Same-sex sealings

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If you were going to make the claim that performing a same-sex marriage sealing was invalid as sealing "something else". What would YOU use for the "something else"?

There aren’t any good analogies. The closest comparable relationship would be a different-sex sealing.

Hmmmmm…………

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You can do what you want.  It's never been an issue of what we are permitted to do.

It's about what ordinances and sealings God will accept.  (I have a feeling it will take 1000 years of temple work in the Millennium to fix a bunch of bad sealing ordinances and put the right ones in place.)
You can seal yourself to a horse.  God's not going to honor the ordinance.  If President Nelson made the announcement suggested in the essay and began sealing SSM couples I don't believe for one second God would honor that sealing in eternity.
Just like Joseph said you can be baptized dozens of times and you might as well baptize a bag of sand if it doesn't meet the requirements.

Actually there are secular legal issues with my plan too.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yep.

”I want to marry a husband.”

”That would be like marrying a horse”

It kind of is implied. It is so baked into the discourse that it is the immediate go to response that we see again and again and again. It may not be intentional but it is reflexive which might be worse.

This is exactly it.  People that argue against SSM, can't argue on the basis of historical sealing powers, or how they have changed through the years or how currently many of the heterosexual situations, the solution is to go ahead and do the ordinance anyway and let God sort it out in the next life.  They simply go to the ”That would be like marrying a horse”.  Besides being degrading, it is just a cheap shot not based on any actual revelation from God.

Not that I expect this thread to go anywhere every other single thread has gone on this issue.  Given the interesting essay referred to in the OP, it would be interesting to discuss some of the points brought out in the actual essay.  I would love to hear a real response to that way more than comparing SSM to marrying a horse.

Edited September 29, 2022 by california boy

[BluePlanet]

Oman:  "I do not find the claim that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the flourishing of earthly families or the vitality of marriage as an institution persuasive..."  and "...the pain and anxiety around these issues is having a corrosive effect on Latter-day Saint families and on the ability of the Church to retain members and gain converts."

I genuinely ask anyone to provide "persuasive evidence" that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual unions. I have been looking for such evidence for years and I find none.  And the seminary kids I teach ask me the same question:  where is the sin?  Sin is bad, sin produces unhappiness, sin is hurtful, sin is evil.  I have no answer for them.  We are stuck in a weird limbo state on this issue.

And, to his second quote, can anyone please give me a path for resolution of this tension?  How are the increasing numbers of LGBT individuals *in LDS families* going to be be ok with a lifetime of celibacy vs. the opportunity to pursue what we believe to be the pinnacle of human relations?  And how are their LDS families and friends of these members going to become ok with that terrible choice for their loved ones?  If you think this issue is going to melt away, I think you are seriously mistaken.  The opposite is happening, and the issue will grow in intensity and will continue to stress the church and its members, increasingly so.  I do not believe the status quo is sustainable.

But I'm open to persuasive, thoughtful discussion.

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, Nofear said:

I haven't read it yet. I have no expectation of agreeing with it. Nonetheless, I'll read it. It represents thoughts that go through the agitators in the Church.
https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind
Thought I'd post it and get some reactions from you guys too.

Same sex marital sealings make no logical nor practical sense since the fundamental purpose of the ordinance is to make possible procreation between exalted men and exalted women in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, or what Doctrine and Covenants 132 calls “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” So unless one member of the same sex couple volunteers to somehow be transformed into a true biological member of the opposite sex there no purpose to it. After all, if two members of the same sex want to remain very close friends throughout eternity, there is no ordinance needed to allow that to happen. The eternal perpetuation and continual increase of the family unit through procreation is what eternal marriage is all about. Two men or two women can love each other forever and ever, but it will always remain a dead end street insofar as the purposes of God are concerned as long as procreation remains impossible.

