Everything I know indicates that when God speaks, He does so to the living prophet. Each of us can receive revelation, but very few have heard the actual voice of God. Those who do hear God's voice are righteous.
Here's my question: would God speak directly to a murderer, one who "loved Satan more than God"?
I don't think so. Yet, that is what many understand from the story of Cain.
Background: Adam and Eve have many children, and teach them the Gospel (Moses 5:12). Adam is the prophet on the earth. Adam and Eve have two more children, Cain and Abel. Cain is wicked, while Abel is righteous. Satan commands Cain (who probably was not authorized with the priesthood) to make an offering to the Lord (using the "fruit of the ground"--a perversion of the ordinance). He does so; Abel also makes an offering (the right way). The Lord (THE LORD in the KJV Bible--indicating that the words are a replacement of the name Jehovah) "had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect." (Moses 5:20-21)
I suggest that the reason Cain knew that the Lord didn't approve of his offering was because Adam, the prophet, said as much.
Then in verses 22-25 of Moses 5, the Lord speaks to Cain. After Cain kills Abel, the Lord again speaks to him in verses 34-40. It seems strange to think that Jehovah would speak to a murderer and given that we have no record of Adam speaking to his son about these things, I think that the Lord was speaking through His prophet, Adam, just as He has done with many prophets and even Joseph Smith in many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants.
In verse 26, we read, "And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in Holiness before the Lord." Why doesn't it read, "neither to Adam, his father"? It wouldn't if the voice of the Lord was given to him through Adam.
It does make sense that Adam would speak to his son about these things.
Last thoughts for now:
This topic is much like my entry on Adam's creation; it is very speculative and unconfirmed by any published doctrine that I know. It does make sense to me, though. I think Adam was directly involved in his sons' lives, and I think he gave his children the words of the Lord as their prophet.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Born Into the World
God doesn't use an earthquake when a whisper will suffice.
So, when a perfectly good method for creating a child already exists, why would He need to come up with some other way?
I'm going to speculate here, delving into subject matter beyond established doctrine. Also, I'm treading into delicate territory because of the sacred nature of things implied in what I'm considering.
A long time ago I heard someone ask the question, "Did Adam have a belly button?" It was supposed to be almost a trick question, based on the assumption that Adam wasn't born. A few years ago one of our Institute teachers gave this reply: "Of course he did. Why wouldn't he?" The teacher suggested that when Adam was created he was born like the rest of us are.
I imagine that such an idea sounds strange to some people. Myself, I think it's stranger to think that Heavenly Father molded a bunch of dirt and mud into a humanoid shape and then changed it into flesh.
I'm not going to say that's impossible for God. Christ changed water into wine and fed a huge crowd with a few loaves and fishes, so Heavenly Father could presumably turn dirt/dust into flesh.
Even so, I don't think He had any need to do it.
It's said in scripture that God "formed man from the dust of the ground" (Moses 3:7, Genesis 2:7). This sort of language gives me the changing-dirt-to-flesh idea. However, I get a different sort of idea when I read Moses 6:59, which reads, "inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul". Here, "born" and "became of dust a living soul" are the same thing.
For what it's worth, footnote b on "dust" in Moses 6:59 actually refers back to Genesis 2:7, Moses 3:7, and Abraham 5:7.
How are we created from dust when we are born? Maybe it's as simple as this: Plants grow in the earth, soaking up minerals and growing from the "dust". People eat these plants, or they eat animals that ate the plants. A pregnant woman slowly builds a little person inside her using the materials she obtained by eating and digesting them. Thus, the baby comes from the "dust of the ground".
Maybe it's like that.
The book of Moses (with an abbreviated version in Genesis) gives more reason to believe that Adam was born like we were. Moses 6:8-10 includes these words: "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his likeness, after his own image, and called his name Seth."
I notice parallel language here. "Adam..begat a son in his likeness, after his own image" and God created Adam in His "likeness" and "image". It would make sense if God fathered Adam just as Adam fathered Seth.
I think that makes sense.
This actually introduces a different idea, but one more possible connection again comes from Moses 3:7. "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also". After a child is born, a significant change occurs in its body: it takes its first breath. After Adam was "formed", God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". Perhaps Adam's spirit entered into his body when he breathed his first breath.
