Revelation 12

[Anakin7]

    I recently came across a Face book page by a non LDS christian historian/researcher who claims that the event in Rev 12 about Satan - The Dragon using his tail to grab 1/3 of the host of Heaven is a future not past event. his comment [ His first comment ]is on http://www.facebook.com/christian.history.for.everyman/  He also links to the direct quote from Irenaeus who agrees with him. I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you all in advance. 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

    I recently came across a Face book page by a non LDS christian historian/researcher who claims that the event in Rev 12 about Satan - The Dragon using his tail to grab 1/3 of the host of Heaven is a future not past event. his comment [ His first comment ]is on http://www.facebook.com/christian.history.for.everyman/  He also links to the direct quote from Irenaeus who agrees with him. I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you all in advance. 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

As far as I can tell, the LDS church is the only major religious group that interprets this as an event preceding the time of the revelation, let alone an event from the premortal life. Here's an interesting take from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12)

Quote

 [12:1–14:20] This central section of Revelation portrays the power of evil, represented by a dragon, in opposition to God and his people. First, the dragon pursues the woman about to give birth, but her son is saved and “caught up to God and his throne” (Rev 12:5). Then Michael and his angels cast the dragon and his angels out of heaven (Rev 12:7–9). After this, the dragon tries to attack the boy indirectly by attacking members of his church (Rev 12:13–17). A beast, symbolizing the Roman empire, then becomes the dragon’s agent, mortally wounded but restored to life and worshiped by all the world (Rev 13:1–10). A second beast arises from the land, symbolizing the antichrist, which leads people astray by its prodigies to idolize the first beast (Rev 13:11–18). This is followed by a vision of the Lamb and his faithful ones, and the proclamation of imminent judgment upon the world in terms of the wine of God’s wrath (Rev 14:1–20). 

The woman is traditionally interpreted as the church, and the child as the Messiah (Jesus):

Quote

[12:1–6] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

Hope that helps.

Edited July 18, 2018 by jkwilliams

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

As far as I can tell, the LDS church is the only major religious group that interprets this as an event preceding the time of the revelation, let alone an event from the premortal life.

That's not true. Just do a search for "third fallen angels." You'll find tons of Evangelical pages making the same claim. Here's one.

• Since Satan is referred to as a star which fell or was cast down to earth, and Revelation 12:4 says a third of the stars were cast out with him, then the conclusion is that the stars in Revelation 12 refer to fallen angels, fully one third of the heavenly host. If the one-third number is in fact accurate, what assurance that is! Two thirds of the angels are still on God's side, and for followers of Christ, they are on our side as well.

The way Evangelicals typically reconcile the time issue is that while they've fallen they won't be operating until the future.

I'm not quite sure the history of the interpretation. (Maybe JarMan can chime up on the Arminians since that's his specialty) I found books from 1801 giving the fallen angel interpretation. Revelation is getting the idea from the Watchers section of 1 Enoch and perhaps other texts that follow it. There's actually a scholarly position with a fair number of adherents that there was an Enochian tradition going back to pre-exilic times in conflict with Zadock tradition (the priestly source) which is why Enochian texts tend to deemphasize priesthood compared to priestly texts. The main shift in Revelation is from Asael or Semihazah being the head to Satan. Most of the rest is 1 Enoch including the fate of the fallen angels. 

As an aside these two traditions conflicting can be seen in some early apocalypses. So in the Similitudes you have fallen Watches seducing Eve. Some scholars thus suggest there are two different accounts of evil in the world. The priestly one adopting the earlier Yahwist/Eloheim tradition of Adam and Eve and the Enochian one with the fallen angels. In Similitudes they're mixed so the Watchers tempt Adam and Even.

Those looking at the connection of Rev 12 and 1 Enoch 10 usually take the interpretation that "traditions about the Watchers are effectively transferred to the beginning of time, to the fall of Satan and his hosts." (Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity)

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

That's not true. Just do a search for "third fallen angels." You'll find tons of Evangelical pages making the same claim. Here's one.

• Since Satan is referred to as a star which fell or was cast down to earth, and Revelation 12:4 says a third of the stars were cast out with him, then the conclusion is that the stars in Revelation 12 refer to fallen angels, fully one third of the heavenly host. If the one-third number is in fact accurate, what assurance that is! Two thirds of the angels are still on God's side, and for followers of Christ, they are on our side as well.

The way Evangelicals typically reconcile the time issue is that while they've fallen they won't be operating until the future.