Edited September 29, 2022 by teddyaware

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, BluePlanet said:

Oman:  "I do not find the claim that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the flourishing of earthly families or the vitality of marriage as an institution persuasive..."  and "...the pain and anxiety around these issues is having a corrosive effect on Latter-day Saint families and on the ability of the Church to retain members and gain converts."

I genuinely ask anyone to provide "persuasive evidence" that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual unions. I have been looking for such evidence for years and I find none.  And the seminary kids I teach ask me the same question:  where is the sin?  Sin is bad, sin produces unhappiness, sin is hurtful, sin is evil.  I have no answer for them.  We are stuck in a weird limbo state on this issue.

And, to his second quote, can anyone please give me a path for resolution of this tension?  How are the increasing numbers of LGBT individuals *in LDS families* going to be be ok with a lifetime of celibacy vs. the opportunity to pursue what we believe to be the pinnacle of human relations?  And how are their LDS families and friends of these members going to become ok with that terrible choice for their loved ones?  If you think this issue is going to melt away, I think you are seriously mistaken.  The opposite is happening, and the issue will grow in intensity and will continue to stress the church and its members, increasingly so.  I do not believe the status quo is sustainable.

But I'm open to persuasive, thoughtful discussion.

+1. Same as my experience with the youth. And increasing numbers of adults. 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

That didn't take long for the inevitable comparison between SSM and relationships with animals.

Oh for Pete's sake.  I picked a noun at random.  I could just as easily have typed a bag of sand, a jar of mayonnaise, or a Ford Fiesta.

 

[Buckeye]

26 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Same sex marital sealings make no logical nor practical sense since the fundamental purpose of the ordinance is to make possible procreation between exalted men and exalted women in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, or what Doctrine and Covenants 132 calls “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” So unless one member of the same sex couple volunteers to somehow be transformed into a true biological member of the opposite sex there no purpose to it. After all, if two members of the same sex want to remain very close friends throughout eternity, there is no ordinance needed to allow that to happen. The eternal perpetuation and continual increase of the family unit through procreation is what eternal marriage is all about. Two men or two women can love each other forever and ever, but it will always remain a dead end street insofar as the purposes of God are concerned as long as procreation remains impossible.

SS families make complete sense to me. Christ taught that children of Abraham could be raised from stones. In other words, blood (procreation) doesn’t matter. It’s the godly attributes (creation) that bind. Those attributes are taught just as well by gay as straight.  

If by some chance there is spiritual procreation in the eternities, I’m certain SS couples will adopt the same as they do here. My wife and I would be happy to see some of our spirit children raised by our exalted LGBT siblings. What an amazing extended family that would be. 

[Rivers]

I’ve always thought that the very thought of Same-sex sealings was too outlandish to take seriously.  But just maybe, open theism opens the door for such a thing.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I won’t rehash my support for SSM here. Just note that Nate Oman is a prominent voice and I’m cautiously optimistic this analysis will lead to better days. I was already aware of the difference in sealing practices in Joseph’s day from today, but was unaware of the interim changes starting with Woodruff. So the essay was educational to me in that regard. 

How is Nate Oman a prominent voice?  Prominent how?  Who can he influence in any meaningful way on this issue?  Who is he?

[Peacefully]

10 hours ago, BluePlanet said:

Oman:  "I do not find the claim that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the flourishing of earthly families or the vitality of marriage as an institution persuasive..."  and "...the pain and anxiety around these issues is having a corrosive effect on Latter-day Saint families and on the ability of the Church to retain members and gain converts."

I genuinely ask anyone to provide "persuasive evidence" that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual unions. I have been looking for such evidence for years and I find none.  And the seminary kids I teach ask me the same question:  where is the sin?  Sin is bad, sin produces unhappiness, sin is hurtful, sin is evil.  I have no answer for them.  We are stuck in a weird limbo state on this issue.

