Adam, Eve, and Lilith

Dear Readers,

I am about to take you on a journey, my journey, in trying to understand what is true about the Adam and Eve story. Alas, that is only part of why I am talking about this subject. Opinions and speculations abound in this post, for it is my mortal mind trying to accept and understand the scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets.

Adam and Eve from the movie Noah 2014

What first got me trying to discover this is when I was trying to understand and combat the anti-mormon information out there, including the false doctrine that Adam is God the Father. During this pursuit I found this quote from Journal of Discourses given by Brigham Young, "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him." (Journal of Discourses v1 pg 50)

Of course, it is important to note the context for this quote. Brigham Young was trying to dispel the false notion that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost. In so doing, he compared Christ's birth to Adam's creation. "He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father; and so on in succession." (Journal of Discourses v1 pg 50-51) "from the fruits of the earth" is key here, at least for me.

All accounting of Adam's creation in the scriptures describe him as being "formed from the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7, Moses 3:7, Abraham 5:7). However, President Brigham Young has stated, "Look for instance at Adam. Listen, ye Latter-day Saints! Supposing that Adam was formed actually out of clay, out of the same kind of material from which bricks are formed; that with this matter God mad the pattern of a man, and breathed into it the breath of life, and left it there, in that state of supposed perfection, he would have been an adobie to this day. he would not have known anything."

Though I am one of the first to admit this is faulty logic, for I believe in the same God that turn water into wine (John 2:1-11), that multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish (Mark 6:38-43), who parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21-22, Psalm 136:13-15), and raised the dead (Luke 7:12-15, John 11:14, 43-44). Therefore, if God wanted to, He could create Adam from clay and the dust of the earth, that is within His power. However, because of Prophet of God was permitted to teach this for doctrine, I must believe it is true. For we also see that if there is a natural way to bring something into existence then there is no need for Him to intervene so miraculously. As with the wine, they could not get wine for the party, so the transmutation needed to occur.

Similarly, there was a world-wide devotional this year in which Russel M Nelson talked about Divine Law. "I learned this as President Spender W. Kimball's surgeon." he said concerning divine laws, "When the implanted pacemaker for his heart suddenly failed, President Kimball came back to me for help. But first he asked me to give him a priesthood blessing. After the blessing, which promised correction of his failed pacemaker, he then said to me. 'Now you may do whatever you need to do to make that blessing a reality. I proceeded with the operation. One the wire that carried electricity from the pacemaker to his heart, I found a break in the insulation. When I replaced the faulty wire, the pacemaker immediately worked again, allowing President Kimball's heart to beat normally. Not even for God's prophet could the law relating to the transmission of electricity be ignored." Again, I believe in a God that could repair the pacemaker without surgery, but why would He need to when He has our natural and learned skills at His disposal. Thus the truth is made plain that there was another, natural way for God to create Adam.

It is interesting that while studying why Christ had to be born of the mortal Mary and the immortal Father in Heaven, that the logic dictated this truth. If Jesus was born of two mortals, He could not withstand the pains of the atonement and give up His life for us. Thus we would remain under the condemnation of sin. Nor could He raise Himself from the dead, and we would forever remain subject to death. Yet, if Jesus was born of two immortals, then He must needs remain immortal, unless He were to fall. Though, if He fell, He would no longer be perfect and without sin. Therefore, Jesus had to be born half mortal, half immortal, a demigod. Able to die, and yet live a perfect life. With this realization, I saw that Adam could have been born of two immortal beings, and as thus, he would need to fall to become mortal, to know pain, suffering and evil so that he can choose and rejoice with the good (2 Nephi 2:22-25).

Thus my conclusion that by the natural laws, dust of the ground was take and shaped into the fruits of the earth, literally fruits and vegetables likely in the Garden of Eden. As our Heavenly Mother bore Adam within her womb, she ate of this matter which was used to form Adam's physical body. This, to my mind, satisfies all of the laws of both God, man and the scriptures. For Adam was "formed from the dust of the ground" and yet begotten of the Father in immortality, celestial as his parents before him.

Until further light and knowledge is revealed, this explanation and conclusion satisfies me. Though it is clearly based upon quotes from the Journal of Discourses which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not proclaim and uphold as scripture (Church's standing), it does adhere to the Church's official stance upon the creation of Adam as stated in The Origin of Man. "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than a human germ or embryo that becomes a man." That same article also refutes evolution as it is currently taught as "...the theories of men."

With this understanding that I have about the creation of Adam, I recently met up with some discrepancies with the creation of Eve. For the longest time, I had believed that the rib was literally taken of Adam, and with the knowledge that I have and seeing the symbolism of "woman" being taken out of "man" thought that maybe God had taken some cells from the rib and using them like gametes taking the x-chromosomes from Adam and formed Eve with a pair. However, as I brought up briefly in my post about the Creation,  President Kimball stated with no uncertainty that Eve was not created from Adam's rib (The blessings and responsibilities of womanhood).

 Though it has been argued by some that the entire creation story is all symbolic and only symbolic, I do not now believe that to be so. Which is why I struggled with accepting this doctrine. Luckily I had a friend that purposed this idea to me. The scriptures say that Adam was put into a deep sleep (Genesis 2:21). Therefore, there is a possibility that what the scripture states about Eve's creation was the vision that Adam was shown in a dream. Thus the symbolism of the rib, "The rib signifies neither dominion nor subservience, but a lateral relationship as partners, to work and to live, side by side." (Lesson from Eve). This makes more sense, though the scriptures do not say that Adam woke up, but assuming that he did so, or even if it was in the dream, he would proclaim "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:23-24).