I'm not quite sure the history of the interpretation. (Maybe JarMan can chime up on the Arminians since that's his specialty) I found books from 1801 giving the fallen angel interpretation. Revelation is getting the idea from the Watchers section of 1 Enoch and perhaps other texts that follow it. There's actually a scholarly position with a fair number of adherents that there was an Enochian tradition going back to pre-exilic times in conflict with Zadock tradition (the priestly source) which is why Enochian texts tend to deemphasize priesthood compared to priestly texts. The main shift in Revelation is from Asael or Semihazah being the head to Satan. Most of the rest is 1 Enoch including the fate of the fallen angels. 

As an aside these two traditions conflicting can be seen in some early apocalypses. So in the Similitudes you have fallen Watches seducing Eve. Some scholars thus suggest there are two different accounts of evil in the world. The priestly one adopting the earlier Yahwist/Eloheim tradition of Adam and Eve and the Enochian one with the fallen angels. In Similitudes they're mixed so the Watchers tempt Adam and Even.

Those looking at the connection of Rev 12 and 1 Enoch 10 usually take the interpretation that "traditions about the Watchers are effectively transferred to the beginning of time, to the fall of Satan and his hosts." (Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity)

I stand corrected. It seems really odd to me that the fallen angels story occurs in the middle of the story, after the birth of the Messiah and His being "caught up to God and His throne," and yet its interpreted as divorced from the timeline as its own event preceding the whole story. 

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    I recently came across a Face book page by a non LDS christian historian/researcher who claims that the event in Rev 12 about Satan - The Dragon using his tail to grab 1/3 of the host of Heaven is a future not past event. his comment [ His first comment ]is on http://www.facebook.com/christian.history.for.everyman/  He also links to the direct quote from Irenaeus who agrees with him. I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you all in advance. 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

This part of your post: "The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine  -  Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood -  In His Eternal Debt/Grace" seems to be your signature, but you're adding it manually every time, and it sometimes gets mixed up with the text of your posts.  Do you not want to make it your signature so it gets posted more clearly as something separate?  It's confused me more than once.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand corrected. It seems really odd to me that the fallen angels story occurs in the middle of the story, after the birth of the Messiah and His being "caught up to God and His throne," and yet its interpreted as divorced from the timeline as its own event preceding the whole story. 

I swear Joseph Smith criticized our text of Revelation as being somewhat out of order. But I can't seem to find that anywhere. So I might be misremembering.

In the JST for Rev 12 verses 3 & 5 are reversed along with quite a few other changes. All of chapter 12 is more or less a parenthetical digression on the war in heaven before there was the history from the typical LDS perspective. There are some oddities though. For instance some LDS commentators have seen the woman fleeing into the wilderness (12:6; JST 12:5) as the great apostasy. But that doesn't make much sense contextually IMO. Also the water from the serpent is a bit confusing.

I'd also note that if the Book of Mormon is tied to Revelation, as the text suggests, then the woman here is the ashtoreth like figure in 1 Nephi 11. Just as the woman flees to the wilderness in Rev 12 we have the virgin in 1 Ne 11 "carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time." While I tend to see this as a common revelation, albeit with slightly different symbolism (Nephi lacks the full apocalyptic imagery that develops in the second temple period) a skeptic should interpret Nephi's vision as commentary/interpretation of Revelation by Joseph Smith.

Koester in his commentary on Revelation tends to see chapter 12 starting a new "act" and thus not necessarily directly related to what came before. He sees 12-22 as more focused on the devil and thus starts with his being cast out of heaven to earth. So it covers some of the same time period as what came before but more from the apocalyptic history of the devil. So you have Christ's incarnation in 12:5 and the second coming in 14:14-20. He also sees much of the imagery in the chapter as borrowed from the Greek myth where the dragon Python chases Leto, the mother of Apollo. When Leto became pregnant by Zeus, the dragon chases her to kill her and her child. She is carried away by the wind to the island of Delos and gives birth to Apollo and Artemis. Apollo then chases the the dragon and slays it. There's probably a bit of the old myth of Leviathan as well in there that Yahweh/Baal kills. Certainly Revelation borrows from the appearance of Leviathan in Ps 74 (one of the oldest creation accounts) and Job 41.

 

 

[theplains]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

• Since Satan is referred to as a star which fell or was cast down to earth, and Revelation 12:4 says a third of the stars were cast out with him, then the conclusion is that the stars in Revelation 12 refer to fallen angels, fully one third of the heavenly host. If the one-third number is in fact accurate, what assurance that is! Two thirds of the angels are still on God's side, and for followers of Christ, they are on our side as well.

Are the fallen ones (the one-third) created angels or Heavenly Father's spirit children?

Jim

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, theplains said:

Are the fallen ones (the one-third) created angels or Heavenly Father's spirit children?