And, to his second quote, can anyone please give me a path for resolution of this tension?  How are the increasing numbers of LGBT individuals *in LDS families* going to be be ok with a lifetime of celibacy vs. the opportunity to pursue what we believe to be the pinnacle of human relations?  And how are their LDS families and friends of these members going to become ok with that terrible choice for their loved ones?  If you think this issue is going to melt away, I think you are seriously mistaken.  The opposite is happening, and the issue will grow in intensity and will continue to stress the church and its members, increasingly so.  I do not believe the status quo is sustainable.

But I'm open to persuasive, thoughtful discussion.

You said this so well! 

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, Buckeye said:

SS families make complete sense to me. Christ taught that children of Abraham could be raised from stones. In other words, blood (procreation) doesn’t matter. It’s the godly attributes (creation) that bind. Those attributes are taught just as well by gay as straight.  

If by some chance there is spiritual procreation in the eternities, I’m certain SS couples will adopt the same as they do here. My wife and I would be happy to see some of our spirit children raised by our exalted LGBT siblings. What an amazing extended family that would be. 

Totally illogical and unmoored with the scriptures. 1) The scriptures abundantly attest that the children of Abraham, of which you speak, must first be born in the flesh by means of  a mother and a father before their bodies can be raised from the dead in the holy resurrection. 2) Why would celestial parents (the human bodies of exalted men and women will be raised from the dead fully functional and anatomically correct) want to give away their children to others to raise? Will they not have enough money and resources, or not yet finished their educations, or will some perfect celestial parents have their children come along at a time when they’re too immature and emotionally unprepared to raise their own children according to God’s holy commandment?

Edited September 29, 2022 by teddyaware

[gopher]

10 hours ago, BluePlanet said:

Oman:  "I do not find the claim that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the flourishing of earthly families or the vitality of marriage as an institution persuasive..."  and "...the pain and anxiety around these issues is having a corrosive effect on Latter-day Saint families and on the ability of the Church to retain members and gain converts."

I genuinely ask anyone to provide "persuasive evidence" that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual unions. I have been looking for such evidence for years and I find none.  And the seminary kids I teach ask me the same question:  where is the sin?  Sin is bad, sin produces unhappiness, sin is hurtful, sin is evil.  I have no answer for them.  We are stuck in a weird limbo state on this issue.

And, to his second quote, can anyone please give me a path for resolution of this tension?  How are the increasing numbers of LGBT individuals *in LDS families* going to be be ok with a lifetime of celibacy vs. the opportunity to pursue what we believe to be the pinnacle of human relations?  And how are their LDS families and friends of these members going to become ok with that terrible choice for their loved ones?  If you think this issue is going to melt away, I think you are seriously mistaken.  The opposite is happening, and the issue will grow in intensity and will continue to stress the church and its members, increasingly so.  I do not believe the status quo is sustainable.

But I'm open to persuasive, thoughtful discussion.

Is the church opposed to SSM because it poses a threat to heterosexual marriage?  I think the biggest threat is that it's causing believers to abandon their faith, testimonies, and covenants made and leaving the church as a result.  It's becoming increasingly difficult to support SSM and remain a believing, covenant keeping member of the church.  How many heterosexuals members have left the church over this issue?  Isn't that evidence enough of the damage caused by SSM?  I think the church has been very clear on its position for SSM so there isn't any reason for confusion.  Have any prophets at any time in history ever expressed support for SSM or homosexual unions?  It seems members that follow the prophet today should feel confident knowing that he is  consistent with every prophet before him.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Totally illogical and unmoored with the scriptures. 1) The scriptures abundantly attest that the children of Abraham, of which you speak, must first be born in the flesh by means of  a mother and a father before their bodies can be raised from the dead in the holy resurrection. 2) Why would celestial parents (the human bodies of exalted men and women will be raised from the dead fully functional and anatomically correct) want to give away their children to others to raise? Will they not have enough money and resources, or not yet finished their educations, or will some perfect celestial parents have their children come along at a time when they’re too immature and emotionally unprepared to raise their own children according to God’s holy commandment?

