, the context uses the word 'that' meaning that the second clause may be inclusive in the first (or it may not at the same time).

The Earth part is mentioned with 'multiply and replish the earth', whereas this part is after the talk about exaltation in the eternal worlds.

So I think inquiringmind's question is thoughtful, that it is, and deserves some pondering over.

Best Wishes,

TAO =P

I agree that there is a possible ambiguity in it; but I think that my reading of it is better borne out by the context. I think that some of that ambiguity can be removed by replacing the comma before "that they may bear the souls of men" with a semicolon, as follows:

D&C 132

:

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds

;

that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

The words between the two semicolons then become parenthetical, and the words following the second semicolon are linked to the words before the first semicolon, if that was not too complicated a way of putting it!

[TAO]

I agree that there is a possible ambiguity in it; but I think that my reading of it is better borne out by the context. I think that some of that ambiguity can be removed by replacing the comma before "that they may bear the souls of men" with a semicolon, as follows:

D&C 132

:

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds

;

that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

The words between the two semicolons then become parenthetical, and the words following the second semicolon are linked to the words before the first semicolon, if that was not too complicated a way of putting it!

That may be correct, I do not know =).

[mfbukowski]

But not at the same time, your produce the spirit children first, then you produce the plan for them to inherit mortal bodies if they are worthy.

So you answer has no purpose at all except to spread confusion, the scriptures tell us that Heavenly Father begot our spirits only, the only person to be begotten by Heavenly Father both spirit and flesh was Jesus Christ. So ultimately in the context of the discussion you are wrong not right.

Not at the "same time"?

When everything is "present" to the Lord? Good luck with that analysis.

[inquiringmind]

For Young's time it was doctrine, but more recent prophets have said it isn't and like we are told "a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet".

But was it "doctrine" in Brigham Young's time?

Was it ever voted on at that time?

Does the teaching of a living prophet have to be aproved by vote to become "doctrine"?

[TAO]

But was it "doctrine" in Brigham Young's time?

Nah, it wasn't... it was BY's thoughts... it didn't get ratified as doctrine.

Was it ever voted on at that time?

Yes, I belive it was voted on. No, it didn't succeed.

Does the teaching of a living prophet have to be aproved by vote to become "doctrine"?

Yes.

Mmm.... concerning the relation of creation of spirits... I have a feeling (though many believe differently than I do) that it is rather similar to how it occurs on earth (having children). But I do not wish to talk about it much more than that. There is more perfect knowledge that I need before going further than that.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Questing Beast]

What a loopy topic for debate! Your imaginations can far exceed anything broached here so far. Therefore, an infinite existence as immortals cannot possibly be limited by the finite scriptures on a mortal (that is to say dying) world.

A perfect immortal is not going to spread blood everywhere in childbirth. A spirit being is not going to be immaterial, just immortal. Any attempt to inject details into the procreation of immortals is speculation at best.

My belief is that only "God" creates immortal beings. They (we) appear in the "world" - in space-time - and they (we) have no physical parents at all. There is no gestation, no travail, no childbirth as we understand that process. There could very well be some form of union between immortals involved in the process (undoubtedly this union would transcend visceral, mortal sex as the boundless universe transcends the dying earth). But I feel confident in asserting that "God" creates the spirits that then go through mortality (which is necessary in order to experience opposition). There is no reason to assume that there is some singular methodology about this: "God" being infinite cannot be limited to doing things one way....

[Maidservant]

I don't know what the rest of you will be doing, but I fully intend as an eternal being with my agency and my joy to be giving birth and raising sons and daughters in the same manner in which I do now, without end. If this reality were removed from me, I would not be in any heaven. Details and a complete reconciliation of all scripture and revelation--obviously no one has yet. But I know very well how miserable I would be if I was forever barred from the experience of bearing -- with my body -- an infant, and having him or her placed in my arms, and having the opportunity to nurture that child -- forever. Obviously children grow up. So new ones come.

My "celestial kingdom" has already been inititated or endowed to me the day I established my marriage by covenant (in the temple). And I already have six children and I will continue to follow their progress and the progress of my posterity through them, throughout eternity.

And I realize that if my body's youth is restored to me post-mortality, that I pretty much expect to pick up exactly where I left off, and add to my family of children, without any big mind-blowing differences except for, perhaps, sheer scale. Imagine Christmas shopping for all that! .

Also, I don't think getting resurrected ends Friday night BBQs also. My point being is that eternal life will be far more recognizable than we sometimes imagine now.

My scripture reference for this attitude basically is found here: Try and stop me from having more babies (and BBQs) for the rest of eternity .

[Calm]

I don't know what the rest of you will be doing, but I fully intend as an eternal being with my agency and my joy to be giving birth and raising sons and daughters in the same manner in which I do now, without end.

I only had the opportunity to have two, I definitely want more, especially with the way these two turned out.

[Questing Beast]

Yet without the blood, gore, agony, surely??!!?? I think that we are going to (re)discover a great many differences in being immortal with mortality. Then, if we get "bored" with the wonderfulness of it all, we can always come back "here" for another dip into opposition! In that sense, you can always experience childbearing and rearing as many times as you like....

[Maidservant]

Yet without the blood, gore, agony, surely??!!?? I think that we are going to (re)discover a great many differences in being immortal with mortality. Then, if we get "bored" with the wonderfulness of it all, we can always come back "here" for another dip into opposition! In that sense, you can always experience childbearing and rearing as many times as you like....

Ha ha. Well. I don't consider blood, nor any human function or fluid, to be the antithesis of heaven (I think that antipathy to be a consequence of Greek philosophy on the world's paradigms, and I reject that).

I also don't have a problem with the pain involved in labor, in the same sense that a person who is training for or running a race doesn't mind the pain based on the purpose and triumph of the entire activity. I find it glorious that my body works in this way.

Obviously, I would appreciate a future where there would not be an excess of pain, nor any loss of a child. That would be wonderful, and I hope that is what heaven means.

And since you brought it up, I'm open to the idea of multiple earth experiences, that doesn't bother me, in fact, I get the feeling that for me, at least, this isn't the first place I've been to. But . . . it doesn't matter right now, there's enough to focus on at present in terms of my progression.