So exalted Mormons don't get their own planets in the afterlife?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Sanpitch said:

Yes, I think you're right, I got the wrong name but it still seems like the same conflict, one revelation conflicting with another one.  I had thought that Taylor's revelation was that polygamy should be continued regardless of the government threats.  It is vague to me though.

 

39 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Nothing lIke having the united voice of the bretheren to guide the church by. So if I prayed about these 2 revelations which one would give me the warm fuzzy and which one would give me the aneurysm?

 

Well according to many fundamentalists both are valid and correct so no contradiciton, and according to your average Church member John Taylor's revelation was never canonized and came first so Wilford Woodruffs takes priority.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 

That's what Joseph Smith always said too.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Then God is not our Father as spirits..I am having a hard time with that. 

I would say the opposite - that is exactly how He is our Father - spiritually. Like Adam is our Father, and is first in the Word. This is what Jesus was trying to teach when He said the Father is spirit, therefore we should worship Him in spirit and truth. Jesus wasn't saying that the Father doesn't have a body - but essentially that He is a spirit like us, and therefore we can communicate with Him spiritually as one would to another. He was trying to demystify the Father. But modern Christianity has remystified Him into some ethereal, invisible being. While He may not be limited to His physical body, He does have "a shape." see John 5:37, and Moses saw His "back parts." I don't really see why that should create a "hard time" for people. Jesus was adopted in as His Son because of His priesthood covenant. He was the Son even before being sent to the earth to be born - yes, even though He was immortal, He agreed to it. So there you go.

Quote

What is the point if spirits are already there?  Why marriage..why all of it..?? Growing up in the LDS church, I had always thought that eternal marriage meant that exalted you were to create your spirit children.  Just so confusing and it changes the way I would feel about exaltation.  So the spirits come from matter??  Does God form the matter into spirits..like where do we really come from?  I realize that because this concept is new to me, that I could be misunderstanding.

I believe spirits are a type of "matter" but that gets into physics. D&C says that it is "more refined" or something like that. According to Einstein E=mc(sqd). So solid matter we usually think of is just another form of energy (matter). Even light has matter properties. Don't ask me what "spirit" is - I don't really know, sorry. But my guess is it is another form of matter which is able to exist in an organized fashion, while basically being undetected by our present physical capabilities. Perhaps it is not limited to this physical dimension. God "organized" the spirits to me means that the spirits agreed to a plan. in order that all the spirits could learn what the First learned and become as Him. So yes, I do believe there is a First, and this order is set forth in the Torah. Hence, Adam represents the First in priesthood but here on the earth, and is our "father" in this sense. D&C says he is our father. He was the first to receive the word. That is when civilization first showed up, cultivation, writing began, etc. 

Why marriage, and all of it? Because the earth is in a fallen state of the celestial, so the temporal existence is God's way of teaching the celestial. If we live the temporal existence well, we can advance. To me marriage is a wonderful concept and my greatest joy is my family. I think God is teaching us that His greatest joy is His family - us - His children - and He would like for all of us to love one another as family. "Where do we really come from?" I'm sorry I don't really have the answer to that. My personal belief is that we have always existed, and that the universe has no beginning. I do not accept the big bang theory. For one thing it is contrary to our present knowledge of physics. For another thing, there are galaxies that are moving too slowly to be where they are if the current belief of the big bang were accepted. So then they have to "tweek" the model to explain this phenomena with "dark matter" and "dark energy" etc. Most or at least many plasma physicists don't seem to accept the big bang theory, and instead seem to opt for an "electric universe" which has no known beginning. There were 2 recent Indian physicists who came up with an alternate constant to the Bohr-Einstein Constant, which seems to account for "dark matter" but their model predicts the universe had no beginning. 

Our solar system is just one of many worlds which have existed. I accept my little piece in the giant cog of God, and that I have imperfect understanding. However, I also know that my knowledge of God has greatly increased by following the truths of the gospel. Perhaps this scripture will help answer some of your concerns:

Proverbs 25:2

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

As followers of Christ we all can have the great privilege of searching out the matters of God. I'm sorry you are having trouble with these concepts - my intent is not to upset the faithful. But not to worry, you sound like you are under the covenant, so you are good to go even if you don't accept it.  

 

[mnn727]

20 hours ago, consiglieri said:

As the quotations from official Church materials already cited demonstrate, you didn't study very hard.

 

I guess that happens when you only study doctrine and stay away from speculation.

Like I said, I have NEVER  heard that statement in Church only on the internet.