Now, unsure if it was still in the dream not the scripture says "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman..." (Genesis 2:22). To this I would like to sight how "man" stood for "mankind": "Man here is always in the plural. It was plural from the beginning." (In the Beginning: A Latter-day Perspective). Therefore, Eve being the symbolic rib was "taken from man" which could mean that she was taken or set apart from mankind, which at this stage was in the spirit world. This brings me full circle to the quote from Brigham Young that started this post, "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him." (Journal of Discourses v1 pg 50).

If you want to know my position on Plural Marriage, you can read my post about it. For this post, it will be enough to acknowledge that fore-ordination or pre-destination (Destiny is not a matter of chance, but of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for; it is a thing to be achieved. [William Jennings]) exist and that we were called to certain positions before mortality to serve in during mortality. With that realization, why couldn't a woman be called or fore-ordained to be a man's wife? or a man fore-ordained to be a woman's husband?

Thus, my understanding that Eve was fore-ordained to be Adam's wife, and the mother of all living. However, what if there were other women fore-ordained to be Adam's wives? Who are they and why don't we have a record of them?

By getting into some very strange stuff, there is Jewish mythology of a being known a Lilith that was supposedly Adam's first wife, but she sinned against God and was cast out. It is interesting to note that maybe this is true, maybe Lilith was a fore-ordained wife to Adam, but she sinned against God and His plan and was cast out with Lucifer. Therefore, she never received a body and we have no account of her in the creation.

Western Screech Owl

Indeed, the only biblical reference we have for her is her name as a Hebrew word that was translated as "screech owl" in Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." (Bold Added).

As with the topic of Adam, context is important. Isaiah 33 is talking about apostasy and wickedness abounding before Christ's second coming. Isaiah 34 talks about the destruction and evil right before Christ's second coming, and Isaiah 35 talks about restoration, rebirth and blessings as Christ comes again. Thus this "screech owl" or Lilith might find rest, in the destruction, in the wicked world, right before it is cleansed and made new for Christ. It is also interesting to note that in Mesopotamia Lilim were female night demons and in Akkadian/Sumerian "lil" is a reference to wind which co-incided with the "breath of life" or spiritus (Latin for breath or breeze) or spirit, which could mean that she is still a spirit and is indeed a demon or angel of Satan.

Alas, Jewish folklore, not myth, but folklore has Lilith being made at the same time as Adam, from the same dirt. She then disobeys Adam and God and leave them for the archangel Samael. Whether she was actually born in the flesh or merely a fore-ordained spirit, there certainly seems some negative connotations associated with her. Least of all being Lilith, the first demon in the television show Supernatural. However, that show requires many grains of salt considering they also portrayed Eve as being the mother of monsters.

In any case, we do not have a credible account of their Eve's actual creation nor of Lilith even existing. Thus, until more light and knowledge is revealed, it satisfies my mind to think that Eve was created the same way as Adam. Though that would make them brother and sister, they would be perfect, with perfect genes, even relatively perfect after the fall enabling the genetic diversity to prevent deformities from inbreeding.

Now, with all of this stated, I don't want anyone to go away thinking that this idea of Adam's creation takes away from the majesty of Christ's birth. Not only is Jesus Christ the "Only Begotten Son in the flesh" it is a title as well as a state of being.

"The 'divine Sonship' also refers to the designation 'Only Begotten Son in the flesh.'... This title signifies that Jesus' physical body was the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal Eternal Father, which verity is crucial to the Atonement, a supreme act that could not have been accomplished by an ordinary man." (Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel chapter 7)

This signifies that "in the flesh" is a reference to mortal life. Christ is the only child that God has been the sire of into mortality.

I hope that these ideas get all of you thinking and pondering upon the beauty of the gospel and of the the Plan of Salvation.

Love,
Jacobugoth

Polygamy

Dear Readers,

I felt like doing a post about something that several people find troubling about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am writing this post to express my beliefs and knowledge on the subject of Polygamy for the purpose of helping those who may view this subject as a stumbling block, as well as to inform those who may just want to learn more about God's reasons for plural marriage.

I should WARN those who read this, that I will be going into some depth on this subject. If you feel that you might be shacky in your testimony of Joseph Smith Jr as a Prophet, or any of the succeeding Presidents of the church as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, then I advise that you skip this blog post, at least until your faith and testimony becomes stronger and firmer.

That all being said, let us start with the first well known polygamist in the scriptures, namely Abraham. First record we have of Abraham (Abram) being married is in Genesis 11:29 "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai;..." Now this marriage lasted for many years and through much hardship, including Sarah (Sarai) being barren, having to pass through Egypt and having Pharaoh desire Sarah as a wife, having countless promises from the Lord that Abraham would be the "father of many nations", and even the ordeal of having Abraham's nephew Lot being held as a military prisoner. So it is clear and evident that Abraham truly and completely loved Sarah, his wife, and that she loved him. Else why would they stay together for so long.