If that's the case, it would follow then that our spirits enter our bodies when we are born. That's a big thing to state. It's hard for me to fully think this thought through, as I've never held a growing fetus in my womb and felt its movements. All the same, it does make sense when considering that Christ spoke to Nephi just hours before his birth in 3 Nephi 1:13. I guess I just find it unlikely that He would be speaking to Nephi from inside His mother's womb. (If he was, it means that he had full consciousness despite having the brain of a baby; I doubt he had full consciousness immediately after he was born.)
I'll have to ask a few doctors what a baby generally seems like just before and after he takes his first breath.
I assume that a mother's egg cells have her spirit in them like the rest of her body; the new spirit has to enter at some point between being a fertilized egg and a newborn baby. Entering at the first breath would be the latest possible time, but it could be the case.
If spirits do enter their bodies when they are born, it by no means implies that abortion of a fetus is thus generally acceptable. Our bodies are temples for our spirits, and the wanton creation and destruction of temples is certainly not pleasing to God.
Last thoughts for now: When a prophetic statement is issued (or when I die and move on and am taught in the Spirit World), I'll know the truth. In the meanwhile, I do think that Adam was born physically to our Heavenly Parents. For that matter, Eve would have been born the same way (which would make the teaching about Adam's rib purely metaphoric, which I take it to be anyway). Thus, we're children of God in more than just a spiritual way; we're literally descended from Him. And on another note, I am somewhat inclined to think that our spirits enter our bodies at the moment of or right after our birth when we draw our first breath. Either of these might be true. We'll see.
So, when a perfectly good method for creating a child already exists, why would He need to come up with some other way?
I'm going to speculate here, delving into subject matter beyond established doctrine. Also, I'm treading into delicate territory because of the sacred nature of things implied in what I'm considering.
A long time ago I heard someone ask the question, "Did Adam have a belly button?" It was supposed to be almost a trick question, based on the assumption that Adam wasn't born. A few years ago one of our Institute teachers gave this reply: "Of course he did. Why wouldn't he?" The teacher suggested that when Adam was created he was born like the rest of us are.
I imagine that such an idea sounds strange to some people. Myself, I think it's stranger to think that Heavenly Father molded a bunch of dirt and mud into a humanoid shape and then changed it into flesh.
I'm not going to say that's impossible for God. Christ changed water into wine and fed a huge crowd with a few loaves and fishes, so Heavenly Father could presumably turn dirt/dust into flesh.
Even so, I don't think He had any need to do it.
It's said in scripture that God "formed man from the dust of the ground" (Moses 3:7, Genesis 2:7). This sort of language gives me the changing-dirt-to-flesh idea. However, I get a different sort of idea when I read Moses 6:59, which reads, "inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul". Here, "born" and "became of dust a living soul" are the same thing.
For what it's worth, footnote b on "dust" in Moses 6:59 actually refers back to Genesis 2:7, Moses 3:7, and Abraham 5:7.
How are we created from dust when we are born? Maybe it's as simple as this: Plants grow in the earth, soaking up minerals and growing from the "dust". People eat these plants, or they eat animals that ate the plants. A pregnant woman slowly builds a little person inside her using the materials she obtained by eating and digesting them. Thus, the baby comes from the "dust of the ground".
Maybe it's like that.
The book of Moses (with an abbreviated version in Genesis) gives more reason to believe that Adam was born like we were. Moses 6:8-10 includes these words: "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his likeness, after his own image, and called his name Seth."
I notice parallel language here. "Adam..begat a son in his likeness, after his own image" and God created Adam in His "likeness" and "image". It would make sense if God fathered Adam just as Adam fathered Seth.
I think that makes sense.
This actually introduces a different idea, but one more possible connection again comes from Moses 3:7. "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also". After a child is born, a significant change occurs in its body: it takes its first breath. After Adam was "formed", God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". Perhaps Adam's spirit entered into his body when he breathed his first breath.
If that's the case, it would follow then that our spirits enter our bodies when we are born. That's a big thing to state. It's hard for me to fully think this thought through, as I've never held a growing fetus in my womb and felt its movements. All the same, it does make sense when considering that Christ spoke to Nephi just hours before his birth in 3 Nephi 1:13. I guess I just find it unlikely that He would be speaking to Nephi from inside His mother's womb. (If he was, it means that he had full consciousness despite having the brain of a baby; I doubt he had full consciousness immediately after he was born.)
I'll have to ask a few doctors what a baby generally seems like just before and after he takes his first breath.
