Page 1 of 2

Sacred union

Posted: March 2nd, 2018, 9:50 pm
by abijah
Disclaimer, please make sure and tread carefully with this and similar topics. Such doctrine is not canon in the LDS church, nor do I claim it to be. These are simply my own impressions, and I only speak for myself. If you disagree with me or my ideas or find them offensive, I'm just fine with that, but please do not trifle with or treat lightly the subject matter of this post, as it touches on highly delicate and sacred things.

There are a few main themes which can be detected in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. One is the process of learning to choose righteousness instead of wickedness. Another is the triumph of good over evil. These things are fairly well-known and agreed upon in Christianity and in the Church. I would submit however that another theme of the plan of salvation is that of Duality. The union/re-union of opposites. Balance, harmony, it sounds kind of like all that New Age rubbish, but there are clear examples of this in the scriptures and in nature. While there are evidences from many sources for all this, I'm going to try and stick with the scriptures, veering toward LDS-acknowledged true sources.

But maybe such ideas aren't so foreign to LDS members. We understand there to be an "opposition in all things". With all living, real, things, there is a continuous tension between two polar opposites, within their own spheres. It is evidenced in the seasons - from winter, to summer, to winter again; a balance. Dark vs Light, Cold vs Heat, Ice vs Fire. It is this balance and union of opposites which supports Life. What is electricity, but the joining of the positive and negative forces? Or magnetism, but the attraction of reverse polarities? This opposition, this enmity and tension between said opposites begets power. Real power is produced in the uniting of reverse electrical charges and polar fields. So it is with spiritual things.

I could go on at length talking about opposites and the many examples of this principle, but I'll skip to the meat of it. The most quintessential example of union of opposites is Marriage - the joining of male and female, two separate become joined forever. It is through this that men may become as the Gods, acting upon a righteous sexuality and begetting children (the literal flesh-union of the two parents). One thing people fail to comprehend is the connecting link between sexuality and priesthood power. This is why an unmarried man cannot receive the fulness of the priesthood, nor can a single person be anointed priest and king before God. Thus we see how dualism, marriage and anointing in the covenant & priesthood power are all interrelated.

The idea of the "sacred union" is an incredibly old one, and as I've researched it's become apparent to me that there are clear recurrent patterns and themes. The doctrine was prized by ancient Mesopotamians and royal Egypt. The Life and Health of the world and everyone in it became symbolised in the image of the twin serpents intertwining and ascending. It also sheds light on the meaning of the powerful messianic symbol of the flaming serpent. Both Fire and the Serpent are hallmark symbols of Duality, and union of opposition. Fire is both life and destruction, vitality and death, righteous and wicked. So with the serpent imagery, in which the devil has hijacked the holiest of messianic tokens by appearing to Adam and Eve as the serpent (a symbol they doubtless would have associated with Christ), and later the Dragon, or the Living Serpent. Satan always follows this pattern. He is incredibly unoriginal, always stealing and copying what God copyrights, making it his own and twisting it to conform with his own contorted nature. Satan has hijacked a good many symbols, in his continued pathetic efforts to be Jesus (the true messiah), including the pentagram, the serpent, even very Name of God (YHWH). In every instance, there is the dual and parallel symmetry in Christ taking on the true and righteous fulfillment of these symbols. All except for that of "Dragon". The main apparition of Lucifer as "Dragon" is in the book of Revelation, a book highly associated with apocalyptic knowledge, especially concerning the very endtime. Being the final book in the Bible, it kind of leaves a cliffhanger of sorts when you ask yourself where Satan came up with appearing as the "Dragon", and why there is little enough reference of that title to Christ anywhere.