Now in Genesis 16 comes the Jerry Springer part of this union. Abraham and Sarah have both gotten old in years, and because Sarah has not yet born any children, she gives Hagar, her Egyptian handmaid to Abraham to be a second wife. I have heard it argued that Hagar was only a "concubine" which is kind of a bondwoman who is kept for the use of procreation. This is not the case, for in verse 3 the word "wife" is used. Now, because the culture of the time did indeed include the common practice of concubines, Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham was acceptable. So Hagar conceived and had a son, because of this, Hagar became jealous and, I guess you could say, wanted Abraham to love her alone. Sarah saw this hatred or "despise" in her eyes, and talked to Abraham about the growing contention. Abraham, being the wise man that he was, said roughly, I am not getting in the middle of this, you two figure it out yourselves.

Then Sarah "dealt hardly" with Hagar, so Hagar fled into the wilderness. There, by a fountain, an angel of the Lord appeared unto Hagar and told her to return to her family, and even made prophecies about her seed. Eventually she returned and bore Ishmael. Then, when Abraham was around 100 years old, he was told that Sarah shall conceive and bear a child, while she was around 90 years old, and really past menopause. This, chapter 17 of Genesis, is when the covenant promise is given to Isaac, Sarah's son, instead of Ishmael, who in truth, because of tradition, should have been the rightful heir. Yet God has a way of calling the underdogs, as with Jacob vs Esau which I will cover quite soon. Anyway, continuing with Abraham, after Isaac was born, Ishmael was "mocking" Isaac, and Sarah did not like this. I would like to point out here, that with the law of Moses, though it was not yet instituted, children who mocked or dishonored their parents or siblings were put to death. So, Abraham, likely having similar rules in his culture, took what I feel is compassion, and rose up early, prepared bread and a bottle of water and gave it to Hagar and sent her and Ishmael away into the wilderness. Thus proving that he loved Hagar and Ishmael and wanted to spare their lives. Now part of why Abraham did this is because he knew God's promises both towards Isaac being the covenant people, as well as the seed of Ishmael being a great nation in their own right.

So was the end of that marriage, which, in all likely hood, would have lasted as long as they had lived, at least. If it were not for this dispute/transgression. Now, I learned something new when I began researching, that Abraham took another wife named Keturah after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac. She, Keturah, bore Abraham many sons. Again Keturah was a "wife" while later in Genesis 25:6 it says that Abraham sent all of the sons of his "concubines" (plural) away. Now, at this time, Abraham had Sarah and Keturah as wives, and how many concubines, we know not.

Now Isaac was raised up, and took Rebekah to wife. Then Rebekah bore Jacob and Esau. Though Esau came out first and was hairy and red already, followed by Jacob who was hanging onto his heal. When they two grew up, Esau, being very hungry, sells his birthright to Jacob for some soup. Now this was done without witnesses, and Isaac favored Esau, so when the time came for the blessings of their inheritance, Jacob, with Rebekah's help, posed as Esau and received the blessing, which Esau had sold. Therefore Esau had no right to it. Now what does this have to do with plural marriage... nothing, I just like the story of Jacob and Esau.

Anyway, Jacob travels and meets Rachel at a well. He then talks to her father Laban and they make a deal, that Jacob will work for Laban for 7 years. This is where I would like to emphasize that there were no rights of women in these days. There are many who oppose marriage, especially the ceremony, because it represents them being sold as property. It is a sad truth, that women were indeed considered property, but it is also true that they were "sold" for two reasons. First, because the man wanted to marry that woman, but also, because of the father's love, he wanted to make sure that his daughter went to someone who could afford to take care of her. For this cause did Jacob prove his love for Rachel by working for Laban those first 7 years. Now, when it came time for Rachel and Jacob to be united, Laban had Jacob marry his older daughter Leah instead. Jacob was very upset about this, because, with the veil concealment of the wedding ceremony, he did not discern this deception until the morning afterwords. But Jacob loved Rachel so much, that he agreed to work for Laban 7 more years to get Rachel as a wife.

So, after 14 years Jacob was completely lawfully married to both Rachel and Leah. So they go off and once again find that the wife that Jacob loves, Rachel, is having difficulty having children. So Leah bore the first of Jacob's children. Because Jacob is a wealthy man, through the efforts of Abraham and Isaac, not to mention those 14 years he worked for Laban, his wives had maids or handmaidens. Now these also he married and had children with, they are Bilhah and Zilpah. They were indeed wives, because their children received an inheritance as tribes of Israel.

So, we have these two stories about Old Testament polygamy, and what are some common denominators? First, there was one wife that they truly loved. Second they had a means whereby to proved for them, Third, they had enough love to care for other wives as well as the first. Fourth because women were considered property, they needed to be cared for, not legally allowed to do so on their own. And lastly, polygamy was legally allowed in their culture.

Lets see if the accounts of David and Solomon follow this 5 step acceptance of polygamy. The first wife David married was Michal, the daughter of King Saul, and he bought her with 200 foreskins cut off of the Philistines. Now, as Saul's anger and hatred toward David grew, David had to flee and ended up living with the prophets for a time. Mean while, Saul ends up giving Michal to Phalti as a wife. David keeps running, and Saul keeps killing people trying to get David, Then David meets Abigail, and ends up marrying her. Wars break loose and Saul, with most of his household is slain. David gets Michal back from Phalti, but because he likes to dance and have fun in the streets, Michal no longer loves him, so David locks her away. To save you some long winded history, David marries more wives, all of whom he loved and cared for, but then he lusted after Bathsheba. So much so, that he committed adultery with her, and then had her husband, Uriah, slain in battle, so that he could marry her as a widow. Now, marrying someone you have sex with outside of the bounds of marriage is a good step towards the repentance process, but committing effectual murder to do so is not the best way to do that.