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I would say the opposite - that is exactly how He is our Father - spiritually. Like Adam is our Father, and is first in the Word. This is what Jesus was trying to teach when He said the Father is spirit, therefore we should worship Him in spirit and truth. Jesus wasn't saying that the Father doesn't have a body - but essentially that He is a spirit like us, and therefore we can communicate with Him spiritually as one would to another. He was trying to demystify the Father. But modern Christianity has remystified Him into some ethereal, invisible being. While He may not be limited to His physical body, He does have "a shape." see John 5:37, and Moses saw His "back parts." I don't really see why that should create a "hard time" for people. Jesus was adopted in as His Son because of His priesthood covenant. He was the Son even before being sent to the earth to be born - yes, even though He was immortal, He agreed to it. So there you go.

I believe spirits are a type of "matter" but that gets into physics. D&C says that it is "more refined" or something like that. According to Einstein E=mc(sqd). So solid matter we usually think of is just another form of energy (matter). Even light has matter properties. Don't ask me what "spirit" is - I don't really know, sorry. But my guess is it is another form of matter which is able to exist in an organized fashion, while basically being undetected by our present physical capabilities. Perhaps it is not limited to this physical dimension. God "organized" the spirits to me means that the spirits agreed to a plan. in order that all the spirits could learn what the First learned and become as Him. So yes, I do believe there is a First, and this order is set forth in the Torah. Hence, Adam represents the First in priesthood but here on the earth, and is our "father" in this sense. D&C says he is our father. He was the first to receive the word. That is when civilization first showed up, cultivation, writing began, etc. 

Why marriage, and all of it? Because the earth is in a fallen state of the celestial, so the temporal existence is God's way of teaching the celestial. If we live the temporal existence well, we can advance. To me marriage is a wonderful concept and my greatest joy is my family. I think God is teaching us that His greatest joy is His family - us - His children - and He would like for all of us to love one another as family. "Where do we really come from?" I'm sorry I don't really have the answer to that. My personal belief is that we have always existed, and that the universe has no beginning. I do not accept the big bang theory. For one thing it is contrary to our present knowledge of physics. For another thing, there are galaxies that are moving too slowly to be where they are if the current belief of the big bang were accepted. So then they have to "tweek" the model to explain this phenomena with "dark matter" and "dark energy" etc. Most or at least many plasma physicists don't seem to accept the big bang theory, and instead seem to opt for an "electric universe" which has no known beginning. There were 2 recent Indian physicists who came up with an alternate constant to the Bohr-Einstein Constant, which seems to account for "dark matter" but their model predicts the universe had no beginning. 

Our solar system is just one of many worlds which have existed. I accept my little piece in the giant cog of God, and that I have imperfect understanding. However, I also know that my knowledge of God has greatly increased by following the truths of the gospel. Perhaps this scripture will help answer some of your concerns:

Proverbs 25:2

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

As followers of Christ we all can have the great privilege of searching out the matters of God. I'm sorry you are having trouble with these concepts - my intent is not to upset the faithful. But not to worry, you sound like you are under the covenant, so you are good to go even if you don't accept it.  

 

So what part of creation would we participate in if spirits have always been?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what part of creation would we participate in if spirits have always been?

The Rev appears to be one of those who doesn't accept "spirit birth" as being a creation of new spirit children and new spirits.  There are prophetic teachings that disagree, but the deciding factor is whether you believe "intelligences" which are eternal are the same thing as spirits or something else.

Traditional thought is that intelligences are organized or procreated to form new spirit children.  Some believe intelligences which  have always existed and premortal spirits are the same.  Personally, I go with the former.
I don't agree with the Rev that we as resurrected beings will be Christ's spirit children.  I do believe that new spirit children are brought into being, probably by procreation, although maybe by some other means.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

   I do believe that new spirit children are brought into being, probably by procreation, although maybe by some other means.

This is the thing. We really don't know how the procreation of spirits occurs. We don't know how they are different from intelligences. We really don't know much. Many have speculated but there is VERY little that is official doctrine.

We don't know how families will be organized in households (nuclear/extended etc). We don't know how a sealing will bind parents to a wayward child or a child to wayward parents. We don't know much.

One of my biggest frustrations is when members or leaders imply that they know how this all fits simply together. They may say something like "Surely SSM could never be an eternal principle because that's not how God organized it" when in truth we don't know how it is organized or how spirits are created. We are taught that males are responsible for the creation of worlds, universes, mankind. Woman is never found in the theology of creation beyond speculation based upon our own lived experience.