Is the only job God has is creating spirit children?  Does every couple on earth have to have children or are even able to have children?  I personally have NO interest in having billions of children in the next life.  Maybe that is the very reason why I am gay.  I got other work to do in God's vineyard.

And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth (Book of Abraham 4:1).

Things created by the gay gods:

Peacocks

The Grand Canyon

Bird of Paradise

Yosemite

 

What can I say, we have an eye and talent for creating beautiful things

[CV75]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

This is exactly it.  People that argue against SSM, can't argue on the basis of historical sealing powers, or how they have changed through the years or how currently many of the heterosexual situations, the solution is to go ahead and do the ordinance anyway and let God sort it out in the next life.  They simply go to the ”That would be like marrying a horse”.  Besides being degrading, it is just a cheap shot not based on any actual revelation from God.

Not that I expect this thread to go anywhere every other single thread has gone on this issue.  Given the interesting essay referred to in the OP, it would be interesting to discuss some of the points brought out in the actual essay.  I would love to hear a real response to that way more than comparing SSM to marrying a horse.

There are at least two levels of argument against SSM. One is socio-political to establish rights and laws, and this relies on rationale. Another is spiritual to establish the temple rite and policy, and this relies on understanding the purpose of the sealing power not just the mechanics of the sealing ordinances. The fault of the essay is that it uses a socio-political lens while overlooking the nature of the sealing power. You may want to read this: Posted 13 hours ago

12 hours ago, BluePlanet said:

Oman:  "I do not find the claim that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the flourishing of earthly families or the vitality of marriage as an institution persuasive..."  and "...the pain and anxiety around these issues is having a corrosive effect on Latter-day Saint families and on the ability of the Church to retain members and gain converts."

I genuinely ask anyone to provide "persuasive evidence" that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual unions. I have been looking for such evidence for years and I find none.  And the seminary kids I teach ask me the same question:  where is the sin?  Sin is bad, sin produces unhappiness, sin is hurtful, sin is evil.  I have no answer for them.  We are stuck in a weird limbo state on this issue.

And, to his second quote, can anyone please give me a path for resolution of this tension?  How are the increasing numbers of LGBT individuals *in LDS families* going to be be ok with a lifetime of celibacy vs. the opportunity to pursue what we believe to be the pinnacle of human relations?  And how are their LDS families and friends of these members going to become ok with that terrible choice for their loved ones?  If you think this issue is going to melt away, I think you are seriously mistaken.  The opposite is happening, and the issue will grow in intensity and will continue to stress the church and its members, increasingly so.  I do not believe the status quo is sustainable.

But I'm open to persuasive, thoughtful discussion.

Regarding the first question, seminary students are taught that fornication and adultery are sins and are invited to accept that on faith. The principles of accountability, charity, forgiveness and grace provide additional nuance and context to how we view sin. I would advise against taking a socio-political lens to any religious principle, and instead focus on how sin operates in opposition to the sealing power. You may want to consider this: Posted 13 hours ago 

Regarding the second, the path for resolution of any interpersonal tension is the individual's commitment to avoid the spirit of contention. It has to do with an understanding that the pinnacle of human relations is oneness with Christ, not mutually edifying romantic and sexual relationships. All other relationships follow. President Nelson advised in so many ways that we need “the guiding, directing, comforting and constant influence of the Holy Ghost” to face seemingly insurmountable challenges. That is the aim of the sealing power.

Edited September 29, 2022 by CV75

[2BizE]

I believe this is what JS called the Law of Adoption.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

There really isn't anything that you can compare to SSM--when trying to argue its illegitimacy--that people who disagree will not find offensive.  So in that regard, unflattering comparisons become inevitable because the deck is stacked against anyone making an argument against SSM.

So many find that perspective offensive in its own right that no comparison can overcome it.

There are some great analogies though. Like the analogy to interracial relationships. If God wanted different races to marry each other he wouldn’t have separated them geographically or put a mark on them “cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.”