So what about David's son, Solomon? Solomon married many women of all ages, being king he could easily provide for them. He did love and care for his wives, even after his extremities stopped working. Indeed, that was when he married the youngest of his wives. But where he went wrong was allowing the women that he married from other cultures to persuade him to turn the people towards idol worship. This polluted both him, and his people.

Let us compare David and Solomon to the 5 steps of polygamy acceptance.
1. Loved 1 wife above others
       David loved Michal, and then Abigail.
       Solomon (1 Kings 11:1) "king Solomon loved many strange women".
2: Means to provide
       King David
       King Solomon
3: They had enough love for others
       King David truly loved
       King Solomon... See 1 Kings 11:1
4: women were considered property.... yes
5: was polygamy legal... yes... they were the kings and made the laws.

So, King David met all of the requirements, except for when he broke his covenants with Bathsheba.
King Solomon met most of the requirements, but did not seem to truly love and care for one woman. Which seems strange with the concept of polygamy, but I believe it was Jean Paul F. Richter who said "Love one human being purely and warmly, and you will love all." You have to know one pure wonderful love, to know how to truly love others. Thus Solomon's love was possibly polluted from the very beginning. 

This brings us to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, fell in love and married Emma Hale. Then, during the process of translating the Holy Bible, Joseph Smith asked God about plural marriage. He was trying to understand why God would permit such a thing, when Joseph knew how much such a thing would hurt Emma. God warned him that if he pushed the matter, Joseph would have to live by the laws and principles he would be taught. Joseph, did continue to inquire, and was told what purpose polygamy was instituted and permitted, nay, ordained of God. Because God loves his daughters so much, he wants them to be taken care of. He wants them to be protected and loved. Then, with this knowledge, God commanded Joseph to begin practicing plural marriage. It is true, that at first he hid this from Emma, probably because he knew how much it would hurt her, and how distressing it may appear without the knowledge and insight God had given him. 

So Joseph Smith began marrying many women, but he lived in a time in which the 5 rules applied.
1: Joseph Smith truly and irrevocably loved Emma Hale above all others, even himself.
2: Though the colonies were generally impoverished, Joseph Smith did have enough to provide.
3: He was the Prophet of the church, he not only had enough love for those wives that he married, but for all of the members of the church.
4: Whether we care to remember or not, women's rights is still a fairly new concept, and in the 1800's they were still considered property, meaning they could not own land, or anything for themselves. Giving credence to the prophecy given by Isaiah concerning the latter-days, "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." (Isaiah 4:1) Many of the women Joseph married were widows, because of the slaughter by the hands mobs against the early saints. So they were married and called in the Smith name that they may keep their property, and have someone to love and care for them.

I do not wish to sugar coat the truth, there were some of Joseph's wives that were young, as far as I know 16 was the youngest, but that does not mean that Joseph married them for any reason other than to love and care for them. I do not believe that he married any women because of the lusts of his own heart. Some people may argue, "Well, if providing for these women was the reason he marries them, then why did Joseph Smith have children with wives other than Emma?" Simply put, if you love someone in a marriage capacity long enough, and strong enough, physical love and emotions can arise, to which God has spoken in Doctrine and Covenants 132. "60. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgression, saith the Lord your God. 61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood -- if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

Quickly, I feel that I should touch on another controversial method in which Joseph Smith obtained wives. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were well known for their testing the saints, especially those around them. So, along this line, Joseph Smith did try the faith of some of the brethren by asking for their wives in marriage. Many said no, and left the church, and their wives, behind. Thus Joseph married those women. But there are also accounts of brethren who said "yes" and Joseph told them that it would not be necessary, that they could keep their wives, and that they had proven their faith.

Lastly 5: Polygamy was not against the law in those days. It may not have been practiced, but there were no laws prohibiting it either.

So, Joseph Smith's call to plural marriage matched the outline set by Abraham and Jacob. After this manner he taught the brethren in the church. Indeed some, usually apostles or 70s, were called to practice polygamy. Now, as this doctrine spread there were groups who branched off of the church, or just families that corrupted this sacred institution, and the purpose for which it was commanded, in order satisfy their own lusts and desires. I will strongly declare, however, that plural marriage was instituted of God, and as with all commandments from the beginning of this world, it was corrupted by the father of lies, into the hiss and byword that it is considered today.

Before I continue, I wish to express my hope and desire that you have come to understand the rational or physical reasons for polygamy, including the obvious use of procreation, but now I will focus less on the temporal purposes, and more upon the spiritual.

Firstly, it is an easy assumption that throughout time, there have been more righteous women than men. Women have an inherit ability to hold on to faith, on to God, better and easier than men do. Thus, from the eternal, temple marriage sealing view, these righteous women have to be cared for in the life after death. Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4 "1. In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 2. And in order to obtain the highest, a man [or woman] must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; 3; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. 4. he may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

God has provided a plan for all of us to obtain pure and lasting happiness, if we so desire. Thus He will not permit others to take such opportunities away from us because of their disobedience. Wherefore plural marriage, is ordained of God even after this life.