 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is the thing. We really don't know how the procreation of spirits occurs. We don't know how they are different from intelligences. We really don't know much. Many have speculated but there is VERY little that is official doctrine.

We don't know how families will be organized in households (nuclear/extended etc). We don't know how a sealing will bind parents to a wayward child or a child to wayward parents. We don't know much.

One of my biggest frustrations is when members or leaders imply that they know how this all fits simply together. They may say something like "Surely SSM could never be an eternal principle because that's not how God organized it" when in truth we don't know how it is organized or how spirits are created. We are taught that males are responsible for the creation of worlds, universes, mankind. Woman is never found in the theology of creation beyond speculation based upon our own lived experience.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this.  Far too much assumption that because something isn't specified in official canonized doctrine the traditional understanding must be flawed.

And as I put in an earlier post, almost every question of Mormonism has been answered by a prophet or apostle, possibly speaking by inspiration, and yet we reject it as not official enough and seek revelation on something already answered.

If we accepted all the "unofficial" teachings of all our prophets and apostles that don't contradict prior revelation, we'd have a lot more answers to the questions that trouble us.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not sure I agree with this.  Far too much assumption that because something isn't specified in official canonized doctrine the traditional understanding must be flawed.

And as I put in an earlier post, almost every question of Mormonism has been answered by a prophet or apostle, possibly speaking by inspiration, and yet we reject it as not official enough and seek revelation on something already answered.

If we accepted all the "unofficial" teachings of all our prophets and apostles that don't contradict prior revelation, we'd have a lot more answers to the questions that trouble us.
 

Sounds like the church has an organizational problem. Believing the "unofficial teachings" of past prophets because they were "possibly speaking by inspiration" is a mighty low bar to set. The problem is we can find contradictions on just about any topic. There is no consistency. Are we to take the speculative word of a man just because he was the first one to broach a subject? Again, mighty low bar to set for our leaders.

I used to blame myself for having unreasonable expectations for church leaders. I viewed them as infallible (Prophet will never lead astray, 14 fundamentals talk etc). I now recognize them as fallible and because I do I require a higher level of spiritual evidence before I accept their teachings or policies that contradict my conscience or personal spiritual witness. Of course many people call that prideful but whatever. I'm comfortable answering for my positions before God even if they don't always match up with the church. 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sounds like the church has an organizational problem. Believing the "unofficial teachings" of past prophets because they were "possibly speaking by inspiration" is a mighty low bar to set. The problem is we can find contradictions on just about any topic. There is no consistency. Are we to take the speculative word of a man just because he was the first one to broach a subject? Again, mighty low bar to set for our leaders.

Perhaps I should have said probably, not possibly. 
For example: when Brigham Young taught that Christ was conceived the old fashioned way by Mary and Heavenly Father I don't see why we would reject it as speculation.  Was Brigham not the mouthpiece of the Lord?  Was Brigham not entitled to revelation on doctrine to lead the church?  Did he not have the gift of the Holy Ghost and the inspiration of heaven?  And had the exact events been clearly revealed previously for him to contradict?
There are far fewer contradictions than you are implying here.  Most "contradictions" are really the we-don't-really-know crowd objecting to an early teaching for no real reason.

Instead, WE start speculating on other methods that could have been used to conceive the Savior of the world.  For no other reason than we don't like what the one and only prophetic teaching on the subject says.
Same thing applies to the subject of this thread.  Prophets have taught that we will make worlds and populate them with our children ("own planet caricature" notwithstanding).  For some reason that's not good enough.

Quote

I used to blame myself for having unreasonable expectations for church leaders. I viewed them as infallible (Prophet will never lead astray, 14 fundamentals talk etc). I now recognize them as fallible and because I do I require a higher level of spiritual evidence before I accept their teachings or policies that contradict my conscience or personal spiritual witness. Of course many people call that prideful but whatever. I'm comfortable answering for my positions before God even if they don't always match up with the church.

I fully accept that our leaders are fallible.  I even have things that I consider errors and mistakes that have been made.
But I have always been perfectly comfortable accepting the words of the prophets as inspired first until I have a reason not to.  That's what faith is all about.  I don't require them to prove things to me unless there is an actual contradiction.  If Joseph says that the planet Kolob is in the general direction of the North Star, I'm going to believe him until something shows otherwise.  If Orson Hyde says Christ was married, I'm going to believe him until a good reason to believe he wasn't appears.  If President Hinckley says gender is eternal I'm going to believe him until I see some real evidence to the contrary.