I would contend that the title of "Dragon" belongs to God, and originates with Him, and that this symbol will be made manifest in the endtime Davidic heir's mission, being a teaching point of Who God really is. What is a dragon anyway? Firstly, like serpents they are potent symbols of duality, resembling both polar evil and polar good. He is the undisputed Lord over all other serpents. Covering the earth, even going back to the most ancient of times the myth of dragons is one of the most universal notions in human imagination, the "serpent who's breath is a flaming fire" (harking back to the "fiery flying serpent" motif found all over the Bible, Book of Mormon and hosts of less-trustworthy books). The fiery breath is an extremely potent symbol denoting a naturally occurring fulness of duality within the serpent. In the Bible, as the JW's like to bring up so much, the words "breath" and "spirit" are usually interchangeable. Thus the Dragon (the Person) is He who's breath (spirit) is naturally hot, denoting a naturally-inherited priesthood power unto self-salvation, or a salvation purchased by the Father for his Son, like unto the ceremony thus practiced in ancient Israel of consecrating the firstborn to God.

There seems to me to be two manifestations of the Holy Marriage, though they are still pretty vague and intertwined. In both the man is the crown prince, future leader of his house, country and people. He is a clear messianic figure. The role of the female however is much more murky and obscure. One reason may be simply that God holds womanhood sacred and is relatively more silent on the subject. Another possibility is that due to the messiah's polygamous household, there are multiple and different consorts whose roles vary one from another.

Hoping you have a strong stomach, in one version of the drama, the queen seems to be the man's sister (often twin sister), or in some instances daughter. Throughout the ages, the stigma and taboo of incest have been universal, yet there is extant evidence that such is practiced by Those highest in Heaven. Royal Egypt interbred throughout the centuries, in order that they might be "like unto the Gods". Such incestuous practices were not only a means of preserving political power within the ruling family, but it was seen as a means of setting them apart from everyone else, and keeping their line pure. There seems also to be a recurring motif of these birthright twins being raised in different settings, sucking from different wetnurses (medically shown to help override the usual genetic/hereditary issues with first-degree incest. figuratively symbolic of the seperatory phase, and two different upbringings for the brother and sister), thus dispelling the "normal" sibling dynamic, and making the union seem slightly less icky. Clear parallels for this is found in the consecutive lives of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (symbolic of the Godhead), in which all of them married to a close relative who had been raised apart from them.

If the sister/daughter version has truth in it, it very well may be a visible lesson to all people on what distinguishes the Saviour from those whom He saves, what makes God the Most High. The children of Adam have been commanded to 1st: love God, 2nd: love fellow man. Love is like faith; it must be centered on something or someone to become activated. God has taught that for all people it is righteous to focus one's love and devotion outward, chiefly centered on God Himself. While incest is found all over the Hebrew Bible, the only place that formally denounces it is in Leviticus, based on the reasoning that by loving your relative, you are "uncovering your parents' nakedness", or in a sense "loving yourself", being a "lover after your own flesh", which is improper. Focusing one's love inward, or selfish love is always considered a sin and major vice. But ask yourself, what about in the instance of Christ? Where does He focus His love and devotion? The obvious answer is His Father, but one must understand that His filial love is different from the mean man's. Being the natural Heir to Salvation, and the Object of universal devotion from saints of all ages, He may therefore focus His love on His own house, and on Himself, Him being His Father's own flesh. The idea of the sacred union is that it is what produces the Holy Offspring, the Messiah who will be the Anointed of the next generation of salvation. By divine command, love must be directed towards this Godly line, (i.e. God the Father, Son, and on). Christ Himself was no exception to this, Him being uniquely fit to enjoy a condition allowing for a righteous form of "self-love", directing that devotion to the Line of Gods that makes life and salvation possible throughout the generations.

The other major version is just as provocative as the first, though in a different way. This one is the kingly messiah marrying the daughter of his enemy, often together forming the two dominant factions of a greater nation/tribe. An example of this is Judah and Ephraim, two dominant tribes locked in a power-struggle that divided and broke Israel anciently. From Eden there was established a dual heritage in earth - the holy and blessed heritage as well as the cursed and treacherous seed. This paints the female figure in a more dark light, being a daughter of Mahan, or of Lucifer himself if you subscribe to the serpent's-seed doctrine. In this drama however, the daughter of the wicked one is repentant, and chooses her new husband over her father. In their union is resolved the enmity between the seed of the serpent and of the woman, and opposing powers in general. A profound example of this is found in Psalm 45.

