Celestial Men Becoming Future Saviors

[Acris Venator]

Through Adam and Eve mortality was introduced into the world. Through Christ all are given immortality. Are these a response to motherhood? Only in a very indirect, twisted way. It is true that when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden they were then able to propagate, but this does not mean that parenthood is "cured" by the Atonement.

I guess I don't understand why you consider it twisted. To me, Christ's decision in Gethsemane was an infinite and eternal response to Eve's decision in Eden. The Mother of All Living made a choice, and that choice led to the construction of a host of temple bodies (Mothers are temple constructors if the body is a temple) and Christ's decision (as the Very Eternal Father) made it possible for all of those temples to be immortal and even Eternal. The victory over sin and death means that the travail of all mothers is not suffered in vain: all of their children will live again and the opportunity to be cleansed of sin is offered.

This line of thinking resolves some things for me, one of them being the critiques the Church receives concerning our treatment of women. If the body is a temple, then what is the function of a temple? Isn't it veil work? It follows then that the womb is a veil, and that birth is veil work that is just as sacred as any that occurs in temple buildings.

What is the cost of veil work? It is always blood. Which is why both decisions in both gardens resulted in bloodloss. The cost of being able to work a veil is simply high, and both Christ and our mothers pay that price.

I understand that this isn't doctrinal. But if it is a thought pattern that doesn't work, then I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on it.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

This line of thinking resolves some things for me, one of them being the critiques the Church receives concerning our treatment of women. If the body is a temple, then what is the function of a temple? Isn't it veil work? It follows then that the womb is a veil, and that birth is veil work that is just as sacred as any that occurs in temple buildings.

My body is a temple. Last time I checked, I do not have a womb...

[mfbukowski]

The only problem with this line of reasoning is-"I have better taste than that!"

Well then ok - the truth is we are not engaged, but I can still wish, can't I?

[mfbukowski]

I guess I don't understand why you consider it twisted. To me, Christ's decision in Gethsemane was an infinite and eternal response to Eve's decision in Eden. The Mother of All Living made a choice, and that choice led to the construction of a host of temple bodies (Mothers are temple constructors if the body is a temple) and Christ's decision (as the Very Eternal Father) made it possible for all of those temples to be immortal and even Eternal. The victory over sin and death means that the travail of all mothers is not suffered in vain: all of their children will live again and the opportunity to be cleansed of sin is offered.

This line of thinking resolves some things for me, one of them being the critiques the Church receives concerning our treatment of women. If the body is a temple, then what is the function of a temple? Isn't it veil work? It follows then that the womb is a veil, and that birth is veil work that is just as sacred as any that occurs in temple buildings.

What is the cost of veil work? It is always blood. Which is why both decisions in both gardens resulted in bloodloss. The cost of being able to work a veil is simply high, and both Christ and our mothers pay that price.

I understand that this isn't doctrinal. But if it is a thought pattern that doesn't work, then I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on it.

I really like this post- it resonates with what I said in post 3 of this thread.

It ties in directly to Hebrews 10:20, with Christ as Father of our salvation, the themes of re-birth, Christ as the Second Adam, being saved by blood, water and the spirit, etc.

Heavy stuff.

But it is not debatable. Either it resonates with your spirit or it doesn't. Either the symbology works for you or it doesn't.

It's like debating what the parable of the wheat and the tares is "really" about- it is about any spiritual principle you want to see/fee/know which applies to your life.

That's the way it is with all parables/analogies/interpretations. That's why the Lord often A) spoke in parables- because they communicate across many levels of understanding and B) allow each person to understand them in their own way. I guess both of those are really the same thought.

But remember he also said "He who hath ears let them hear"- he DIDN'T say "Look here you dummies- I was talking about THAT not THIS!"

In other words, this kind of post has a purpose in my never humble opinion, but debate about it is not one of its purposes. And it is not for shoving down someone's throat if they disagree.

[Acris Venator]

Great points, mfb.

[Darren10]

My body is a temple. Last time I checked, I do not have a womb...

[DBMormon]

Christ was God before he got his body and we only can become perfect by coming unto him. For those reasons I do not believe I will ever be a savior in the sense he was making an atonemnet for a group of people. I am content knowing that God thinks of me as his son, and that I can be an heir with Christ in the joys and gifts of heaven. Therefore, No, I don't believe we can be savior in that sense

Edited June 2, 2012 by reelmormon

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Christ was God before he got his body and w only can become perfect by coming unto him. For those reasons I do not believe I will ever be a savior in the sense he was making an atonemnet for a group of people. I am content knowing that God thinks of me as his son, and that I can be an heir with Christ in the joys and gifts of heaven. Therefore, No, I don't believe we can be savior in that sense

God is a position and a title. In LDS theology, There are different types of God. Christ is (or at least, wasn't) the same as God the Father. Christ, as far as we know, was not the creator of spirutal children. And yet, now a glorified God, he will have children in eternity.