I assume that a mother's egg cells have her spirit in them like the rest of her body; the new spirit has to enter at some point between being a fertilized egg and a newborn baby. Entering at the first breath would be the latest possible time, but it could be the case.
If spirits do enter their bodies when they are born, it by no means implies that abortion of a fetus is thus generally acceptable. Our bodies are temples for our spirits, and the wanton creation and destruction of temples is certainly not pleasing to God.
Last thoughts for now: When a prophetic statement is issued (or when I die and move on and am taught in the Spirit World), I'll know the truth. In the meanwhile, I do think that Adam was born physically to our Heavenly Parents. For that matter, Eve would have been born the same way (which would make the teaching about Adam's rib purely metaphoric, which I take it to be anyway). Thus, we're children of God in more than just a spiritual way; we're literally descended from Him. And on another note, I am somewhat inclined to think that our spirits enter our bodies at the moment of or right after our birth when we draw our first breath. Either of these might be true. We'll see.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The Image of God
I'm not sure what brought on this thought, but I wondered the other day if perhaps our idea of what our Heavenly Father is like comes largely from what our earthly fathers are like.
People seem to have varied ideas about what God is like. I think they feel differently about His motives and His level of involvement in our lives.
Yesterday night I sort of completed the thought when it occurred to me that the father in the home is supposed to provide the best example to his children of what God is like.
(I then suppose that our mothers initially give us our ideas of what our Heavenly Mother is like, though of course we don't speak of her often.)
The father is the patriarch in his home. He is the priesthood leader in the family, and the priesthood is the power and authority to act in God's name. Just as the bishop is God's representative to all members of the ward, the father is God's representative to his family.
So when the world lacks an understanding of what God is like (and this is something I've seen many times over many years), I can only ascribe blame for that to fathers who failed to live as they should and to provide a good example to their children.
How many people feel as if God is not involved in their lives, that He doesn't care about them, or even that He does not exist? How many people have grown up in homes where the father was absent, or where he gave his attention to other things and rarely spent time with his kids?
Satan has been subtly undermining the roles of men (and women) for decades. How many in the world have lost faith in our Heavenly Father in recent years? Satan has also been discouraging people from having children, and thus denying themselves the most important opportunity to be examples of godliness and thus learn about Him that way. (After all, being a father has been the most instructive experience for me in learning about God.)
Naturally, though, the place in which I must really concern myself is in my own home, with my own children (and wife). That is where I can serve best, where the power of my example is the greatest.
Last thoughts for now:
I'm sure there are various other factors that shape a person's idea of God, particularly since my own father was often not present during my younger years. However, I believe that I have a responsibility in my own home to be a righteous man in whom my family can see godly attributes. The task of teaching my family, by example, the nature of God, is mine.
People seem to have varied ideas about what God is like. I think they feel differently about His motives and His level of involvement in our lives.
Yesterday night I sort of completed the thought when it occurred to me that the father in the home is supposed to provide the best example to his children of what God is like.
(I then suppose that our mothers initially give us our ideas of what our Heavenly Mother is like, though of course we don't speak of her often.)
The father is the patriarch in his home. He is the priesthood leader in the family, and the priesthood is the power and authority to act in God's name. Just as the bishop is God's representative to all members of the ward, the father is God's representative to his family.
So when the world lacks an understanding of what God is like (and this is something I've seen many times over many years), I can only ascribe blame for that to fathers who failed to live as they should and to provide a good example to their children.
How many people feel as if God is not involved in their lives, that He doesn't care about them, or even that He does not exist? How many people have grown up in homes where the father was absent, or where he gave his attention to other things and rarely spent time with his kids?
Satan has been subtly undermining the roles of men (and women) for decades. How many in the world have lost faith in our Heavenly Father in recent years? Satan has also been discouraging people from having children, and thus denying themselves the most important opportunity to be examples of godliness and thus learn about Him that way. (After all, being a father has been the most instructive experience for me in learning about God.)
Naturally, though, the place in which I must really concern myself is in my own home, with my own children (and wife). That is where I can serve best, where the power of my example is the greatest.
Last thoughts for now:
I'm sure there are various other factors that shape a person's idea of God, particularly since my own father was often not present during my younger years. However, I believe that I have a responsibility in my own home to be a righteous man in whom my family can see godly attributes. The task of teaching my family, by example, the nature of God, is mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)