Biological Fatherhood

[Buckeye]

The purpose of this poll/thread is only for discussion of the importance of biological fatherhood (mortal and eternal) to you personally. If you wish to discuss gay marriage, church doctrine, or the science of biological parenthood, there are plenty of other threads to do so. For this poll/thread, please stick to just your own relationships with your earthly father, earthly children, and Heavenly Father. 

For question 1, assume that your earthly parents did not have an affair or conceal anything from you. Your father (and mother) are just a surprised as you to learn that you are not biologically related.

I realize I am leaving earthly and Heavenly Mothers out of this (except that women should of course answer question 2 from their own perspective). The decision to exclude relationships with earthly and Heavenly Mothers comes at a big cost, and certainly there can be other threads for such discussion, but I wanted to keep this poll/thread narrowly focused. I worried that a discussion of one's relationship with Heavenly Mother would branch off into too many tangents (e.g. polygamy), since there is little LDS doctrine as to Her and likely a wide range of relationships between members of this board and Her. 

*****************

For my own answers:

1. No. If I learned I was not biologically related to the man I've looked to as my earthly father these many years, I would face some minor changes, but nothing significant in my relationship with my father would change. I'd miss hearing members in my ward remark "that must be your dad, you look so alike." And I'd certainly want to know more about the biological father I'd never met. But I would still revere and look to my earthly father for guidance and direction back to my Heavenly Father, the same as I do now.
2. No. If there was a mix-up at the hospital, I'd certainly have questions for the medical staff and search to find my biological child. But there would be no change to how I view the child I have been raising. My obligations to, love for, and eternal bond to that child would be unchanged.
3. No. My current relationship with my Heavenly Father stems entirely from His providing me with a world in which to grow, righteous teachings and examples to direct me, and constant patience and forgiveness as I stumble. Most of those blessings come indirectly through the Savior (my Brother) and others through whom Father works - all of whom I look to as fathers and mothers. While I'm open to the possibility that my existence in some fashion stems from a sexual union of heavenly beings at some point in time, that possibility does not at all color how I related to my Heavenly Father.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Buckeye

[Calm]

Did the father know and not tell the child when they were older or does the father not know as well?

It is the choices of communication that would matter to me in this situation.

Number 2 would change in some ways due to I would not be sharing certain genetic attributes with them any more…which could be more positive in that I would feel less responsible for genetic health issues,  but I might also have greater doubt that I could understand as well as I might think because her medical issues might not be as similar to my own as we thought.  It is very, very important to her that there is someone who really gets what she is going through because I have gone through much of it myself.  I have Christ to fill that role,  She is agnostic and needs a less veiled relationship and that is me.  I don’t see much changing otherwise, except I would have to stop the birthing jokes.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Calm

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did the father know and not tell the child when they were older or does the father not know as well?

It is the choices of communication that would matter to me in this situation.

Good question. Assume everyone here is acting in good faith. There's no affairs or concealment.  I'll update the explanation. 

[Duncan]

We found out a few weeks ago that my Father's oldest brother wasn't the biological son of my Dad's father and now we wonder how that all happened, when did my Grandfather showed up on the scene, who he was the father of in the family and if my Dad knew any of it. It alters your perception of how things were but you don't judge anyone based on so little information.

[Rain]

I answered no on all of them, but in reality there has got to be a little change for everyone, just not necessarily enough to make any significant difference.

With my dad I feel just enough lack of trust that finding out something like that wouldn't be a big deal for me.

With my children I can see that my relationship with them is really the key thing. I see huge differences with that with my children already.  Blood isn't going to change that.   Besides, we considered adopting as well and feel blood doesn't matter there either. 

With Heavenly Father we know so extremely little that it's not like anything we learn will change much.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Rain

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

... Number 2 would change in some ways due to I would be sharing certain genetic attributes with them any more…which could be more positive in that I would feel less responsible for genetic health issues,  ut I might also have greater don’t that I could understand as well as I might think because her medical issues might not be as similar to my own as we thought.  It is very, very important to her that there is someone who really gets what she is going through because I have gone through much of it myself.  I have Christ to feel that role,  She is agnostic and needs a less veiled relationship and that is me.  I don’t see much changing otherwise, except I would have to stop the birthing jokes.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing. 

