Thoughts And Questions On D&C 132:63

[inquiringmind]

I don't understand what Christ is recorded saying about women in D&C 132:63.

He's recorded as saying that they're given unto men "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."

This seems to contradict what He's recorded as saying in the Gospel of John:

That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit (John 3:6, Joseph Smith Translation.)

If "that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," how can resurrected and exalted women (with bodies of flesh) bear and give birth to spirit children (with only spirit bodies.)

If this is what happens, the only physical analogy I can think of is the butterfly (interestingly, an ancient symbol of the resurrection.)

Butterflies aren't born (and resurrected beings, with bodies of flesh and bone aren't born), only caterpillars are (and maybe spirit children, who enter cocoons of flesh and blood, are born), but that doesn't seem to remove the apparent contradiction between D&C 132:63 and John 3:6.

In one place Christ is reported to say "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit," and in the other place He's reported to say that women will " bear the souls of men" in their "exaltation in the eternal worlds."

The questions I have are as follows:

1.) Must D&C 132:63 be taken to mean that resurrected women literally bear spirit children (in the way mortal women bear mortal children)?

2.) Is there any other way it can be taken?

3.) Can the two passages be reconciled in any way?

[Maidservant]

I don't know what the scripture definitely means . . . will think on it . . . but *I* will be giving birth for the rest of eternity. I WILL bear the souls of men, just as I have begun to do here. This is my endless work. I will raise ALL of my children to eternity. I can't imagine any day that I want to have my last child.

I doubt anyone will be forced to be anyone they don't want to be nor to live any life they don't want to live.

[inquiringmind]

I don't know what the scripture definitely means . . . will think on it . . . but *I* will be giving birth for the rest of eternity. I WILL bear the souls of men, just as I have begun to do here. This is my endless work. I will raise ALL of my children to eternity. I can't imagine any day that I want to have my last child.

I doubt anyone will be forced to be anyone they don't want to be nor to live any life they don't want to live.

But what are "souls"?

I thought it took a spirit and a body to make a soul.

And if we take "the souls of men" to mean spirits (i.e. spirit children), what do we do with "that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit"?

Won't you have a body of flesh and bone in your exaltation?

Wont your husband?

If you reproduce after your kind, shouldn't your children be born with bodies of flesh and bone?

(Maybe that brings us back to the caterpillar and the butterfly, but I don't see how it solves the problem with John 3:6.)

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Maidservant]

Well, I have my unique way of thinking about it, so I guess people who have a better take on mainstream LDS view ought to answer next, ha ha. Suffice it to say, I don't see a problem of any kind of giving birth physically in time or eternity, either personally nor in terms of what is presented doctrinally. But again, I got to that point after several other points of learning, and I'm pretty sure I'm different from almost every one else. . . . a baby is a baby is a baby is a baby. A birth is a birth is a birth is a birth .

[theplains]

That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit (John 3:6, Joseph Smith Translation.)

If "that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," how can resurrected and exalted women (with bodies of flesh) bear and give birth to spirit children (with only spirit bodies.)

If this is what happens, the only physical analogy I can think of is the butterfly (interestingly, an ancient symbol of the resurrection.)

Another physical analogy I can think of is Heavenly Mother. She is thought to be an exalted woman who, with a

resurrected body of flesh and bone, is able to bear and give birth to spirit children.

But I think this has a spiritual analogy like Galatians 4:29 - "But as then he that was born after the flesh [ishmael]

persecuted him that was born after the Spirit [isaac], even so it is now". One was born outside the will of God;

the other was born in the promise of God.

Regards,

Jim

[inquiringmind]

Another physical analogy I can think of is Heavenly Mother. She is thought to be an exalted woman who, with a

resurrected body of flesh and bone, is able to bear and give birth to spirit children.

And do you take that literally?

Must it be taken literally?

But I think this has a spiritual analogy like Galatians 4:29 - "But as then he that was born after the flesh [ishmael]

persecuted him that was born after the Spirit [isaac], even so it is now". One was born outside the will of God;

the other was born in the promise of God.

So does this mean you don't take it literally?

Edited April 17, 2012 by inquiringmind

[JAHS]

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:2-6).

Being born of water refers to baptism; being born of the spirit means that we have received the Holy Ghost following baptism. It is not refering to some sort of birth of spirit bodies.

[theplains]

And do you take that literally?

Must it be taken literally?

If LDS theology is true in proclaiming we are literally the spirit children of Heavenly Parents, then yes.

So does this mean you don't take it literally?

Regarding Galatians 4, I take it literally. Ishmael was literally born outside the will of God (after the flesh). Isaac

was literally born the child of promise (after the Spirit).

What is your opinion?