Next, Joseph Smith was called as a Prophet to restore Christ's Gospel. He performed this function to the best of his ability. The law of consecration, which did away with the concepts of property and focused more upon stewardship,  was something that Christ and His Apostles practiced. There was not one of them that withheld of their substance to the needy, for God provided for them, from day to day.

This may be hard for some of you to hear, to understand, or to accept, but it was the same with plural marriage. I testify to you, that Christ and the Apostles lived by these same laws. Jesus followed every commandment given to Him from His Father. How could He be perfect without doing so? God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. (Genesis 1:28) The Father has not revoked that commandment.

I enjoy quotes from the Journal of Discourses, but I will admit that I am wary of them because they are not openly accepted by the Church, just like the Apocrypha. So, generally, I try to remain with the discourses which were taken of Brigham Young's talks. I do not think that God would permit His Prophet to lead us astray. That being said, here is an amazing, quote from Orson Hyde who was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. "I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.
All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this!" (Journal of Discourses v2 pg 210)

Then Brigham Young said in Journal of Discourses v13 pg 309 "The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children; but at any rate they filled the Temple, and how many there were who could not get into the Temple I cannot say. This is the account given by Isaiah, whether he told the truth or not I leave everybody to judge for himself."

Indeed, upon praying and pondering upon this subject during Easter time, I felt the Holy Spirit of God manifest so strongly to my heart and soul, that, at the time Christ was resurrected, Mary Magdalene was so pained, so distraught, not just because her teacher, or her friend had been crucified and His body "taken", but because it was her very husband, her help-meet, her eternal companion who was the one taken from her, causing her to know not where His body was laid. That is why Christ, with all of His compassion and love appeared unto her first. He saw His beloved wife in the most sorrow and misery that she could be in, besides witnessing His death upon the cross. This moved Him to manifest Himself to her, in the physical resurrected state, to comfort her, but He could not let her touch Him. Not because He was still a spirit, for His body was taken from the tomb, but because throughout the eons of eternities that Jehovah, the Firstborn of the Father had been in the Father's presence in the spirit, Jesus could not truly touch, could not fully embrace His Father, not as a man embraceth his friend. So the undeniable right, because of His love for His Son and for compensation for having to leave Christ completely alone on the cross (Matthew 27:46) to go through all of that pain and suffering alone before death, has to be for the Father, who has a body as "tangible as man's" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) to be the first one to hug and embrace His resurrected Son.

Despite this right, Christ saw fit to appear to Mary Magdalene. Everyone else, Apostles and disciples alike, had to wait until Jesus had returned physically to the Father, but she, Mary, in Christ's eyes, could not wait, His love for her was too great. Indeed she was that one that He was able to love "purely and warmly" so that he could love all.

Now that I have sealed the doctrine of Jesus Christ of Nazareth being married with my own testimony, I shall also bear witness that Christ is resurrected and exalted even to the thrown of God. Which means that in conjuncture with Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4, already mentioned, as well as with Journal of Discourses v11 pg269 in which the Prophet Brigham Young said, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them....I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God—I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is."

Indeed, whether in the mortal flesh or in the immortal state, Christ had to fulfill this law. I personally believe that He fulfilled this law while in the flesh, how else could He have been sufficiently perfect to perform the atonement. It was also possible in those days for Christ and His Apostles to fulfill the 5 requirements. Christ truly loved one woman, His family had the means to provide because of the gold, frankincense, and mirth given to Him by the Wise Men, as well as from all of the years of carpentry, to sustain themselves and possibly others during Christ's 3 year ministry. Christ absolutely had enough love for other wives. During this time women were still considered property and needed to be cared for, thus His pleading with John to take care of His mother Mary. (John 19:26-27) And lastly, like with Joseph Smith's time, polygamy may not have been commonly practiced, but there were no laws against it. 

So, if these laws, these commandments are still in force today, why does the church no longer perform plural marriages? The strait answer is that because of the persecution upon the church, caused by ignorance of the reason behind this practice, it became expedient for the fullness of this commandment to be taken from the earth. God's work is never frustrated, but the work of man is. God has the eternal perspective, and knows that we can be married after this life, and during the Millennium. For it is not the dead that are given in marriage, but the living, and as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are living, so can we be also. (Matthew 22:32)

I do not feel that I have adequately expressed this reasoning in a clear manner, so I hope that this power point presentation will help. 
https://www.slideshare.net/secret/Ludcz0BGucwO5i

The Church has an official standing on this subject which can be found in the Official Declaration 1 at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. Here is some quotes from that passage. "...Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise... Wilford Woodruff" (4th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

He is also known for this quote, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempt to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." Which can be found after that Official Declaration 1.

So, because man has created laws in this day and age prohibiting plural marriage, we can not live this law openly as in days past, it does not mean that God's work has been frustrated. It only means that we are living up to our Articles of Faith. 12 "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

As an example of how the work of the Lord has not been frustrated:
Several sealings(marriage or bonds that last for time and for all eternity) took place vicariously soon after Joseph Smith's death, sealing living women to the diseased Prophet. Even so today, in the temple, sealings on behalf of the dead are performed. It is these sealings, and the opportunity  to receive endowed blessings from the Lord, that gave the early saints the strength to continue on. As pointed out in the presentation, that was the trade off for plural marriage. For, should the persecution had continued, the United States would have, and in some cases did, send troops over to the west and remove the property and holdings of the Church and church members. As I said, the work of God could not be frustrated, and it was not, for it is in the temple that we have the chance to still receive these blessings. As for the temporal reasons, specifically, the widow's need to be taken care of, laws began to emerge allowing women to hold property, especially in settling the prairies, as well as the institution of Home and Visiting teachers in the church. This allowed for those widows as well as other members of the church, to be visited and feel loved, wanted, and have their needs taken care of. 