Our prophets ARE inspired.  They are fallible, but until a specific mistake appears, I think we should be believing and faithful.

[Calm]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Link please.  Is this from a site that has those familiar/expert with biblical Hebrew?

[Calm]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks JLHPROF. The Hebrew reads from right to left of course. I think your diagram makes it somewhat clear the roots of the letters are from the Paleo-Hebrew. Of course those letters are combined to make a word which I proffer has yet another meaning. But in the Paleo-Hebrew the pictographic letters each had a "meaning" and these meanings were chosen to arrange or form their words. So initially their words had a kind of "powerpoint" effect when they were written. They were written with basically a Phoenecian alphabet. It basically lost this effect when the Jews were in Babylon as they then adopted the Aramaic alphabet to form their letters. I am going into this detail for the benefit of the readers who may not know.

Are you an expert in Paleo-Hebrew or did you get this information from someone who is?  If so, who?

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link please.  Is this from a site that has those familiar/expert with biblical Hebrew?

No, it's a pinterest pin.  Doesn't make it any less possibly true.

Considering how many Christian links came up when I googled it, it apparently has a lot of acceptance in the evangelical community.  You are welcome to scroll links to find the most scholarly one.

I just found Rev's quote interesting as I hadn't heard that before.  After all, isn't ancient Hebrew just full of hidden meanings and symbolism.

[Avatar4321]

we are joint heirs with Christ and inherit everything the Father has.

you think that's limited to a planet???

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

we are joint heirs with Christ and inherit everything the Father has.

you think that's limited to a planet???

Who me?

I don't buy into the "own planet" label either, but I do believe we will eventually be able to do everything the Father does now.  Create worlds, populate them with spirit children, and continue to progress eternally.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's a pinterest pin.  Doesn't make it any less possibly true.

Considering how many Christian links came up when I googled it, it apparently has a lot of acceptance in the evangelical community.  You are welcome to scroll links to find the most scholarly one.

I just found Rev's quote interesting as I hadn't heard that before.  After all, isn't ancient Hebrew just full of hidden meanings and symbolism.

I haven't been terribly impressed with general evangelical websites' scholarship in the past.  I would be more impressed with some references backing it up with scholarship.

[Daniel2]

On ‎01‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 4:05 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

I was taught from someone in a position of authority that the kingdoms, in D&C 132:19 where it says those who marry receive "Kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions" refers to worlds that someone will either receive or help create in the afterlife. There seems to be some Mormons who believe exalted beings get worlds or planets and others who don't. So which is it? This article from 2014 talks about how the church claimed that we DON'T get planets in the afterlife. Then what exactly does exaltation entail and where did the worlds or planets rumor come from and why does it still exist? Here's the article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569583/Mormons-People-dont-planets-afterlife.html

I have to say... I've been puzzled why the church has seemingly backed away from the doctrine that exalted sons and daughters of Heavenly Father would be able to create worlds, which they would then populate by sending their own spirit children to partake of a mortal experience, just as our Father in Heaven did for us.

The phrase that faithful Mormons "will get their own planet" is obviously an oversimplification, but it isn't out-right wrong.

Clearing up "mischaracterizations" doesn't require outright misrepresenting the fact that it's been a foundational principle of Mormonism that exalted Mormons become like God and create worlds without number.

Rather than denying the truths within that oversimplification with misleading claims tatamount to "we don't know much about that," I think that Mormons should clarify by saying what their manuals have said, all along... something along the lines of "that exalted sons and daughters of Heavenly Father would be able to create worlds, which they would then populate by sending their own spirit children to partake of a mortal experience, just as our Father in Heaven did for us."

That isn't hard or challenging for non-members to understand.

In an age where all LDS manuals and previous prophetic teachings are readily available on the internet. it seems ridiculous to me to say that you need to avoid casting pearls before swine, or that individuals need to understand the milk of the gospel before they hear the meat.

The internet has changed the narrative when it comes to disseminating truth.

The ongoing denials and claims of "we just don't know much about all that," when clearly many past leaders and manuals openly teach it in as basic of circumstances as the "Gospel Principles" manuals for new members just make such claims seem to be deliberately misleading because of doctrines that Mormons appear to be embarrassed or uncomfortable with.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I have to say... I've been puzzled why the church has seemingly backed away from the doctrine that exalted sons and daughters of Heavenly Father would be able to create worlds, which they would then populate by sending their own spirit children to partake of a mortal experience, just as our Father in Heaven did for us.

The phrase that faithful Mormons "will get their own planet" is obviously an oversimplification, but it isn't out-right wrong.