[bluebell]

1.  My earthly father isn't my biological father, but I've known since I was a kid, so maybe that makes a difference than finding out as an adult?  For me personally, it makes absolutely no difference.  He's my father.

2. No change.  

3. If I found out that my relationship to God is actually more like how protestants and Catholics believe, that we aren't actually "related" but I'm only His child through creation and the Atonement?  I don't know how I would feel about that.  I'm not protestant or Catholic for a reason, and I find their teachings about my relationship with God to be kind of sad compared to ours.  If I learned they were actually true, I'm sure I would mourn.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Every single story I've ever heard across the decades of gathering them, point to a changed relationship whenever someone thought they were biologically related, and learned they were not.  Perhaps it doesn't change much, it can even change for the better, but things simply do not remain unchanged after a revelation like that.

"One day my dad told me that he had adopted me when he married my mom and I was 2.  I thought about it and ended up loving him more because he was my dad and didn't have to be."  I've heard that story a lot.  The relationship changed after the discovery.

For me and my Heavenly Father, I'm not of any particular belief about the mechanics or nature of things.  Whatever I find out, should I be lucky enough to get there, will be fine with me.  (Unless I learn there's a lack of love or caring, then I'll probably be upset.)

[pogi]

I would say that such knowledge would not alter my relationship with them, but it might alter my own personal identity.  I think knowing our direct lineage gives us a sense of who we are, where we came from, and potentially what we are capable of. 

I don't know how God makes spirit babies and if a sexual union is required, but knowing that I am literal child of God radically alters how I view myself and inspires me to live up to my highest potential. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by pogi

[rongo]

This came up in FHE this week (we have two teenage sons still at home). Orson Pratt's explanation of D&C 76:24 in Journal of Discourses (assigned talk from Brigham Young publicly proclaiming plural marriage before going on a mission to the East to be the point man on it) notes that spirit children are begotten unto God, instead of of. He taught that the Firstborns of each wife were saviors, and that exalted couples (gods) provide spirit children who are adopted by Elohim.

I know that some people blanch at this thought, but it resonates with our family. When you combine the King Follett Discourse with the Sermon on the Grove, and other items like this Orson Pratt one (or Brigham Young's teaching that each earth has its own savior and tempter), it makes sense that a) you have to be a savior to be an Elohim, and b) exalted couples create and provide spirit children for the worlds. We don't feel that this makes us "children of a lesser god" --- exalted couples are gods in every true sense of the word. 

It's an interesting "open question" to discuss and think about, without anyone being "bound" by anybody's answers. It's definitely "prophet poker" territory (I think I heard Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie's heads explode when I posted this).  

[Buckeye]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

This came up in FHE this week (we have two teenage sons still at home). Orson Pratt's explanation of D&C 76:24 in Journal of Discourses (assigned talk from Brigham Young publicly proclaiming plural marriage before going on a mission to the East to be the point man on it) notes that spirit children are begotten unto God, instead of of. He taught that the Firstborns of each wife were saviors, and that exalted couples (gods) provide spirit children who are adopted by Elohim.

I know that some people blanch at this thought, but it resonates with our family. When you combine the King Follett Discourse with the Sermon on the Grove, and other items like this Orson Pratt one (or Brigham Young's teaching that each earth has its own savior and tempter), it makes sense that a) you have to be a savior to be an Elohim, and b) exalted couples create and provide spirit children for the worlds. We don't feel that this makes us "children of a lesser god" --- exalted couples are gods in every true sense of the word. 

It's an interesting "open question" to discuss and think about, without anyone being "bound" by anybody's answers. It's definitely "prophet poker" territory (I think I heard Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie's heads explode when I posted this).  

Very impressive FHEs.  Are you suggesting that members blanch at the thought they don't fully become an Elohim (I've seen that myself) or blanch at the thought that spirit children are begotten by heavenly couples in a means parallel to how babies are created on earth? I couldn't tell if your view is that spirit children are conceived by heavenly parents - even if those parents are not on the level of God/Elohim - and, if so, whether your relationship with Elohim/God would be materially altered if you came to learn that was not how spirit children are created. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Very impressive FHEs.  Are you suggesting that members blanch at the thought they don't fully become an Elohim (I've seen that myself) or blanch at the thought that spirit children are begotten by heavenly couples in a means parallel to how babies are created on earth? I couldn't tell if your view is that spirit children are conceived by heavenly parents - even if those parents are not on the level of God/Elohim - and, if so, whether your relationship with Elohim/God would be materially altered if you came to learn that was not how spirit children are created. 