So does this mean that if the laws should change and allow polygamy again, would we be able to practice it? I cannot say, but the knowledge that I have is based upon what Gordon B. Hinckley said in the October 1998 General Conference, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."

In essence, there are the laws of God, and the laws of the church. As in Moses' day when Moses, as Prophet, allowed the Israelites to divorce their wives, which clearly was condemned by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:3-9). That was a law of the Church, which can be below the laws of God because we are all weak, learning, and are tempted. But God will not suffer us to sin against a greater light if we are not prepared for it. (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3) Thus even if plural marriage is again legalized, it remains against the laws of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until the Lord feels that it is time that it should be restored. 

I am closing this post with some scriptural references to get you thinking and wondering if what I have said is true. 

Job 1:2-3 "2. and there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. 3. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east."

Job 42:10 "And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before."

Job 42:12-13 "12. So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. 13.he had also seven sons and three daughters." 

Job began with seven sons and three daughters, and God's promise was for him to have "twice as much", thus Job must still have his children after this life. 

Journal of Discourses v1 pg50 "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken"

So if Eve was "one of his wives" that means that Adam was meant to marry others either later in his life, or after death

I sincerely pray that no one's faith has been shaken by this post, and that you will come to understand this doctrine as I have. May your testimony and faith continue to improve, strengthen and grow, and I welcome a healthy, civilized debate, if any who read this feel such is necessary. Also, If I was unclear on any principles about which I have spoken, I would love the opportunity to clarify it for you.

Love,
Jacobugoth

Creation

Dear Readers,

I felt like sharing and bearing my testimony and knowledge of the creation of this world. Though I am not sure where to begin.

We know from Moses 3:5 that everything was made spiritually before it was physically created. Now, as far as I know, and have testimony of, God is the creator of spirits (Teachings:Joseph F. Smith 37), thus He created man as spirit first (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29), so also did He create the earth. It was indeed His plan after all, and it would also make sense that he would have something visual for us to see when He shared His plan with us to be sustained (not voting upon, but signifying our allegiance to).

As we know, Christ was the first to volunteer to be the Savior in God's plan , and that Satan volunteered second to be the Savior with his own plan (Isaiah 14:12-15). God, of course, chose Christ, and Satan with his 1/3 of all of the spiritual children of God, were cast out of heaven. (Revelations 12:4, Joseph Smith Translation Revelations 12:4)

Then in Abraham 3:22-24, Abraham was shown in a vision from God through the Urim and Thummim, that we were all intelligences which were organized, and that there was one, like unto God, who is Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, and said "we will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;"

Now this "we" could be Jehovah and Michael, which is at least confirmed by the teachings of the temple, but I believe that we, ourselves, even all of the children of God who kept their first estate (sustained Christ and God's plan instead of Satan and his {Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual Lesson 2}) worked and helped organize and build this world, all under the direction of God through Jehovah.

 As plainly described in Abraham 4:1, the earth was organized from actual materials, i.e. physical matter. Joseph Smith also added "The word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and buil a ship. Hense, we infer that God had materials to organize the world our of chaos--chaotic matter" Some believe this was a nebula, in which gravity was introduced, which is indeed congruent with the teachings of the temple.

But mixed with the teachings in the institute manual about dinosaurs, we find that whatever original planet which hosted the dinosaurs was likely created from a nebula, but then pieces or even the entire thing recycled was then turned into that fundamental, void (Genesis 1:2) earth. Possibly, and this is my opinion based upon the truths that I know, that the initial gravity that condensed the nebula was likely this planet, that is why there is so many layers of dirt and stone upon the fossils of the dinosaurs. Thus there are the fossilized remnant of dinosaurs that date back millions of years which are also buried in the earth, and yet this was all done before the first day of God's 7 day creation. Also, should this be the case, it would also explain why the dinosaurs grew to such large heights. A smaller planet, indeed part of our own, would have a lighter gravity, thus the animals could physically grow larger. Kind of the same phenomenon as portrayed in James Cameron's Avatar.

Now we have the basic planet structure by this nebula birth and recycling, with the heavier, solid matter below, liquid in the middle, and the gasses on top. For there was darkness on this planet structure and the Spirit of God (Holy Ghost) went forth upon the face of the deep. (Genesis 1:2). I remember praying once to learn from God what that spirit was, whether it was all of us spiritual children of God, or the Holy Ghost. I bear witness that it was indeed the Spirit of God and that He was and is there watching over the tabernacle we call earth. He helped to build it, and though He will not receive a body until the end (The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation) He is always there, helping us when we need help, and will also be there to welcome us when we depart from this life.