In Mormon cosmology they are the same. That is all angels are Heavenly Father's children. 

Angelology and Demonology largely arise after the exile due to Babylonian influences. Beings who'd once been part of the heavenly council or pantheon in pre-exilic times before deuteronomist reforms became angels and demons. With the Hellenistic influence starting under Alexander the Great but accelerating under Roman conquest those then become unique species often tied to platonic reconceptions of heavenly beings. That becomes particularly pronounced in syncretic forms of Judaism and Christianity such as under the various gnostic movements which are explicitly platonic. Even under paganism as time goes forth you get idealized versions of the zodiac and Egyptian deities transformed into platonic daemons or even demigods that are all really just emanations from the one. That's particularly true in the hermetic tradition of late antiquity but also the religious platonism of Iamblichus.

Put an other way, all those start with a pantheon where they're children of the gods (an echo of which remains in Ps 82) and get transformed into different species.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In Mormon cosmology they are the same. That is all angels are Heavenly Father's children. 

Angelology and Demonology largely arise after the exile due to Babylonian influences. Beings who'd once been part of the heavenly council or pantheon in pre-exilic times before deuteronomist reforms became angels and demons. With the Hellenistic influence starting under Alexander the Great but accelerating under Roman conquest those then become unique species often tied to platonic reconceptions of heavenly beings. That becomes particularly pronounced in syncretic forms of Judaism and Christianity such as under the various gnostic movements which are explicitly platonic. Even under paganism as time goes forth you get idealized versions of the zodiac and Egyptian deities transformed into platonic daemons or even demigods that are all really just emanations from the one. That's particularly true in the hermetic tradition of late antiquity but also the religious platonism of Iamblichus.

Put an other way, all those start with a pantheon where they're children of the gods (an echo of which remains in Ps 82) and get transformed into different species.

Hmmmm, except for the ambiguity about "created" and "uncreated" common with Evangelicals.

For LDS all Spirits  including Angels since all angels are spirits, premortal or Resurrected, and are Sons and Daughters of heavenly father but we do not use the term "created" for those spirits. All are eternal intelligences which become children of God through a process we do not fully understand.

It's that pesky word "created" again, associated with a God who "organizes " instead.

Technically for us there's no such thing as a created angel.

Edited July 18, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Hmmmm, except for the ambiguity about "created" and "uncreated" common with Evangelicals.

For LDS all Spirits  including Angels since all angels are spirits, premortal or Resurrected, and are Sons and Daughters of heavenly father but we do not use the term "created" for those spirits. All are eternal intelligences which become children of God through a process we do not fully understand.

It's that pesky word "created" again, associated with a God who "organizes " instead.

Technically for us there's no such thing as a created angel.

Yup we reject creation ex nihilo and all the baggage that contains.

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, theplains said:

Are the fallen ones (the one-third) created angels or Heavenly Father's spirit children?

Jim

The spirits of angels aren't created. My personal belief is that the fallen ones are spirits who are essentially sons of perdition from prior worlds who refused to be saved, and those who refuse to the plan to enter this world in a fallen state. So they probably at least at one time were Heavenly Father's spirit children who at least partially followed in spirit. However, those who become sons of perdition we are told can have their bodies and souls destroyed by Satan (D&C), who has power to destroy our bodies and souls. Those resurrected who do repent, however, which is most of humanity, are saved to one of the three main degrees of glory.

Angelo is the Greek word for messenger. It is the same as the Hebrew malak. Angels are simply men chosen to act as messengers. Even the Savior is described as the malak/messenger of the covenant by Isaiah. They might appear in spirit as visions, or they may appear in person as corporeal men and eat like everyone else. Angels of course do not have wings, but that is symbolism incorporated from the description of seraphim. The symbolism of wings imparts a meaning rather than an actual physical attribute. I believe creating/forming the hosts of heaven is a description of assigning who will be the messengers of God, and their tasks in this world. While the physical bodies of angels are created, their spirits are not, and the Bible does not teach this despite common belief. Adam is not alive until his spirit is blown into him. Ecclesiastes, says our bodies return to the dust from which they are created, while our spirits return to God who gave them or put them in our bodies.

[FunOnlineMan]

If I recall correctly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have this occurring in the early 1900s.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/1914-significant-year-bible-prophecy/

[theplains]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

In Mormon cosmology they are the same. That is all angels are Heavenly Father's children. 

Are there any angels that Heavenly Father created instead of procreated (with his wife) that were drawn
away by Satan in the War in Heaven?

Thanks,
Jim

[clarkgoble]

53 minutes ago, theplains said:

Are there any angels that Heavenly Father created instead of procreated (with his wife) that were drawn
away by Satan in the War in Heaven?