From my study, I think that spirit creation is an ordinance requiring a man and a woman sealed as a couple (resurrection is also a priesthood ordinance). 

Most people believe that they can be an Elohim, and they react negatively to the thought that maybe they can't. I believe that only saviors can, and that exaltation for the rest of us consists of creation and assisting with "the work and the glory." Sounds great to me!  

[CA Steve]

I am guessing #2 would probably have a lot more impact on the relationship with your spouse than the child.

And, how quickly we forget how important the Patriarchal Priesthood and blood lineage was to the restoration.  See The Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch by E. Gary Smith

 

[the narrator]

My wife had a baby girl a few months before we started dating that she placed for adoption. We are quite close to them, and I consider her adoptive family as my own family. The adoptive mother was herself adopted by her step-father, and her mother a decade ago found out (in her late 60s! while trying to get a passport) that she was adopted--and discovered that her birth parents later got married and had several children of her own, whom she now has relationships with.

Experiencing all this was a strong confirmation that family is something that doesn't need to be easily charted on a tree and is much more expansive than the 20th-century idealized nuclear family.

[Buckeye]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

From my study, I think that spirit creation is an ordinance requiring a man and a woman sealed as a couple (resurrection is also a priesthood ordinance). 

Most people believe that they can be an Elohim, and they react negatively to the thought that maybe they can't. I believe that only saviors can, and that exaltation for the rest of us consists of creation and assisting with "the work and the glory." Sounds great to me!  

Thanks. I'm personally fine with the notion that I can at most be part of 'Team Elohim' but not become the same, but I know that's heresy to other members. 

 

Can you elaborate on why the spirit creation ordinance operates with only a man and woman? Is it anything more than plumbing and "that's how things work on earth?" I'm honestly not trying to belittle; just understand.  And, in particular, do you believe the celestial couples have any role with the child after the creation ordinance?  I know lots of women in the church that chafe at the idea they'll only be 'baby machines' in the eternities. To be honest, I'd never considered the possibility that my role, as a male, would also be only the creation of spirit babies.  

[BlueDreams]

1. I put unsure. I have a more complex relationship with this question. I wasn't raised with my biological father and thus that relationship is one built on purposely choosing to have one, mostly as an adult. In terms of the direct relationship, at this point I don't think that would change much of anything. But it might have when I was younger and didn't have a stronger connection with him. It would change other factors around this though, including how I see myself.  For example, the stories I've been collecting to further the sense of cultural roots would shift. I'm no longer part nigerian. Maybe I'm part african-american...maybe a real curve ball comes and I'm actually half fijian. Considering my quasi-sense of identity a latino experience (my step, who I've had in my life since I was 9, is mex-american. I have a peruvian husband, speak primarily spanish to my kiddo, and go to a spanish ward), my quasi-relationship with the african-american experience (one that doesn't translate to an ethnic experience with family ties, but one of racial affiliation due to this country's baggage)....this would likely become another quasi-connection. One that I don't feel a full right to claim... but one that still influenced my own experiences, life, and perspective. And it would change my relationship to one of my half-siblings I don't have a real relationship with right now. I'd also feel far more hesitant to do temple work on that side and would actively seek permission. So things would change, my own perspective and experience would change but the direct relationship would likely still be intact.

2. "Not applicable" since I'm a mom not a dad. But it doesn't fundamentally change my experience with my child one way or another. And technically I still have every last "biological mom" experience with her. Still birthed her, still nursed her, still raising her. So the DNA doesn't match and the similarities i see in her turn out to be genetic coincidence and/or how I raise her. Big whoop.  Doesn't mean I'll stop being her mom tomorrow. I'd definitely have some serious questions as to how, because the only way that's a thing is if I'm a chimera and my egg DNA doesn't match my body DNA. We didn't need fertility treatments or donors and we had a homebirth. So again, it may change other things around me, but not how I directly view and love my child. 