Now the first day, according to the reckoning of God, which is the same, if not close to the reckoning of time on the sphere called Kolob, is one thousand years as we know it now, on earth. (Abraham 3:4, 9, 2 Peter 3:8)This is also verified by God's own word, in Genesis 2:17 God says to Adam, "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Then in in Genesis 5:5 it says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Thus within that one day to the Father, Adam did indeed die. God does not sleep so there is no night. Anyway, this day begins with God saying "let there be light" and there was light, and the light was "good" (Genesis 1:3-4). Then God divided the light from the darkness. I have wondered about this. I have come to the conclusion that the light is from "God's face" or His glory and that He drew near to watch as His children continued to work, thus departing the darkness which was upon the face of the earth. Thus the light is good, and the first day was completed.

This first day also makes sense from any scientist's objective perspective. If you are about to run an experiment, first you want light to see what you are doing.

Day two, a firmament between the waters and the waters. (Genesis 1:6) Basically now that there was light, water began to evaporate from the heat of the light and rose into the atmosphere making clouds.

Day three. The waters below the firmament are gathered together and dry land is brought up or forth.(Genesis 1:9) This would be the birth of pangea, the first solid landmass. For it was in the days of Peleg that the land divided (Genesis 10:25) into the continents as we know them today. Then grass and plants spring forth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:11) Again from the practical perspective, you need plants to make oxygen for the eventual other forms of life, indeed for the eventual children of God and the purpose of the creation of the earth. The plants use this "light" from God to fuel this process of photosynthesis. Essentially, the earth was being terraformed. I would like to point out that the earth, though perfect with the vegetation, was not celestial, for it was a paradise like the earth will return to during the Millennium (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Section 38). Indeed it was a terrestrial planet.

Day four. God knows that He will have to leave, because of "the fall", so that we can be truly tested. Thus this "light" would be taken away, and that we need other forms of light. So God either created the stars, or allowed their light to reach us, and created the sun and moon for us. (Genesis 1:16) Now, I should mention that I know not whether the sun and moon were actually created or organized at this time, or if they were brought into their current orbits.

Day 5. God causes fish, then fowl, then whales. (Genesis 1:20-21)I like how the creatures of the ocean and waters are created first, as a testimony to me that just because they were created first, thus having older bones and remains, does not mean that one begot the next or evolution, but rather God is a God of order and has stages and levels of creation which we usually call a species.(dictionary.com species Biology. The major subdivision of a genus of subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. [Breed meaning sexual intercourse that produces viable offspring that are not sterile]) 

Quick rant: I am annoyed by the scientific community because they do not adhere to their own definition. Probably for more publicity about discovering a new species, or to make them force the puzzle pieces together about evolution. Either way, it is bad science and bad classification. The coyote, wolf, and domestic dog are all prime examples to me of this phenomena. Different "breeds" of dog are still the same species, yet wolves, their ancient ancestors, are considered a different species. Yet they can indeed breed with domestic dogs, thus getting "part wolf". Yet those part wolf offspring can then continue to reproduce. Given, for some reason, it is rare for a wolf and a dog to breed, but so it is with coyotes. Now a wolf and a coyote are also considered different species under the strange, made up rule about them not normally breeding in the wild. But when they breed, they create what scientists call a hybrid. Yet again these hybrids can continue to breed and create viable offspring. For example, the Texas Chupacabra. This is indeed a real creature. It is the result of one of these coyote-wolf "hybrids" breeding with a "pure blood" coyote. Thus in all actuality, they are all the same species, dogs, wolves, and coyotes, and they should be objectively call breeds, or at least subspecies. 

The same thing happens with other species, for example rattle-snakes. The Timbur Rattle-snake and the Diamondback Rattle-snake are separated by distance and land, but they can still breed, but don't in the wild. Yet, these same scientists, in some cases like this, wisely call them subspecies. Pretty much, genetic variations of the same species, like breeds for cats and dogs, or races for humans. So, I hope that you can see, why it frustrates me so, when they claim there are so many species, or even new species, when they are not adhering to their own criteria. 

Again going with the flaws with evolution, and going back to the examples of canines. Even with will of the controlled breeding to get a Chiwawa and a Mastiff, though they are massively different in size, they could still breed and produce viable offspring. Given a female chiwawa bearing such an offspring would either need a C-section or die during birth, but a female Mastiff could easily bring forth a litter created from such a union. So, with all of man's efforts over the generations, we still have not truly observed the creation  of a new species, unless you count A-sexual organisms, but they are a whole different discussion. Lastly, I would like to point out that I am not fighting Darwin's notion of natural selection, I am just arguing that no matter how much natural selection or man's selection, a new species is not created. 

End of rant. 

So, God commanded that these fish, birds, and whales multiply. That was the end of the 5th day. (Genesis 1:22)

Day six. God created more and higher species, like cattle and things that creep upon the earth. God called them "good". (Genesis 1:24) There was not maliciousness, not fighting or contention. Literally, they were all herbivores, just like they will be during the millennium, "the lion shall eat straw like the ox."(Isaiah 11:6-8). Quickly, I would like to point out that felines are one of the few purely carnivorous animal families on earth. Even dogs and wolves will eat grass to help settle stomachs. 

Anyway, commanded them to multiply, and create more of their own kind. Again, the definition of a species. After God created these perfect animals, God created mankind. First with Adam, from the very dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) with a celestial, perfect body (Journal if Discourses volume 1 pg 50), and then Eve, as part of Adam, taken from his rib (Genesis 2:21) in similitude of their being side by side, true, unified partners, of one flesh. I also find it fitting that Eve, or woman, was taken out of man, and then women have X chromosomes while men have an X and a Y. So quite symbolically, the X was reproduced and taken out of the XY man. Then God commanded His creations to multiply and replenish the earth. I also like the word "replenish" because it implies that the earth was once fully inhabited, thus again giving more credence to the dinosaur planet concept. 