That's well away from anything that's been revealed. The idea that spirits are procreated doesn't have a clear revelation. It's commonly believed, but not universally believed. While I accept it in some degree myself, I'd fully admit that there are big problems with the notion if one thinks about it much. So I'd not call in mMrmon doctrine in any strong sense. It might be true but could easily turn out not to be.

All that said, the standard view of the council in heaven is that everyone there were God's children either by creation or adoption. So all of the ⅓ who fell were as well. That's pretty safe to call Mormon doctrine.

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, theplains said:

Are there any angels that Heavenly Father created instead of procreated (with his wife) that were drawn
away by Satan in the War in Heaven?

Thanks,
Jim

 

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's well away from anything that's been revealed. The idea that spirits are procreated doesn't have a clear revelation. It's commonly believed, but not universally believed. While I accept it in some degree myself, I'd fully admit that there are big problems with the notion if one thinks about it much. So I'd not call in mMrmon doctrine in any strong sense. It might be true but could easily turn out not to be.

All that said, the standard view of the council in heaven is that everyone there were God's children either by creation or adoption. So all of the ⅓ who fell were as well. That's pretty safe to call Mormon doctrine.

I believe the Book of Abraham and the King Follett discourse clearly contradict the idea of spirit procreation. Both reveal spirits as always existing, and having no beginning - or being eternal. So I differ from you Clark. I believe it has been revealed, and the Church just didn't accept it or has forgotten it. The Church critics have picked up on this idea and used it to some effect, but it is just a false idea.

[clarkgoble]

The usual ways those are addressed is to see spirit birth as either a change of form for spirit or to bifurcate spirit into intelligence and spirit. The latter pretty well has been the view from fairly early on in the Church. While the use isn't clear in Nauvoo where intelligence and spirit are sometimes used synonymously I do think there are passages where we can see distinctions even if somewhat ambiguous.

With regards to the King Follet Discourse, make sure you use the original transcripts (which differ somewhat from each other) and not the version in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The latter is a "harmonized" or "corrected" version but obscures some issues. In the transcripts Joseph sometimes makes a distinction between spirit and mind and sees the latter as eternal and uncreated. Thus the later (1853) distinction between intelligence and spirit. Although I don't think such a distinction can be based upon the KFD (it's just too ambiguous and problematic)

If you go earlier to 1833 you have a much more platonic sounding conception of intelligence in D&C 93. (There's a lot of evidence of platonic exposure including Joseph's later statement "that which has a beginning will surely have an end.") There's some indication that prior to the revelation on spirits as material the Pratts held to a kind of divine emanation theory where spirits/intelligences were literally made from the substance of God. This was a popular view at the time, particularly with those influenced by platonism including Hegel's Absolute Idealism. With the revelation on spirit as matter occurred (possibly catalyzed by reading about Tertullian's more stoic material conception of the Trinity) the Pratts then shifted their view to a more materialistic one - although still in some ways holding to the earlier model. 

The idea of spirit birth occurs pretty early. We have Joseph Robinson musing on it in his journal in 1845. He was close to both Joseph and Brigham. So 1845 is probably a safe bet for the rise of spirits being organized (not ontologically created) in a manner analogous to birth. Robinson claims a revelation of spirit birth, although it's not clear if that's the origin of the notion.

Baring a less ambiguous (and more authoritative) revelation I don't think we really can say for sure. While I have some skepticism of spirit birth, I'm fairly convinced some sort of organization took place. Just on the basis of Ether 3 I'm skeptical of spirits as uncreated fluid makes much sense.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/19/2018 at 7:19 AM, RevTestament said:

The spirits of angels aren't created. My personal belief is that the fallen ones are spirits who are essentially sons of perdition from prior worlds who refused to be saved, and those who refuse to the plan to enter this world in a fallen state. So they probably at least at one time were Heavenly Father's spirit children who at least partially followed in spirit. However, those who become sons of perdition we are told can have their bodies and souls destroyed by Satan (D&C), who has power to destroy our bodies and souls. Those resurrected who do repent, however, which is most of humanity, are saved to one of the three main degrees of glory.

Very interesting interpretation!

But if they are from "prior worlds" does that mean that each "world" (meaning perhaps a collection of planets/universes or whatever is knowable to its inhabitants depending on their individual science levels?- "world" is very ambiguous and does not just mean "planet" but everything knowable in that context ie: "The Wonderful World of Disney"?) has its own "Council of the Gods" wherein "The Plan" was presented etc?

Together with the idea that God Himself had a Father- this is an interesting possibility.