Clearing up "mischaracterizations" doesn't require outright misrepresenting the fact that it's been a foundational principle of Mormonism that exalted Mormons become like God and create worlds without number.

Rather than denying the truths within that oversimplification with misleading claims tatamount to "we don't know much about that," I think that Mormons should clarify by saying what their manuals have said, all along... something along the lines of "that exalted sons and daughters of Heavenly Father would be able to create worlds, which they would then populate by sending their own spirit children to partake of a mortal experience, just as our Father in Heaven did for us."

That isn't hard or challenging for non-members to understand.

In an age where all LDS manuals and previous prophetic teachings are readily available on the internet. it seems ridiculous to me to say that you need to avoid casting pearls before swine, or that individuals need to understand the milk of the gospel before they hear the meat.

The internet has changed the narrative when it comes to disseminating truth.

The ongoing denials and claims of "we just don't know much about all that," when clearly many past leaders and manuals openly teach it in as basic of circumstances as the "Gospel Principles" manuals for new members just make such claims seem to be deliberately misleading because of doctrines that Mormons appear to be embarrassed or uncomfortable with.

I pretty much agree with you, I think, except that I believe it is important to clarify misrepresentations or oversimplifications if they might tend to give people the wrong idea.

Which fortunately gives us things to talk about. 

And while we do know some things about our Father once being as we are now we still do not know much about that.

We've never said we know nothing about it. Just not very much.

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I haven't been terribly impressed with general evangelical websites' scholarship in the past.  I would be more impressed with some references backing it up with scholarship.

It can be found on Jewish sites. The Hebrew only had 22 letters. All their meanings are listed on some Jewish sites. It is not an evangelical thing. It is true. The Jewish sites won't point out the Behold the Nail, Behold the Hand roots tho, unless they are Messianic.

And no I would not call myself an expert in Paleo-Hebrew by any means, but the fact that the Hebrews apparently adopted the Phoenician alphabet after their exodus from Egypt is fairly apparent from the historical record, since the Paleo-Hebrew letters correspond to the Phoenician alphabet. I haven't found anyone who disputes that. The truth is there are essentially no examples of pre-Davidic Hebrew writing to show us anything different. We don't know what alphabet Moses wrote down the law in, and we don't know what alphabet Joshua (I presume) wrote the Torah in. I believe the Hebrews adopted some Egyptian words which get transliterated into the Torah. Anyway, the point is there is over 400 years there for which we have no known epigraphic examples.

[Storm Rider]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I pretty much agree with you, I think, except that I believe it is important to clarify misrepresentations or oversimplifications if they might tend to give people the wrong idea.

Which fortunately gives us things to talk about. 

And while we do know some things about our Father once being as we are now we still do not know much about that.

We've never said we know nothing about it. Just not very much.

Thank you, Ahab.  That is one of the brightest things that has been said on this thread.  I have never appreciated to any significant degree the King Follett discourse simply because too often members felt that was the end all and be all of eternity.  I felt that though it answered some questions it did not begin to define, describe, or imagine what becoming a joint-heir with Christ really meant.  It addressed small facets of a much greater eternal reality.  

The Church has never denied the reality of participating in the creative process with God, but I think there has been a more conscious effort to not encapsulate the eternities in such a small description of becoming one with God.

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what part of creation would we participate in if spirits have always been?

Well Genesis says Elohim (the house of Eloah) created the world. I don't see much wrong with El Elyon directing Elohim on things to do - but let me just say, I don't know either way. But since Elohim is used and not El Elyon, the paint brush of creation may be much broader than is generally believed. But just like Jesus will be called the Father, I believe at some future point we can too - I just don't believe we will be populating any world with "new" spirits, since I believe all spirits exist already, and always have. Just FYI, the Book of Abraham speaks to this too. It mentions more than one spirit which is eternal and has always existed. So not to believe it seems to me to be rejecting not only the King Follett discourse but the standard works.

[Bobbieaware]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

When there is a new beginning, there is a new mortality for the prophets, and everybody. Until that time I presume everybody is inseparably reunited. But since they cannot advance, there is no eternal progression unless they agree to the plan. Therefore, eternal progression demands it, and everyone has a chance to continue to progress or be fixed in their save state forever. I hope that answers your concern.

