Page 2 of 2
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:09 am
by Rob4Hope
el-asherah wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:22 am
Emower wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:26 am
This thought process going on in this thread is all the proof needed that the church is not true. Seriously, how weird is this discussion? And the TBM trope that we shouldnt think about it much because there is not much revealed about it is bogus because BY and JS talked about it a lot. It is an important aspect of our early theology and informs a lot of our current theology. Hence, the RFM podcast.
Yes the thought process in this thread is beyond weird, but it is about to get weirder.
I've mentioned this concept before in an earlier thread but it is worth repeating here to flesh out this thread.
So hold on to your seat belts as we descend further down the rabbit hole.
I learned this little tidbit of history while listening to John Larson's Mormon Expression podcast on the Adam God Theory.
Medical knowledge of human sexual reproduction was incomplete in the 1800s. At the time the cultural attitudes were that only men had the power of procreation. Without getting too explicit, men were thought to procreate because well... you can see it, and women were not thought to procreate because well.. you can't see it. Women were viewed as incubators of men's creations. The Mater (as in mother) was thought to come from the women, but the spirit, the pattern (Pater) was thought to come from the man.
So in Joseph Smiths and Brigham Youngs day, this basic misunderstanding of human reproduction got encapsulated into Mormon theology. Since, only men have the power of procreation, and being a God is all about creation, then only men can become Gods and create, and therefore God himself was once a man. Women since they do not have the power of creation are incubators for men's creations, and when a man becomes a God, he needs lots of Goddesses as incubators in order to do a lot of creating of spirit children.
For God the priesthood is his power of creation (not just spirit children, but also creating planets from chaotic matter, etc). Men can have the priesthood for a trial period on earth to see if they are worthy for when then become a God and start doing heavy duty creating. If they are not worthy they can not procreate after their earth life (the TK smoothies). Women can never have the priesthood because they will never have this power of creation. Their role on earth and in heaven is to be mothers and incubators for their husband God. In earlier temple ceremonies a women's husband was her God.
It is interesting to note that there are ZERO canonized revelations in the church that say women can not have the priesthood. But yet they can't due to this mistaken idea from the 1800s that got enshrined into the theology and the institutional inertia of the mindset of the brethren up to now.
Out of this mistaken idea we get - men can become Gods, Gods create through sexual reproduction, polygamy, celestial marriage, women as Goddesses are mothers and incubators to their husband God, men can have the priesthood, women can't, and gender is eternal as in the "Proclamation on the Family". Plus in order to control people - only the brethren (Joseph Smith) have the power to tell God which people can be married forever and become Gods and (later prophets) which families are permitted to be together in heaven.
ES...just read your post here, and it was eye-opening. I remember reading something about this in the past--this mistaken idea of men being the only creators and how it circulated in the 1800s. It gave a theological foundation for institutional misogyny. It also fascinates/irritates me that the current leadership is so non-progressive; they: 1) can't own the mistakes made; 2) have to defend the "prophetic "integrity" of their predecessors; 3) can't seem to make any changes themselves to really and progressively move forward.
Guess what folks. If women weren't around, there wouldn't BE NO MEN TO HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD!
I've had women bosses. I've worked for some CEOs who were female, and they were EXCELLENT. I have no problem working for and with someone who is smart, gifted, powerful and accomplished. Two were very gifted and inspired those that worked for them. WOW, they both were very feminine as well. Powerful and feminine, even elegant. What a rocking combination.
The Q15 freak out about women like this. I remember reading that Boyd Packer really had a problem with Elaine Jack: she was too snazy and independent for him. The guy was a caveman...
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:53 pm
by Reuben
Geez, ES, thanks for the rabbit hole.
While the introduction of polygamy (late 1830s) predated the discovery of microscopic fertilization (1875), the discovery of sperm and ova was way earlier (mid to late 1600s). So, serious question: Were sperm and ova known to early polygamists? Or were they still going on the "semen is divine baby batter" model?
If they knew about sperm and ova, do we know whether they were spermists (i.e. thought new life is contained in or due to sperm) or ovists (i.e. thought new life is contained in or due to ova)?
Additionally, and this is important for tracing attitudes about masturbation, were they preformists (i.e. thought sperm or ova contain tiny homunculi that grow into humans)?
IMO, with the average education level among early Mormons and their relative isolation and misogyny, I'd guess they were either baby batterists or spermists. No idea about preformism.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:27 am
by Rob4Hope
Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:53 pm
Geez, ES, thanks for the rabbit hole.
While the introduction of polygamy (late 1830s) predated the discovery of microscopic fertilization (1875), the discovery of sperm and ova was way earlier (mid to late 1600s). So, serious question: Were sperm and ova known to early polygamists? Or were they still going on the "semen is divine baby batter" model?
If they knew about sperm and ova, do we know whether they were spermists (i.e. thought new life is contained in or due to sperm) or ovists (i.e. thought new life is contained in or due to ova)?
Additionally, and this is important for tracing attitudes about masturbation, were they preformists (i.e. thought sperm or ova contain tiny homunculi that grow into humans)?