(For what it is worth I see these as parables not necessarily "true" or "false" but ways of getting our heads around what we cannot possibly actually understand at our level of development, so they could be pragmatically true or false in helping us understand the workings of God who is definitely NOT a parable! )

[theplains]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the Book of Abraham and the King Follett discourse clearly contradict the idea of spirit procreation. Both reveal spirits as always existing, and having no beginning - or being eternal. So I differ from you Clark. I believe it has been revealed, and the Church just didn't accept it or has forgotten it. The Church critics have picked up on this idea and used it to some effect, but it is just a false idea.

Gospel Principles says, "Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression (see
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 209, 511). We learned that if we followed His plan, we would
become like Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become
heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see D&C 132:19–20).

If having spirit children is considered 'adoption' instead of 'procreation' in the above case, then this would mean
a single person can have spirit children by adopting them and without becoming a God first.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

If having spirit children is considered 'adoption' instead of 'procreation' in the above case, then this would mean a single person can have spirit children by adopting them and without becoming a God first.

This ends up getting at the nub of the issue. We have the idea that gender of some sort is essential and is part of our pre-mortal spirit nature. If it's essential, then it must have some purpose. What's the purpose if there's no sex?

I think part of this comes from Ether 3 where Christ's spirit looks like his mortal body. Part of it also comes out of the spirit birth theology of the 1850's onward. That in turn, I suspect, comes out partially D&C 130:2. "And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." Although that's talking about the resurrection and not the idea of spirit birth.

To be fair though the idea of having children in the resurrection was taught by Joseph. So while in it's robust form it doesn't pop up until the early 1850's, we do have this from 1843.

• He said that except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity while in this probation by the power and authority of the Holy priesthood they will cease to increase when they die (ie. they will not have any children in the resurrection), but those who are married by the power & authority of the priesthood in this life & continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase & have children in the celestial glory.

• The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgement in the flesh and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of satan untill the day of the Lord Jesus.'' I feel desirous to be united in an everlasting covenant to my wife and pray that it may soon be. Prest. J. said that the way he knew in whom to confide, God told him in whom he might place confidence. He also said that in the celestial glory was three heavens or degrees, and in order to obtain the highest a man must enter into this order of the priesthood and if he dont he cant obtain it. He may enter into the other but that is the end of his kingdom he cannot have increase.

Increase thus seems tied to children even in Joseph's life. So when Orson and Brigham tie the doctrine to Joseph, there is a reason for it, even if the two of them differ on the details and basic ontology. Now one can note that this is still compatible with adoption rather than spirit birth. The later is a theory about how one has children. But it does seem clear that a married couple of male and female is necessary for this. So the extrapolation to sex is rather natural.

That said Jonathan Stapley, who really pushes the spirits = intelligences and rejects the later spirit birth and tripartite soul models reads the above as talking about having our children. i.e. being sealed to the children on earth rather than new children. Jonathan then deals with the increase part of the above as tied to adoption. (See this BCC post for instance) 

I also didn't mention W. W. Phelps "Paracletes" that was serialized in Times and Seasons in 1845. That's a kind of expansion on the Book of Abraham but encompasses a lot of later doctrines that get associated with Brigham Young including God as a divinized human who peoples the world then loses his memory. There's God's wife present. However the infinite regress of Gods is missing instead there's a Head God who's involved with everything.

Edited July 20, 2018 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Very interesting interpretation!

But if they are from "prior worlds" does that mean that each "world" (meaning perhaps a collection of planets/universes or whatever is knowable to its inhabitants depending on their individual science levels?- "world" is very ambiguous and does not just mean "planet" but everything knowable in that context ie: "The Wonderful World of Disney"?) has its own "Council of the Gods" wherein "The Plan" was presented etc?

Together with the idea that God Himself had a Father- this is an interesting possibility.

(For what it is worth I see these as parables not necessarily "true" or "false" but ways of getting our heads around what we cannot possibly actually understand at our level of development, so they could be pragmatically true or false in helping us understand the workings of God who is definitely NOT a parable! )

I'm not sure I quite follow you. I believe these fallen angels do remember their prior worlds. The veil of forgetfulness is applied to those who come to this world. By prior worlds I mean essentially other earths. 

Isaiah 65:17  For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

Gospel Principles says, "Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression (see
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 209, 511). We learned that if we followed His plan, we would
become like Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become
heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see D&C 132:19–20).

If having spirit children is considered 'adoption' instead of 'procreation' in the above case, then this would mean
a single person can have spirit children by adopting them and without becoming a God first.

Thanks,
Jim

Well, I agree with you except the last part. Elohim can have spirit children by adoption. I think that is where sealing is heading to. Yes, they can do it singly. 

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.