Sadly though, I have learned that the rib being taken from Adam was purely symbolic. "The story of the rib, of course, is figurative." (The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood, President Spencer W. Kimbal also The Eternal Family Teacher's Manual Lesson 7) Yet in this discovery I found this by Elder Russel M Nelson "From the rib of Adam, Eve was formed. Interesting to me is the fact that animals fashioned by our creator, such as dogs and cats, have thirteen pairs of ribs, but the human being has one less with only twelve." (Lessons from Eve)  

Thus ended the sixth day. The seventh day God "rested". (Genesis 2:2) I put rested in quotations because it is a basic misconception. As the Sabbath or 7th day is made for man to "rest", so it was for God. But what has God commanded us to do on the Sabbath, attend church, serve in our callings, study His word, ponder upon the things of God. All of these things are not resting, or as most people think of as sleeping or napping. On the contrary, most of these things take quite a bit of "work" and effort. So what is the true meaning of this "rest"? It is taking time out for the spiritual things, resting from matters of the flesh, or the temporary things, and focusing on those things that are most important, more crucial. Indeed, during this thousand of earth years in which God "rested", He focused on teaching Adam and Eve. Teaching them His gospel, teaching them truth, and imparting to them of knowledge. That is why it is so very fitting that this time period climaxed with Adam and Eve gaining the greatest, most progressive knowledge possible, by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 3:4) Quite a mouth full in more than one way. 

I feel that I should expound a little about about the nature of life in the Garden of Eden. During the course of writing this post, specifically Sunday July 26, 2015, I came across something that I did not know, and had not testimony of. Indeed it was perplexing to me, and I had little scriptural information to clarify it to me. So I prayed to know the truth. I had trouble receiving the answer, but finally through the means of writing things out, on paper, I received what I believe to be an answer. I know that the fall of Adam and Eve was necessary for them to procreate and to replenish the earth. And I know that in the celestial kingdom, after this life, celestial beings can too reproduce, so that the physical fall was not what was necessary for them to procreate, but rather a mental and spiritual fall. What I did not know was if the fall was necessary for animals to reproduce as well, or if they were already fulfilling God's first commandment while in the Garden of Eden. 

My answer, through prayer, was that they were indeed able to reproduce. The fall, and the curse upon the earth as a result, was for man's sake, not for the animals. The animals were, and will be redeemed. They, though celestialized, were able to reproduce more celestial beings. Their bodies have a nature for this, that was not caused by the fall. While for humans, we may claim it is our nature, but that nature is only a result of the fall. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit. 

Another aspect I would like to touch on is that as a result of the fall, animal's brains are more limited. While in the garden animals could indeed speak. Satan does not, and will never have a body of his own, so he literally possessed a snake's body to speak to Eve. (Genesis 3:4, Moses 4:6-7 )

 It is known that demons and evil spirits can possess animal bodies, like when Jesus cast Legion into the herd of swine. (Mark 5:9-13). Also, why didn't Eve wonder why the snake was taking to her? We know from Numbers 22:27-31 that the Lord made the ass to speak, or rather weakened the veil so that the ass could speak for itself. Which means that at least the spirit of the ass is smart enough to be able to speak, even though its body, because of the fall, is not normally able to. 

I do believe that I have covered all that I have desire to cover in this post. I hope that you enjoyed this, and if you have any questions, comments, or references for or against what I have posted here, please leave them in the comments. Thank you. 

Love,

Jacobugoth

Heat Stroke

Dear Readers,

I went to a class about heat stroke prevention, and it inspired some interesting thoughts. The instructor explained how in places like the middle east, where it gets really, really hot, the indigenous people wear several layers of a fabric called cotton gauze. The fabric absorbs the sweat and acts like a swamp cooler while the outer layers protect from the sun.

This made me think of Adam and Eve. In the garden, where they were naked and according to Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses Volume 1 page 50), had celestial bodies. Then when they were cast out, and their bodies became mortal, God gave them coats of skins and clothed them (Genesis 3:21). This is still used today as the Temple Garment in the Mormon faith. The Temple Garment is worn under the clothing. First of all, it was a testament to me that God knows our bodies better than we usually do, and knew that this multi-layered clothing system actually helps keep our bodies cooler.

Next I began speculating, and this is purely speculation, but why were Adam and Even fine being naked in the Garden. It could be because of the celestial atmosphere was perfect for them in that state, but another idea I had, which is more intriguing, at least to myself, is maybe celestial beings don't sweat.

The Angel Moroni Appears to Joseph Smith by Tom Lovell

Another possible evidence for this is when the resurrected being Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. as recounted in Joseph Smith's Testimony in the preface of the Book of Mormon, also in Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price. He wore a white robe, but nothing underneath as far as we know, as the top of his robe was open and Joseph Smith saw his bare chest. More like the clothing is a sign of authority and modesty rather than something for protection from the natural elements.

Anyway, this was something fun that I thought of and wanted to share it with anyone who happened to find this. I hope that you enjoyed it!

Love,
Jacobugoth