3. No, because I don't really believe I was formed by a sexual union between my Heavenly Parents in the first place. Not at least in the direct picture we have of a sexual union between physical spouses on earth to make a physical baby. So it would just confirm what I already assume. (add on: if I'm wrong and it was a sexual union, also no biggie...It would be like finding out exactly what jesus looked like in this life, down to him having a limp and a crooked nose from a fall as a child. Interesting, but not all that important)

 

With luv,

BD

Edited April 6, 2022 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would say that such knowledge would not alter my relationship with them, but it might alter my own personal identity.  I think knowing our direct lineage gives us a sense of who we are, where we came from, and potentially what we are capable of. 

I don't know how God makes spirit babies and if a sexual union is required, but knowing that I am literal child of God radically alters how I view myself and inspires me to live up to my highest potential. 

My feelings as well.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

This came up in FHE this week (we have two teenage sons still at home). Orson Pratt's explanation of D&C 76:24 in Journal of Discourses (assigned talk from Brigham Young publicly proclaiming plural marriage before going on a mission to the East to be the point man on it) notes that spirit children are begotten unto God, instead of of. He taught that the Firstborns of each wife were saviors, and that exalted couples (gods) provide spirit children who are adopted by Elohim.

I know that some people blanch at this thought, but it resonates with our family. When you combine the King Follett Discourse with the Sermon on the Grove, and other items like this Orson Pratt one (or Brigham Young's teaching that each earth has its own savior and tempter), it makes sense that a) you have to be a savior to be an Elohim, and b) exalted couples create and provide spirit children for the worlds. We don't feel that this makes us "children of a lesser god" --- exalted couples are gods in every true sense of the word. 

It's an interesting "open question" to discuss and think about, without anyone being "bound" by anybody's answers. It's definitely "prophet poker" territory (I think I heard Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie's heads explode when I posted this).  

So God the Father is your grandfather, rather than your father?  (Just making sure I'm understanding you right).

I would love to know where Orson Pratt came up with all of that.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Can you elaborate on why the spirit creation ordinance operates with only a man and woman? Is it anything more than plumbing and "that's how things work on earth?"

I know that this is a flashpoint for those who want to take down barriers to eternal gay marriage in the celestial kingdom (why couldn't  a same-sex couple create spirits?). I don't think it has to do with "hardware" --- my own personal view is that there is a male-female duality that is eternal (no beginning, no end), and that it takes "both sides of the coin" (in a deeper sense than just biology). I think this is one of those "that which has been done on other worlds" stretching back infinitely. Because it simply can't be any other way by the nature of it (that we can't grasp in mortality). I think that it takes male and female to create life even with spirits

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

And, in particular, do you believe the celestial couples have any role with the child after the creation ordinance?  I know lots of women in the church that chafe at the idea they'll only be 'baby machines' in the eternities. To be honest, I'd never considered the possibility that my role, as a male, would also be only the creation of spirit babies.  

I believe they do --- and I would really like to believe that they do. I think exaltation is much, much more than just "being baby machines." When we take into account what has been taught and written about our lessons and instruction in the pre-existence, I think that the gods are heavily involved in preparing the spirits for the second estate. 

[Buckeye]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

1. I put unsure. I have a more complex relationship with this question. I wasn't raised with my biological father and thus that relationship is one built on purposely choosing to have one, mostly as an adult. In terms of the direct relationship, at this point I don't think that would change much of anything. But it might have when I was younger and didn't have a stronger connection with him. It would change other factors around this though, including how I see myself.  For example, the stories I've been collecting to further the sense of cultural roots would shift. I'm no longer part nigerian. Maybe I'm part african-american...maybe a real curve ball comes and I'm actually half fijian. Considering my quasi-sense of identity a latino experience (my step, who I've had in my life since I was 9, is mex-american. I have a peruvian husband, speak primarily spanish to my kiddo, and go to a spanish ward), my quasi-relationship with the african-american experience (one that doesn't translate to an ethnic experience with family ties, but one of racial affiliation due to this country's baggage)....this would likely become another quasi-connection. One that I don't feel a full right to claim... but one that still influenced my own experiences, life, and perspective. And it would change my relationship to one of my half-siblings I don't have a real relationship with right now. I'd also feel far more hesitant to do temple work on that side and would actively seek permission. So things would change, my own perspective and experience would change but the direct relationship would likely still be intact.