Psalm 45 is a wedding song, specifically the messiah's royal wedding to the "the queen in gold of Ophir". The psalm begins with praise for this messiah-groom and then the attention shifts to the bride, a relatively unusual occurrence in the Old Testament.
10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;

11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.
Hearken, consider, incline your ear - the psalmist three-times beseeches the bride to pay close attention to his following advice. "Forget also thine own people and they father's house". This is incredibly similar to the hieros gamos rights practiced in ancient time, and the religious belief surrounding them. One notable example is the story of Innana and Dumuzi, the royal marriage of the King to the "Daughter of Sin". The psalmist implores the bride to forget her father's house, to forget her her family influence, her upbringing and heritage. Were a davidic king ever to marry someone such as the daughter of sin, this would certainly be sound advice for the wife.
12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favour.
Dialogue shifts again to narrative and the psalmist names the bride the "daughter of Tyre", marking reference to the presentation of her dowry to her new royal husband. Tyre was the gentile city just north of Israel, and in the scriptures symbolises worldly splendour and temporal riches. This again supports this ancient Sumerian notion of the righteous son of heaven marrying the repentant daughter of the underworld. Curiously, the poet uses a parallel writing structure in which he equates the union of the bride and groom with the general welfare of the nation and people. This again falls in line with ancient semitic notions of the hieros gamos (holy marriage) rite, the sexual union of the royals bringing fertility to the earth and life to the nation.
13 The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

15 With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king’s palace.

The narrative continues, and things get even weirder. The psalmist goes out of his way to provide yet a third title and description of the bride: the "king's daughter". The third one was "in gold of Ophir", denoting a vast worldly wealth. The second title again suggest being "of the world", or "of below", but this time in the act of offering "a gift" to her royal husband. The third then calls her the most exalted title of the three, the king's daughter. The poet then continues to give her yet a third time a description suggestive of worldly wealth, but also "all glorious within", hinting at where the bride's heart truly is. The third and last description is the only one to mention inner beauty and spiritual wealth in addition to mere physical beauty and worldly power.
16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.
Whoever the psalmist was, he was not only very inspired but was masterful with his language to convey such big and powerful ideas in so little words. This is reminiscent of verse ten, when the bride was advised to forget her father's house. The narrative ends temporarily and the writer once more addresses the bride. Her father(s) is referenced again, who's legacy seems to be displaced by the sons the bride shall bear her new husband. The wedding is not only a union of opposites, but it's also the lesser submitting to the greater, the wife's house being superseded by the husband's. It is suggestive of a new beginning for the bride, who comes from a wicked family and heritage, but repents and is redeemed as she is joined with her husband. She is to forget her past and instead face a brighter future. It denotes the duality of polar Good and polar Evil, as well as Good's superiority over evil.

Like seemingly everything, it all begins in Eden. The Fall came not by Adam alone, but him and his wife. The plan of salvation was set into motion not by a person, but a by a married couple, a holy union. Thus, plain spiritual logic implies that not only the establishment of the plan of salvation would be brought about by the healing union of the holy bond, but its resolution as well. Adam and Eve form the archetype.

A further example is Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, who travelled far and wide to hear Solomon's wisdom, and to make a gift for him, among other things. Another is of Jesus and Mary of Bethany. In order for Jesus to fulfil his messianic role, he needed to rejoin Israel again by means of strategic marriage. He was emblematic of Judah, Mary of Joseph. People have supposed she is a daughter of Benjamin due to Bethany belonging to that tribe, though the notion is false, and nullifies the need for and result of the strategic marriage. Rather she is typed in Genesis, in the story of Joseph and his brothers, when they come (the 2nd time - with Benjamin, without their father) to Egypt, are received by Joseph in his hall, and then depart with their food. This is when Joseph curiously has his silver cup hidden away in Benjamin's sack. I think this is symbolic of Mary being "Joseph's cup in Benjamin's sack", which ultimately enables Israel to be reconciled, the northern kingdom with the south, just as Joseph was with his brothers anciently.