But seriously, if you can’t come up with a working analogy that doesn’t involve rape (of children or animals), that is pretty telling. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ttribe]

15 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If you were going to make the claim that performing a same-sex marriage sealing was invalid as sealing "something else". What would YOU use for the "something else"?

Formulate the argument against SSM without the need for problematic comparisons.

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh for Pete's sake.  I picked a noun at random.  I could just as easily have typed a bag of sand, a jar of mayonnaise, or a Ford Fiesta.

 

But, you didn't type any of those things and no matter how much you say otherwise the human brain is incapable of randomness. Moreover, it is well documented here and elsewhere that homosexual relations are often uttered in the same sentence as bestiality. If nothing else, that should have been sufficient to push your argument in a different direction. That is, if you were actually interested in dialogue. If you were just trying to score points, then I guess the idea of decorum and decency toward your fellow humans is out the door. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Same sex marital sealings make no logical nor practical sense since the fundamental purpose of the ordinance is to make possible procreation between exalted men and exalted women in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, or what Doctrine and Covenants 132 calls “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” So unless one member of the same sex couple volunteers to somehow be transformed into a true biological member of the opposite sex there no purpose to it. After all, if two members of the same sex want to remain very close friends throughout eternity, there is no ordinance needed to allow that to happen. The eternal perpetuation and continual increase of the family unit through procreation is what eternal marriage is all about. Two men or two women can love each other forever and ever, but it will always remain a dead end street insofar as the purposes of God are concerned as long as procreation remains impossible.

Can you provide a reference that teaches that spirits are born via a process similar to mortal sxual procreation?

Your argument presupposes that a spiritual birth must be similar to a physical birth via sxual relationship and the fertilization of egg from seed. I'm not aware of a scriptural or prophetic teaching that elucidates how spirits are created. In fact, don't we learn that intelligences are eternal and that spirits are "organized"? Is there a reason to believe that a SS couple couldn't organize eternal intelligences? If so, what is that reason?

[Nofear]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you provide a reference that teaches that spirits are born via a process similar to mortal sxual procreation?

Your argument presupposes that a spiritual birth must be similar to a physical birth via sxual relationship and the fertilization of egg from seed. I'm not aware of a scriptural or prophetic teaching that elucidates how spirits are created. In fact, don't we learn that intelligences are eternal and that spirits are "organized"? Is there a reason to believe that a SS couple couldn't organize eternal intelligences? If so, what is that reason?

Oh, some of the brethren in the past have presumed such, especially in the 1800's. It really doesn't make sense. For me the idea of viviparous birth for spirit children is a complete no-go. Well, absence of evidence is hardly evidence, my suspicion is that the creation of our spirit bodies in the eternal realms would be so foreign to what we are familiar with using our mortal bodies that our sentiments would be sorely offending and it would be a stumbling block for many. Hence, a complete absence of information on the topic. Consequently, the male-female procreation I don't find as a good argument against SSM eternal unions. That said, there is something more going on and, while I may not know the reasons, there is a distinct, immutable, and important purpose to the binary gender relationship of our species.


Still haven't the article yet. But, a thanks to everybody who has commented.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are some great analogies though. Like the analogy to interracial relationships. If God wanted different races to marry each other he wouldn’t have separated them geographically or put a mark on them “cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.”

But seriously, if you can’t come up with a working analogy that doesn’t involve rape (of children or animals), that is pretty telling. 

Problem with that comparison is that miscegenation was altered with further light and knowledge. Using that as a comparison might lead someone to wonder if this might be a similar situation.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Is the only job God has is creating spirit children?  Does every couple on earth have to have children or are even able to have children?  I personally have NO interest in having billions of children in the next life.  Maybe that is the very reason why I am gay.  I got other work to do in God's vineyard.

And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth (Book of Abraham 4:1).