2. "Not applicable" since I'm a mom not a dad. But it doesn't fundamentally change my experience with my child one way or another. And technically I still have every last "biological mom" experience with her. Still birthed her, still nursed her, still raising her. So the DNA doesn't match and the similarities i see in her turn out to be genetic coincidence and/or how I raise her. Big whoop.  Doesn't mean I'll stop being her mom tomorrow. I'd definitely have some serious questions as to how, because the only way that's a thing is if I'm a chimera and my egg DNA doesn't match my body DNA. We didn't need fertility treatments or donors and we had a homebirth. So again, it may change other things around me, but not how I directly view and love my child. 

3. No, because I don't really believe I was formed by a sexual union between my Heavenly Parents in the first place. Not at least in the direct picture we have of a sexual union between physical spouses on earth to make a physical baby. So it would just confirm what I already assume.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Very thorough and profound. Thank you. For Question 2, my wording was unintentionally confusing for women. I was trying to get at scenarios such as a 'baby switched in the hospital.' 

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So God the Father is your grandfather, rather than your father?  (Just making sure I'm understanding you right).

Technically, yes. Although some people may be His actual ones as well. To me, that wouldn't make these children "better" than others, any more than  believe that Jesus' children were somehow "demigods" or imbued with powers because He was their biological father. 

Under this, once spirits are adopted, they are really His (similar to divine investiture of authority). There is no difference, like what we would see between direct descent or adopted descent. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by rongo

[rongo]

There was an item in the DNA issue of Journal of Studies about the Book of Mormon from a geneticist (Jeffrey Meldrum? His last name was Meldrum, and he wasn't Rod. Pretty sure he was at Idaho St.) in the back of the issue. He and his wife adopted a girl, and 10 months later, the hospital called and said that the same parents had had a boy and couldn't care for him. Could they adopt him as well? About a year after that . . . another boy from the same couple, similar situation. He summarized the original meme definition from Richard Dawkins (things that are transmitted socially that are every bit as "genetic" as DNA, but have to do with social transmission), and noted that their three children all have the same genotype --- their genetic heritage from their biological parents. But, the things that matter most are the spiritual heritage they received from their adopted parents --- who were their parents indeed in all that matters most.

When their daughter received her patriarchal blessing, the live blessing and the wording itself went out of their way to declare that she was "well born" of "goodly parents" --- unmistakably referring to their birth parents. The three children shared certain mannerisms, looks, and other physical quirks that they received from their birth parents --- things we would normally associate with upbringing and learned behavior, but that they shared in common and differently than the Meldrums' biological children. He said there is some as yet not understood connection between birth parents and children that transcends, even when there is no contact. 

I think and believe that bringing children into the world is a holy thing --- even when it doesn't happen under ideal circumstances. It's tragic and an abomination when this is done outside of the plan of salvation (Proclamation on the Family), but carrying and giving birth is still a crucial component of mortality. I think and believe that in at least some cases, this was explained and accepted in the pre-existence, and some women were told (or chose) to go through that for larger purposes known to them and God. 

I'll see if I can dig it up. He puts it a lot better than my summary from memory. 

ETA: My internet search skills are improving! Here it is:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=jbms

(start on page 46 of the issue, page 11 of the .pdg). "No More Strangers or Foreigners"

It was co-author Trent Stephens, not Jeffrey Meldrum. And it wasn't, their children, it was Stephens' wife Kathleen who was one of the three adopted children.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

I think the issue is in the definition of "materially alter".

It would absolutely make a difference.
But it wouldn't necessarily make a difference in love, interaction, or even relationship.
But to say it wouldn't change anything I think is wishful thinking.  How it would change would depend on each person and I think unless you experience it you're guessing.
 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

There was an item in the DNA issue of Journal of Studies about the Book of Mormon from a geneticist (Jeffrey Meldrum? His last name was Meldrum, and he wasn't Rod. Pretty sure he was at Idaho St.) in the back of the issue. He and his wife adopted a girl, and 10 months later, the hospital called and said that the same parents had had a boy and couldn't care for him. Could they adopt him as well? About a year after that . . . another boy from the same couple, similar situation. He summarized the original meme definition from Richard Dawkins (things that are transmitted socially that are every bit as "genetic" as DNA, but have to do with social transmission), and noted that their three children all have the same genotype --- their genetic heritage from their biological parents. But, the things that matter most are the spiritual heritage they received from their adopted parents --- who were their parents indeed in all that matters most.