Thanks,

Jim

[cdowis]

"That which is born of spirit" is clearly referring to a celestial parent. You might find 1 Cor 15, starting with verse 40, helpful.

[inquiringmind]

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:2-6).

Being born of water refers to baptism; being born of the spirit means that we have received the Holy Ghost following baptism. It is not refering to some sort of birth of spirit bodies.

If you were quoting John 3:2-6, you left a lot out.

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles which thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. (John 3:2-6, Joseph Smith Translation.)

Edited April 17, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

"That which is born of spirit" is clearly referring to a celestial parent. You might find 1 Cor 15, starting with verse 40, helpful.

If you're quoting John 3:6, you left out the second half of the sentence.

Jesus said "That which is born of The Spirit is spirit."

He went on to say "That which is born of flesh is flesh."

If "That which is born of spirit is clearly referring to a celestial parent," it's just as clear that the child should be of the same substance as the parent--so does the celestial parent have a spirit body, or a body of flesh and bone?

How can a body of flesh and bone give birth to a body of spirit (without contradicting this verse)?

Edited April 17, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

I'm thinking about John 3:12, but I'm not sure how (or if) that fits in here.

[inquiringmind]

Being born of water refers to baptism; being born of the spirit means that we have received the Holy Ghost following baptism. It is not refering to some sort of birth of spirit bodies.

Still thinking about John 3:12 (and wondering if you might have a point here.)

Edited April 17, 2012 by inquiringmind

[wenglund]

There are several births of the spirit:

1. Birth as a pre-existent spirit personage.

2. Birth as a mortal personage

3. Birth as a member of the body of Christ

4. Birth as an immortal personage

Like other posters on this thead, I believe the biblical passage in question to be referring to birth #3, and confused with birth #1.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 17, 2012 by wenglund

[CV75]

1.) Must D&C 132:63 be taken to mean that resurrected women literally bear spirit children (in the way mortal women bear mortal children)?

2.) Is there any other way it can be taken?

3.) Can the two passages be reconciled in any way?

I think D&C 132:63 specifically refers to physical birth, which continues the work of the Father from the first estate and into the second estate, preparing the way for exaltation. To “multiply and replenish the earth” the way the Lord originally designed it requires women to “bear the souls of men” which requires men and women to be sealed in holy matrimony.

I have no trouble envisioning this same pattern continuing in exaltation for the purpose of couples (through the woman) bringing forth spirits into the first estate. If a mortal body can bring forth a spirit connected with a mortal body, then an immortal body should be able to bring forth a spirit disconnected from a mortal body. It would be neither just nor merciful for a soul to be born with an immortal body because a fullness of joy can only be obtained in the “inseparably connected” condition that follows mortality, death and resurrection. Without mortality, death or resurrection (opposition and a Savior), there can be neither joy nor misery.

I see John 3:6 relating to spiritual rebirth (baptism in water and by fire).

[theplains]

"That which is born of spirit" is clearly referring to a celestial parent.

It appears you are taking a spirit versus flesh aspect in the body type for the offspring. Can the celestial parents,

with resurrected bodies of flesh and bones, procreate children with bodies of flesh and bones?

Thanks,

Jim

[Cobalt-70]

I think D&C 132:63 specifically refers to physical birth, which continues the work of the Father from the first estate and into the second estate, preparing the way for exaltation. To “multiply and replenish the earth” the way the Lord originally designed it requires women to “bear the souls of men” which requires men and women to be sealed in holy matrimony.

I have no trouble envisioning this same pattern continuing in exaltation for the purpose of couples (through the woman) bringing forth spirits into the first estate. If a mortal body can bring forth a spirit connected with a mortal body, then an immortal body should be able to bring forth a spirit disconnected from a mortal body. It would be neither just nor merciful for a soul to be born with an immortal body because a fullness of joy can only be obtained in the “inseparably connected” condition that follows mortality, death and resurrection. Without mortality, death or resurrection (opposition and a Savior), there can be neither joy nor misery.

I see John 3:6 relating to spiritual rebirth (baptism in water and by fire).

I agree with your first and last points, but not the second. Smith never taught the doctrine that immortal couples would have spirit babies. In fact, he was quite clear, in the King Follett sermon and elsewhere, that spirits are never born. The "spirit babies" idea was introduced after Smith's death, and it fit in well with Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine. But the "spirit babies" doctrine makes absolutely no sense in the context of what Joseph Smith taught. This is one of those doctrines we Mormons cling to, based on no scriptural foundation, which evangelicals love to pounce on. Not only that, but the idea that a woman's reward in the afterlife for doing good is to be sentenced to repeatedly give physical birth to billions of spirit babies seems rather misogynistic.