Anyway my fingers are tired and I've written too much already. Any thoughts? ideas? impressions?

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 2nd, 2018, 11:50 pm
by abijah
Durstan you mentioned how you think there will be two endtime servants partially based on this idea of duality. Might you suppose this to be a couple?

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 5th, 2018, 6:22 pm
by TrueIntent
This is a great post! I appreciate all the symbolism. I have been pondering the bridegroom and the relationship. Also, " The idea of the sacred union is that it is what produces the Holy Offspring, the Messiah who will be the Anointed of the next generation of salvation." this sentence struck a chord with me. Sarah and Abraham. There is a holy offspring. Study all the "women" found by well of water. You may already be familiar with that pattern and that women at wells were a symbol of fertility. Even hagar carrying water...I don't know what it all means. but yes, the womb is opened...the tree of life is like a woman....a virgin and her child is the symbol of the love of god on the path of the tree of life. There is a holy seed......I have also heard that the Davidic Servant will be a couple...or at least someones interpretation of it that I read once. I would like to hear more of what you have to say. I see the symbols in the male and female. I really don't have anything to add to what you said. Just that I have also seen patterns like you are referring to in scripture. I understand very little about the Davidic servant as a couple, and want to hear more about what you think???? so what do you think?

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 5th, 2018, 8:44 pm
by abijah
TrueIntent wrote: March 5th, 2018, 6:22 pm I understand very little about the Davidic servant as a couple, and want to hear more about what you think???? so what do you think?
There's a saying I've heard in the Church before "behind every man there's a better woman", and this is fairly true across the board. All the great prophets through the ages had wives to strengthen and support them, and though they are unmentioned that does not mean they have not had a significant impact.

As far as the Davidic heir is concerned, I think his relationship with his wife will play a critical role in his empowerment and preparation for his mission. Healthy romance and sexual love in a marriage is important in the man obtaining spiritual/priesthood power.

The "twin" motif hits strongly because it may be symbolic in terms of how this empowerment may take place. Perhaps in a sense that is how his identity is hidden initially, including from himself for a time. He needs to find that bit of "himself" in his "twin" before he is able to make the dramatic spiritual ascension.

I'm currently reading a book explaining the symbolism behind the endowment. It is very meaty, but one of the many points the author makes is that with God, all is one and united. It wasn't until Lucifer proposed the theory of opposites that there was anything else, and that ignited the war in heaven. The author contends that with God, all was originally in Unity. Then with Satan and the Fall there came Duality and opposites.

Before this Plan of Salvation wraps up, things must shift to unity once again, all things reconciled to one another and as they were in the beginning. As I said in the OP, it began with a couple and I believe it will end with one.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 6th, 2018, 9:29 am
by TrueIntent
Yes. As a woman in the church, I feel like there is sometimes a dismissiveness about the role of the woman because the "man is at the head"....but what is lesser discussed is the ordinance of the second anointing, where the woman pronounces her husband a "king or priest" and lays the blessings on his head. She washes his feet, just as mary washed christ's feet, and then just as Christ washed his disciples. There is not much information ordinance available to the general membership, but it was recorded in many pioneer journals...or at least described. Elohim has "male and female meaning" in hebrew. It's a union for sure.

Earlier I said that I had read that the Davidic Servant was a couple....actually i have to correct myself. It was actually that I had read that the two endtime prophets who are killed in the streets were a husband and wife. There is symbolism that points to a male and female. Sometimes we assume that "prophets can only be male" because of the current heir achy of the the church, however, as the scriptures teach, there were prophetesses, and female high priests in the old testament and ancient cultures, as well as female disciples in the new testament. We may be in for a culture shock when we realize the role of the woman is very much equal in all aspects of the gospel.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am
by AI2.0
Disclaimer, please make sure and tread carefully with this and similar topics. Such doctrine is not canon in the LDS church, nor do I claim it to be. These are simply my own impressions, and I only speak for myself. If you disagree with me or my ideas or find them offensive, I'm just fine with that, but please do not trifle with or treat lightly the subject matter of this post, as it touches on highly delicate and sacred things.
Hmm....you just know you're in trouble when someone starts a thread like this.


Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 1:26 pm
by TrueIntent
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am
Disclaimer, please make sure and tread carefully with this and similar topics. Such doctrine is not canon in the LDS church, nor do I claim it to be. These are simply my own impressions, and I only speak for myself. If you disagree with me or my ideas or find them offensive, I'm just fine with that, but please do not trifle with or treat lightly the subject matter of this post, as it touches on highly delicate and sacred things.
Hmm....you just know you're in trouble when someone starts a thread like this.


Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.
Abijah pulled quite a bit from the scriptures. Are the scriptures not LDS cannon? He's just offering thoughts on interpretation, just like everyone else does on the forum. He said he doesn't know if what he says is true...unlike some people who claim truth not really knowing if it's even from the scriptures. While I don't agree with everything he posted, it sounds like it was well thought out. He has an understanding of Old Testament influence and ancient cultures...which is what I would argue many lack (specifically LDS). He did pull from themes of the scriptures. You just may not be aware of them.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 5:40 pm
by abijah
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am
Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.
I'm not advocating anything. I'm comparing parallel themes found in ancient eastern literature/culture and the higher knowledge which came by the Restoration. And used some examples from the scriptures to illustrate.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm
by AI2.0
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 1:26 pm
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am
Disclaimer, please make sure and tread carefully with this and similar topics. Such doctrine is not canon in the LDS church, nor do I claim it to be. These are simply my own impressions, and I only speak for myself. If you disagree with me or my ideas or find them offensive, I'm just fine with that, but please do not trifle with or treat lightly the subject matter of this post, as it touches on highly delicate and sacred things.
Hmm....you just know you're in trouble when someone starts a thread like this.


Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.
Abijah pulled quite a bit from the scriptures. Are the scriptures not LDS cannon? He's just offering thoughts on interpretation, just like everyone else does on the forum. He said he doesn't know if what he says is true...unlike some people who claim truth not really knowing if it's even from the scriptures. While I don't agree with everything he posted, it sounds like it was well thought out. He has an understanding of Old Testament influence and ancient cultures...which is what I would argue many lack (specifically LDS). He did pull from themes of the scriptures. You just may not be aware of them.
Where did he share scriptures (I'm not sure there were any references--did you see some actual scriptural references cited?), other than a couple of psalms and mentioning Leviticus in general? He did refer to some people in scriptures, such as Abraham, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but I'm curious of the sources he's reading in regards to his thoughts on these.

His reference to Innana and Dumizid, is not in the bible, it's pagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Heiro gamos is not something that I believe would have been approved of in ancient times, by worshipers of Jehovah, since it was also a pagan practice, associated with the groves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hieros-gamos

And we've got no proof that Jesus was married to anyone, so all that about Jesus and Mary of Bethany is speculation, that's not in the canon.