When their daughter received her patriarchal blessing, the live blessing and the wording itself went out of their way to declare that she was "well born" of "goodly parents" --- unmistakably referring to their birth parents. The three children shared certain mannerisms, looks, and other physical quirks that they received from their birth parents --- things we would normally associate with upbringing and learned behavior, but that they shared in common and differently than the Meldrums' biological children. He said there is some as yet not understood connection between birth parents and children that transcends, even when there is no contact. 

I think and believe that bringing children into the world is a holy thing --- even when it doesn't happen under ideal circumstances. It's tragic and an abomination when this is done outside of the plan of salvation (Proclamation on the Family), but carrying and giving birth is still a crucial component of mortality. I think and believe that in at least some cases, this was explained and accepted in the pre-existence, and some women were told (or chose) to go through that for larger purposes known to them and God. 

I'll see if I can dig it up. He puts it a lot better than my summary from memory. 

ETA: My internet search skills are improving! Here it is:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=jbms

(start on page 46 of the issue, page 11 of the .pdg). "No More Strangers or Foreigners"

It was co-author Trent Stephens, not Jeffrey Meldrum. And it wasn't, their children, it was Stephens' wife Kathleen who was one of the three adopted children.

 

I have an adopted sister.  It has been a good lesson in the realities of nature vs. nurture.   People who think it's all nurture are easily proven wrong.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

The purpose of this poll/thread is only for discussion of the importance of biological fatherhood (mortal and eternal) to you personally. If you wish to discuss gay marriage, church doctrine, or the science of biological parenthood, there are plenty of other threads to do so. For this poll/thread, please stick to just your own relationships with your earthly father, earthly children, and Heavenly Father. 

For question 1, assume that your earthly parents did not have an affair or conceal anything from you. Your father (and mother) are just a surprised as you to learn that you are not biologically related.

I realize I am leaving earthly and Heavenly Mothers out of this (except that women should of course answer question 2 from their own perspective). The decision to exclude relationships with earthly and Heavenly Mothers comes at a big cost, and certainly there can be other threads for such discussion, but I wanted to keep this poll/thread narrowly focused. I worried that a discussion of one's relationship with Heavenly Mother would branch off into too many tangents (e.g. polygamy), since there is little LDS doctrine as to Her and likely a wide range of relationships between members of this board and Her. 

*****************

For my own answers:

1. No. If I learned I was not biologically related to the man I've looked to as my earthly father these many years, I would face some minor changes, but nothing significant in my relationship with my father would change. I'd miss hearing members in my ward remark "that must be your dad, you look so alike." And I'd certainly want to know more about the biological father I'd never met. But I would still revere and look to my earthly father for guidance and direction back to my Heavenly Father, the same as I do now.
2. No. If there was a mix-up at the hospital, I'd certainly have questions for the medical staff and search to find my biological child. But there would be no change to how I view the child I have been raising. My obligations to, love for, and eternal bond to that child would be unchanged.
3. No. My current relationship with my Heavenly Father stems entirely from His providing me with a world in which to grow, righteous teachings and examples to direct me, and constant patience and forgiveness as I stumble. Most of those blessings come indirectly through the Savior (my Brother) and others through whom Father works - all of whom I look to as fathers and mothers. While I'm open to the possibility that my existence in some fashion stems from a sexual union of heavenly beings at some point in time, that possibility does not at all color how I related to my Heavenly Father.

 

Am I correct in surmising that the bottom line purpose of this exercise is to rhetorically open the door to the possibility that, in eternity, married homosexual couples might be permitted to adopt the spirit children of heterosexual married couples and thereby become the ‘lawful’ heavenly “parents” of said adopted spirit children? My other surmise is that, in spite of the fact that the resurrected bodies of both men and women will be fully functional and anatomically correct, you might be suggesting the creation of spirit children in heaven has nothing to do with the act of sexual procreation engaged in by exalted men and exalted women?