We become perfect by coming unto him... in a sense. What does that mean? He showed us the perfect path to walk. He who was perfect (complete). Repentence isn't about being simply forgiven. It is about improving our character until we are perfect in all future behavior. This is why Joseph said:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry "treason" and put me to death.

What is that process then? We don't know, and Joseph didn't say. But apparently it doesn't exist in the Bible. I think all of the methods I outlined previously and their subsets are completely legitimate. None can be disproven or proven. But we can eliminate reasons that don't apply to why one or another wouldn't work.:-)

I too, then, am content in knowing that God thinks of me as his son (because he is, literally, my Father), and that I can be an heir with Christ in the joys and gifts of heaven.

I just wish we knew what that entailed.

[altersteve]

God is a position and a title. In LDS theology, There are different types of God. Christ is (or at least, wasn't) the same as God the Father. Christ, as far as we know, was not the creator of spirutal children. And yet, now a glorified God, he will have children in eternity.

That's not LDS doctrine.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

That's not LDS doctrine.

I am open to discussion. Let's break down the various parts, since it had multiple, and no point disagreeing where we agree. I am genuinely curious about where the disagreement is. I thought it was the least controversial thing I've posted in this thread...

1) God is a position and a title: I believe this to be true. God of course if also God by nature. But I am talking about God the term, not Eloheim. Agree or disagree?

2) There are different types of God: God 1 is God the Father, God 2 is Jesus Christ, and God 3 is the Holy Ghost. Additionally, Joseph regularly spoke of a council of the Gods and the scriptures refer to this frequently. Thus, there is the head of the Gods, and other "gods" acting in various capacities. Some may have bodies (God the Father), others may not (God the Holy Ghost). Agree or disagree?

3) Christ, as far as we know, was not the creator of spiritual children: I think this is a given. LDS doctrine says he did not take on a human body until he came at the meridian of time. No glorified body = no spirit children prior to roughly 33 A.D. We are of course adopted into him spiritually, but I am not referring to that concept. Agree or disagree?

4) And yet, now a glorified God, he will have children in eternity: Again, this seems completely given. We are promised, in Doctrine and Covenants Section 32, worlds without end, eternal lives (referring to spirit children), etc. The temple essentially says the same thing. We have zero idea how it actually happens, despite theories on that by various leaders. We inherit these blessings as joint-heirs with Christ. Thus, he will have eternal increase also. Agree or disagree?

I certainly don't expect one word answers if you find some shade of grey, or you disagree and want to expound on why.

[DBMormon]

I am open to discussion. Let's break down the various parts, since it had multiple, and no point disagreeing where we agree. I am genuinely curious about where the disagreement is. I thought it was the least controversial thing I've posted in this thread...

1) God is a position and a title: I believe this to be true. God of course if also God by nature. But I am talking about God the term, not Eloheim. Agree or disagree?

disagree. It is not some position you attain. While some early leaders and members got into theological talk of us becoming Gods and having our own planets and ect... The Current LDS Leadership is not comfortable guessing at what they are not sure of just to give shape to some scriptural statements. the saying as God is man may be come as Man is God once was can be applied to Christ taking on himself a body of flesh and our potential to be glorified. What exactly it means would be guesswork. Elder Henry B Eyring once said that there were a lot of High Priests who were more certain of the doctrines of the kingdom then the brethren - paraphrased

2) There are different types of God: God 1 is God the Father, God 2 is Jesus Christ, and God 3 is the Holy Ghost. Additionally, Joseph regularly spoke of a council of the Gods and the scriptures refer to this frequently. Thus, there is the head of the Gods, and other "gods" acting in various capacities. Some may have bodies (God the Father), others may not (God the Holy Ghost). Agree or disagree?

disagree

this council of Gods can be just the Godhead. Christ and the Holy Ghost are only God as they are under HF. HF is God on his own

3) Christ, as far as we know, was not the creator of spiritual children: I think this is a given. LDS doctrine says he did not take on a human body until he came at the meridian of time. No glorified body = no spirit children prior to roughly 33 A.D. We are of course adopted into him spiritually, but I am not referring to that concept. Agree or disagree?

agree

Agree, Christ is not the father of our spirits. In fact we have always been intelligences and so in a sense no one created our spirits but rather Heavenly Father organized us or gave us purpose.

4) And yet, now a glorified God, he will have children in eternity: Again, this seems completely given. We are promised, in Doctrine and Covenants Section 32, worlds without end, eternal lives (referring to spirit children), etc. The temple essentially says the same thing. We have zero idea how it actually happens, despite theories on that by various leaders. We inherit these blessings as joint-heirs with Christ. Thus, he will have eternal increase also. Agree or disagree?

disagree

I see us helping other intelligences reach their potential but I do not see us begotting spiritual babies or having celestial intimacy.

Now i will say part of me could go the other way on these answers and we certainly have speculitive comments by past leaders to support those views. I just think too often Leaders spoke trying to give shape to what we knew but thereby speaking beyond what was known

[mfbukowski]

Neither agree nor disagree on any of these. How could anyone possibly know?? It's all silly speculation. We will know what we need to know if and when we get there.