[Cobalt-70]

It appears you are taking a spirit versus flesh aspect in the body type for the offspring. Can the celestial parents,

with resurrected bodies of flesh and bones, procreate children with bodies of flesh and bones?

According to Brigham Young, they can do so if they start eating food that grows on a non-celestial planet, so that their bodies infuse with the "corrupt" matter. He said that's what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden, after giving birth to all our spirits. Thus, they were allowed to give birth to Cain, Abel, Seth, and all the rest. But unless you are committed to the Adam-God doctrine, I don't see the benefit of walking down this doctrinal path.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't understand what Christ is recorded saying about women in D&C 132:63.

He's recorded as saying that they're given unto men "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."

Note that this passage says that they will multiply and replenish "the earth." It doesn't say replenish the spirit world, or other planets. It refers to "their exaltation in eternal worlds," but does not say that the replenishing itself will be in eternal worlds.

I take this verse to mean that a man's wives were given to him: (1) to fulfill the commandment in the Garden of Eden to multiply and replenish the earth, (2) so that the men and women will be exalted in the eternal worlds, (3) so that the souls of men may have mortal births, and (4) so that God may be glorified as polygamous men and women continue God's work of creation on the earth.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

I agree with your first and last points, but not the second.

You do not agree that I have no trouble envisioning a scenario presented by other posters? Now that is interesting. How do you know I have no trouble envisioning what they are saying and understanding their rationale without having to prove them wrong?

Personally, I simply do not know exactly how spirits come into the first estate, but clearly sealed parents are involved in some fashion.The most meaningful part to me is that it would be neither just nor merciful for the souls of men to be born with immortal bodies for the reasons I stated, and this is why exalted couples do not so so.

I mildly appreciate your efforts to explain Joseph Smith's teachings (as if that is all there is); less so the light in which you choose to share it, and the rest of your post / opinion is too skewed to keep my interest.

[Cobalt-70]

You do not agree that I have no trouble envisioning a scenario presented by other posters? Now that is interesting. How do you know I have no trouble envisioning what they are saying and understanding their rationale without having to prove them wrong?

Personally, I simply do not know exactly how spirits come into the first estate, but clearly sealed parents are involved in some fashion.The most meaningful part to me is that it would be neither just nor merciful for the souls of men to be born with immortal bodies for the reasons I stated, and this is why exalted couples do not so so.

I mildly appreciate your efforts to explain Joseph Smith's teachings (as if that is all there is); less so the light in which you choose to share it, and the rest of your post / opinion is too skewed to keep my interest.

Come on. You know I meant that I disagree with the scenario itself, not your envisioning of the scenario.

When you refer to spirits "coming to" their first estate, clearly you cannot mean spirit birth. Abraham 3:26 refers to spirits who do not keep their first estate. Are these spirits unborn?

[BlueDreams]

Have to hit the hay. My brain is fried and have a super early morning. So take this with that in consideration.

I wasn't reading that at all in the verse of scripture you mentioned. The only thing I saw in context, were specific rules to polygamous relationships. Polygamy is an exception in the practice of marriage, so I hesitate to generalize anything that's talking about polygamy to all mortality let alone the heavens. I'm still not seeing the spirit babies thing. I've read it over 3 times. Maybe I'm just dense or tired or both, but all I see is discussion of mortality. Especially when "souls" is often designated as spirit + body and not just spirit.

So again:

- it's specific to polygamy

- it specific to mortality

- soul can mean spirit + body

This scripture might not even fully apply to monogamous mortal marriages, let alone resurrected beings.

WIth luv,

BD

[Cobalt-70]

But what are "souls"?

I thought it took a spirit and a body to make a soul.

The LDS scriptures also use the term "soul" to refer to disembodied spirits. See Alma 40:21-23, D&C 101:37, 2 Nephi 20:18. The term also sometimes just means people. See Ether 6:16, Mosiah 6:2.

But in the case of 132:63, I think "souls of men" has basically the same meaning as how the term "soul" is used in Moses 3:7, Abraham 5:7, Genesis 2:7, and 1 Cor. 14:45. Those verses say that upon his creation (or more specifically, his birth, assuming you believe in either evolution of the Adam-God doctrine), Adam became a "living soul."

[DBMormon]

I am sure others have stated this already, but on break and not enough time to read all of them

God didn't create us... we have always been matter (spiritual or existing intelligences. God organized us. We have this image of exalted parents creating worlds and children an yet not all leaders felt this was the case. Like God, perhaps we take other intelligences who have gone as far as they can under their own ability and help them to become like us... isn't that what God did?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't understand what Christ is recorded saying about women in D&C 132:63.

He's recorded as saying that they're given unto men "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."

Proverbs..."Childre are the hertiage of the Lord".