Isaiah 65:17

17 ¶For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

"Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round. (Brigham Young," "For This Is Life Eternal," in Eldon Watson (editor), Brigham Young Addresses (1982), 2:230)

My only quibble is that I would change "oldest Son" to first born Son or Begotten Son. The temporal law of inheritance translates this way into the Word. Hence Christ and not Adam is our Savior, but He has given the keys of salvation to Adam (D&C) that His work may continue under His direction. Therefore, whoso does not believe it, shall eventually be cut off from the covenant.

President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the savior of that world. ( Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115, Church Historical Department; 12 May 1867)

Through the office/calling of the First Born Son.

"Your eyes being opened, that you may see the hope of His calling and His inheritance in the saints."

The idea that Yahoshua/Jesus has always been, and will forevermore be the Son, is not scriptural. He was not the Son before He was begotten. This concept takes us back to the debate between Arius and the western bishops at the time of the Nicene Council. The Nicene Council of a minority of the bishops declared that Jesus was begotten before all ages/worlds, and if you disagreed you were anathema or excommunicated. During the Dark Ages you would have been subjected to torture to force a recantation. This is all contrary to the express scripture on point which says Jesus was begotten when another saith unto Him "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." This oath places His begottenness on a specific day in time - not before all ages or worlds. Nor will He always be the Son, but the law says He shall be called the Eternal Father(Isaiah 9:6). So many try to do hair splitting translations here as well saying things like the power being laid on the shoulder of the Son is the Father rather than accepting what the scripture plainly says. Anyway, that is probably the best I can explain it right now.

Cheers

 

1) D&C 138 makes it clear only eternally married husbands and wives are able to bring forth spirit offspring. Why do you believe an exalted man must first have an exalted wife, to whom he is eternally sealed, before he is able bring forth spirit children in a pre-mortal state?

2) What role, if any, does the exalted wife play in bringing forth premortal spirit children?

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps I should have said probably, not possibly. 
For example: when Brigham Young taught that Christ was conceived the old fashioned way by Mary and Heavenly Father I don't see why we would reject it as speculation.  Was Brigham not the mouthpiece of the Lord?  Was Brigham not entitled to revelation on doctrine to lead the church?  Did he not have the gift of the Holy Ghost and the inspiration of heaven?  And had the exact events been clearly revealed previously for him to contradict?
There are far fewer contradictions than you are implying here.  Most "contradictions" are really the we-don't-really-know crowd objecting to an early teaching for no real reason.

Instead, WE start speculating on other methods that could have been used to conceive the Savior of the world.  For no other reason than we don't like what the one and only prophetic teaching on the subject says.

Here is why I disagree with BY on that subject. 
You said we should accept what a GA says unless it contradicts known revelation.

First one problem with the JoD is that they were recorded by somewhat unreliable shorthand methods. Therefore, one can be fairly certain they contain inaccuracies. There are different versions of the King Follett sermon because we have about 6 different hand recordings from 6 different people who were trying to record the speech, and they are all different. This shows a somewhat inherent inaccuracy in their shorthand recordings. But where at least 2 agree, we can be fairly certain that Joseph Smith said what is recorded. The JoD don't have this backup assurance.

Second, what we have in the JoD imho does disagree with known revelation. The Bible AND the Book of Mormon both say Jesus was born to a virgin. Luke says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. BY seems to disagree in the JoD. But Joseph Smith did not change that passage in Luke in any known version of his retranslation of the Bible. So why should I reject Luke for a belief of BY? Did He say that God revealed that to him or is he just spouting off?

Third, I don't know what BY meant by "naturally begotten." If he is talking about sexual intercourse, that conflicts with the scriptures noted above. And Heavenly Father who cannot sin would be committing adultery or fornication. The Bible says the announcement that she would have a baby was a complete surprise to Miriam because she "ha[d] known no man." The only thing I can really fathom is that Jesus was born naturally - just like the rest of us. Well, I accept that. I don't believe that involves a "conception." But no, I don't believe the Father married Miriam, because there is not a single instance in the law of a woman being legally married to two. The law says that is adultery. Personally, I just believe BY misunderstood the begotten nature of the Son. He was not begotten of the Father physically but by a covenant oath of the priesthood. To deny that is to deny several scriptures on point - both OT and NT. And I know that is wrong through my own personal revelation, so I just won't go there.

[Zakuska]

I want an astroid belt so I can open a golf course!

[salgare]

On 1/20/2016 at 8:35 PM, The Nehor said:

I am going to build multiverses to amuse myself. I am not going to accept their caricature about me having a darling little planet to hug and pet and call my own. So I reject that image.

Are the exalted going to make worlds? Sure, but they will be doing so much more.

One per wife there Nehor, best be collecting some