Things created by the gay gods:

Peacocks

The Grand Canyon

Bird of Paradise

Yosemite

 

What can I say, we have an eye and talent for creating beautiful things

And then you have the bi gods who created:

Flannel

Cuffed jeans

Frogs

Horses with zebra stripes

Those weird flowers that look like bees or birds

 

Oh boy. Yeah, we need to do better.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Formulate the argument against SSM without the need for problematic comparisons.

But, you didn't type any of those things and no matter how much you say otherwise the human brain is incapable of randomness. Moreover, it is well documented here and elsewhere that homosexual relations are often uttered in the same sentence as bestiality. If nothing else, that should have been sufficient to push your argument in a different direction. That is, if you were actually interested in dialogue. If you were just trying to score points, then I guess the idea of decorum and decency toward your fellow humans is out the door. Your mileage may vary, of course.

My point was and still is that you could in theory have yourself sealed to ANYTHING or ANYONE you want.
That doesn't make it valid if it goes outside the established ordinances revealed from heaven.

God has revealed only two kinds of sealings.  That of husband/wife and that of parent/child.  The adoption ordinances in the 1800s were parent child.  Polygamy ordinances were husband wife.  They were never about same sex sealing or polyamory.

It wouldn't be enough for Church leaders to announce the beginning of same sex sealings.  They would require an entirely new type of sealing, an ordinance not currently in existence from any dispensation.
So I'll say it again, you can be sealed to whatever you want.  It doesn't make it binding or valid.  The sealing keys aren't a superglue to bind any two things together.  They are declaring specific eternal relationships dictated in the ordinances themselves.

If God wants to provide a brand new ordinance that's up to him.  But "ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed".
The ordinances are older than the earth itself.  Unless he's withheld one it simply doesn't exist.

Edited September 29, 2022 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My point was and still is that you could in theory have yourself sealed to ANYTHING or ANYONE you want.
That doesn't make it valid if it goes outside the established ordinances revealed from heaven.

God has revealed only two kinds of sealings.  That of husband/wife and that of parent/child.  The adoption ordinances in the 1800s were parent child.  Polygamy ordinances were husband wife.  They were never about same sex sealing or polyamory.

It wouldn't be enough for Church leaders to announce the beginning of same sex sealings.  They would require an entirely new type of sealing, an ordinance not currently in existence from any dispensation.
So I'll say it again, you can be sealed to whatever you want.  It doesn't make it binding or valid.  The sealing keys aren't a superglue to bind any two things together.  They are declaring specific eternal relationships dictated in the ordinances themselves.

If God wants to provide a brand new ordinance that's up to him.  But "ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed".
The ordinances are older than the earth itself.  Unless he's withheld one it simply doesn't exist.

First- maybe a new type of sealing would be required, but I don't think so. Instead of calling it "husband/wife" sealing, it could just as easily be termed "spousal sealing", which could easily include SSM. It's really just a semantic argument and not a very strong one.

Second, assuming that this is correct and that ordinances instituted in heavens from the foundation of the world (yet not known until the 1830's) cannot be changed or altered we would have to assume that our understanding of those ordinances is 100% complete and accurate. In other words, our understanding and language would have to be perfect to dismiss SS sealing on this basis. Personally, I don't trust that we/anyone has a perfect understanding of anything, let alone the knowledge of how God works.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you provide a reference that teaches that spirits are born via a process similar to mortal sxual procreation?

Your argument presupposes that a spiritual birth must be similar to a physical birth via sxual relationship and the fertilization of egg from seed. I'm not aware of a scriptural or prophetic teaching that elucidates how spirits are created. In fact, don't we learn that intelligences are eternal and that spirits are "organized"? Is there a reason to believe that a SS couple couldn't organize eternal intelligences? If so, what is that reason?

D&C 132 speaks of a continuation of seeds in eternity.  Seed would imply a biological component - perhaps even a genetic one.

"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." - Bruce R. McConkie

"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." - Brigham Young