IMO, with the average education level among early Mormons and their relative isolation and misogyny, I'd guess they were either baby batterists or spermists. No idea about preformism.
VERY interesting questions. I would also like to know some of the answers. The supposition made further up in this thread is the idea that only MEN were the creators--that the woman was the incubator, but the man had all the baby making stuff. Did anyone get some references on this?
And, was this really a foundational element of the institutional misogyny that took root back then?
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:49 am
by Palerider
I think we had a thread here on this awhile back. They possibly knew about ova and sperm but they didn't see ovum as carrying any design material. More of a place for the male seed material in which to grow the "mini-baby".
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:13 pm
by Rob4Hope
Palerider wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:49 am
I think we had a thread here on this awhile back. They possibly knew about ova and sperm but they didn't see ovum as carrying any design material. More of a place for the male seed material in which to grow the "mini-baby".
You know...these men are "prophets, seers and revelators"....right?
Of what!
A policy that is founded on falsehood, when the claim is divine inspiration is infallible, is ludicrous.
It's commendable that President Uchdorf openly stated: "mistakes have been made." But where does someone like M. Russell Ballard get off saying: "We can not lead you astray"?
I'm laughing now.......rolling and rolling and rolling.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:37 pm
by Palerider
Found it here in this thread on the McConkie Papers!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2096
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:42 am
by Rob4Hope
Thanks for finding this. There is a reference to it as well--the guy who said it and where. I'm going to pursue this one. Looks interesting.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:13 pm
by Reuben
From the diary of L. John Nuttall, his recollection of a lecture given by Brigham Young at his home:
It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:15 am
by RubinHighlander
I really enjoyed that pod cast, it was a head spinner and brought up conflicts in dogmas between church leaders that I was not aware of when it comes to the per-existence and the make up of spirits.
Thanks to the veil over our minds and understanding, anyone could say anything about life before birth and be right about it. I had a lot of past thoughts come to mind from my past TBM life. One example: God's time is not our time, so he had a long time to make all those spirits with his super sperm, as a perfect resurrected being.
There's so many problems to resolve with the "God used to be like us" thing. On the one hand I liked it because it fit in more with evolution on the eternal scale, that there was a cycle to things and a progression. But then that opens up all the problems with the eternity thing, that God has always existed. I could never resolve those two. Then my later education into astrophysics and the fact the universe is expanding exponentially. From what we know now, it appears it will eventually reach a state of entropy, where particles are so far apart from each other that they can no longer react and it's just dead cold dark space; after the last of the black holes burn out. That gives me hope that there is something else, that there is some type of cycle or power that can kick off another universe with a big bang. Or, it's just a multiverse, some die others begins. Or the matrix/simulation theory, that we are all just part of some advanced superior being's science fair experiment.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:55 pm
by Reuben
RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:15 am
From what we know now, it appears it will eventually reach a state of entropy, where particles are so far apart from each other that they can no longer react and it's just dead cold dark space; after the last of the black holes burn out. That gives me hope that there is something else, that there is some type of cycle or power that can kick off another universe with a big bang.
Reminds me of this awesome story:
http://multivax.com/last_question.html
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:19 am
by RubinHighlander
Exactly! I love that one.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:49 pm
by Hagoth
What strikes me funny about all of this celestial sex stuff is that, considering that the church has such a frowny face when it comes to sex, you'd think that Satan, rather than God, would be the one who spends eternity indulging his sexual obsession.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:22 pm
by Hagoth
Whoa, I just had a disturbing thought. According to the King Follett Discourse, the cosmos is filled with baby and toddler gods. If the purpose of gods is to eternally procreate, what are those babies up to? And with whom?
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:39 am
by Reuben
Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:22 pm
Whoa, I just had a disturbing thought. According to the King Follett Discourse, the cosmos is filled with baby and toddler gods. If the purpose of gods is to eternally procreate, what are those babies up to? And with whom?
See, that's the kind of wackiness you get when you mix JS theology with BY theology. It just shouldn't be done, man.
Or, if BY was right in that he never taught any theology he didn't learn from JS, it's what you get when you mix JS theology with JS theology.
If we mix in some JFS, we get a weird situation where babies and toddlers have working junk, but the vast majority of grown men and women are like Ken and Barbie.
Re: Celestial Procreation?
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:46 pm
by Rob4Hope
Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:39 am
Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:22 pm
Whoa, I just had a disturbing thought. According to the King Follett Discourse, the cosmos is filled with baby and toddler gods. If the purpose of gods is to eternally procreate, what are those babies up to? And with whom?
See, that's the kind of wackiness you get when you mix JS theology with BY theology. It just shouldn't be done, man.
Or, if BY was right in that he never taught any theology he didn't learn from JS, it's what you get when you mix JS theology with JS theology.
If we mix in some JFS, we get a weird situation where babies and toddlers have working junk, but the vast majority of grown men and women are like Ken and Barbie.
TK Smoothie....TK Smoothie....TK Smoothie....TK Smoothie....TK Smoothie....
Oh wait. I'm not gunna do that again....