Once upon a time I used to write blog posts. And many of them were on the topic of being children of God in a literal (complete) sense. And I once wrote a paper that I presented at an SMPT conference on the implications of taking this belief literally. The recently added gospel topic at lds.org reinforces all of that.
Advertisements
Eric Nielson
Thanks Eric. This is interesting.
I’m still not sure what you mean by “literal” (complete). The article does not explicitly state that we become children through any childbirth process. Yes, I believe we are chidlren of God. No, I do not think that this relashonship was formed through what we are now familiar with (Eve was “cursed” to bring forth children in pain – we only know the fallen way of becoming parents). I believe baptism is a “literal” birth, and is the best example of how we become children of God. Our eternal nature (which is also in the lds.org article) – that we were “not created or made” means to me that we were “adopted” as is stated over and over again in the NT. iow – God is cleaning up a mess He did not make. I did not make my own children, their spirit is their own. There is nothing wrong with adoption, it’s a more beautiful relashonship, it’s one that encompasses free will of both the parent and the child. I am “literally” married because of a covenant, and I am “literally” a child of God through a covenant too. Our free will and our love are what bind us together and make us family. Sorry, I don’t believe in any strange pregnant baby factories going on in heaven – I believe in eternal uncreated intelligences choosing to be with one another, with one of those intelligences being clearly greater than the rest, and therefore given the title of teacher/parent/God. Sorry to disagree, I could be wrong – just an opinion of a female/mother/Mormon. It is incredible to think of who we are, why we are here, and how we are all connected to one another, but I believe that Jesus is the “only” begotten – the “only” one, and that Mary was a Virgin, which is another example showing that God does not create children the way we do. Here’s a question, how was Adam created? Did he have a bellybutton? Adam is called a Son of God (Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God). We’re all grandchildren of Adam, and therefore grandchildren of God – we’re all one family, we’re all chidlren of God, I just think you need to be very careful not to mix up our fallen understanding of what makes someone a parent, with what actually makes someone a parent. The war in heaven was over agency, and I believe agency is the principle buildling block of a family.
In this sense literal would mean real offspring. Covenants do not make for literal offspring. Neither does social relationships. They may well be valuable, but not literal – no matter how much you state it.
No one is saying there is anything wrong with adoption. It is simply not a literal offspring relationship. No matter how beautiful or voluntary it may be, there is simply nothing about it that is literal offspring. Putting scare quotes around the word does not introduce ambiguity or mystery. This is something quite simple and uncomplicated. One may believe it or not, but it is not complex.
Reducing family relationships with literal offspring as strange baby factories is not that effective either. You can still have uncreated intelligences making all kinds of covenants if you like, it does not eliminate spirit bodies as literal offspring.
Your example of Christ’s birth falls a little flat as well, since Jesus was born through a pregnancy and birth, with Heavenly Father as parent. Sure there is some mystery here, but much of the pattern and method of birth are present. Characteristics of parents passed to literal offspring through a birth process.
How Adam was created, and whether he had a bellybutton is irrelevant to the topic at hand. There are several theories, none of which have any bearing on where spirit bodies come from.