I asked what he was advocating, because of his speculation over incest being a higher form of marriage and references to heiros gamos.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 7:08 pm
by abijah
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm
Where did he share scriptures (I'm not sure there were any references--did you see some actual scriptural references cited?), other than a couple of psalms and mentioning Leviticus in general? He did refer to some people in scriptures, such as Abraham, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but I'm curious of the sources he's reading in regards to his thoughts on these.
Sources? My biblical interpretations are my own.
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm His reference to Innana and Dumizid, is not in the bible, it's pagan.
It is.
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm
Heiro gamos is not something that I believe would have been approved of in ancient times, by worshipers of Jehovah, since it was also a pagan practice, associated with the groves.
It was, and it angered God greatly. This of course does not erode the possibility of it being based on true doctrine, perverted by the devil. If that was the case it may help explain why the groves and the immoral rites offended Him so much.
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm And we've got no proof that Jesus was married to anyone, so all that about Jesus and Mary of Bethany is speculation, that's not in the canon.
Is it improper for me to speculate? Because I know it's not canon, I already said that.
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm I asked what he was advocating, because of his speculation over incest being a higher form of marriage
I never said incest was a higher form of marriage. If I conveyed that, then I apologise for my unclear writing.
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm and references to heiros gamos.
My point concerning hieros gamos was not that it may be true, but that it was an early distortion of once-true and precious doctrine.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 7:41 pm
by Craig Johnson
There is some thought provoking stuff here, but I wish my comments to be doctrinal and proper, I will attempt that. It is obvious that duality, in the form that we do know, is eternal. There must be opposition or man and woman cannot "earn" (a word I use here only to illustrate) through obedience eternal life. Because I have a background (not counting my father's and neighbor's teaching's of mainly street style wrestling and boxing), stretching back to 1969, in martial arts - starting with Okinawan Karate and then into Chinese Gung Fu, with training in many other branches and mutations, I have been trained in much duality. Thus why I chose the yin yang symbol for my moniker here.
One thing that has struck me is that both concepts are usually underrated or misunderstood, particularly amongst the "learned" who think they know for themselves but have become fools of their interpretations which they idolize. When most people hear what satan's plan was (I did this myself) they first think, 'that sounds like a good plan' and of course it can take a while to realize how important it is to understand what he was really saying, i.e. goodbye freedom of choice.
The Spirit amplifies very simple concepts. What may appear as something you can easily understand, you find out after having the Spirit open your mind that you really have no idea what is going on and that the totality of it is beyond man's grasp. We know so little, has been my experience, that we are not only stupid about what is going on in our bodies, in this earth and in space and we also do not even begin to comprehend why we are here even after all we have been taught. After all we only have 120 years or less to learn what little we can learn!
It may be illustrative to point out at this point some perception (but very little) regarding the powerful position of God the Father. He comprehends us fully, He cannot be fooled, period. In martial arts an attack such as a punch can be deflected with very little effort and really not even much speed. When the attack is deflected, typically, no one is harmed, however, the attacker is now vulnerable. It is that vulnerability which always makes evil the loser. Did satan think that he could ever defeat the Father, no, because he asked the Father to give him His honor. Therefore I believe that those who comprehend and love evil know this concept. They will eternally be in last place, but that is where they want to be.
I recommend that you take these concepts you are considering slowly and carefully and do much more comparing to what our prophets have revealed, being careful to assess what is written in some cases with how that writer's life transpired. May I divert your attention to Acts 20:17-35 with special emphasis on verse 28 which I feel is directed to every Melchizedek Priesthood holder. God bless.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 8:35 pm
by TrueIntent
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 1:26 pm
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am
Disclaimer, please make sure and tread carefully with this and similar topics. Such doctrine is not canon in the LDS church, nor do I claim it to be. These are simply my own impressions, and I only speak for myself. If you disagree with me or my ideas or find them offensive, I'm just fine with that, but please do not trifle with or treat lightly the subject matter of this post, as it touches on highly delicate and sacred things.
Hmm....you just know you're in trouble when someone starts a thread like this.


Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.
Abijah pulled quite a bit from the scriptures. Are the scriptures not LDS cannon? He's just offering thoughts on interpretation, just like everyone else does on the forum. He said he doesn't know if what he says is true...unlike some people who claim truth not really knowing if it's even from the scriptures. While I don't agree with everything he posted, it sounds like it was well thought out. He has an understanding of Old Testament influence and ancient cultures...which is what I would argue many lack (specifically LDS). He did pull from themes of the scriptures. You just may not be aware of them.
Where did he share scriptures (I'm not sure there were any references--did you see some actual scriptural references cited?), other than a couple of psalms and mentioning Leviticus in general? He did refer to some people in scriptures, such as Abraham, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but I'm curious of the sources he's reading in regards to his thoughts on these.

His reference to Innana and Dumizid, is not in the bible, it's pagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Heiro gamos is not something that I believe would have been approved of in ancient times, by worshipers of Jehovah, since it was also a pagan practice, associated with the groves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hieros-gamos

And we've got no proof that Jesus was married to anyone, so all that about Jesus and Mary of Bethany is speculation, that's not in the canon.

I asked what he was advocating, because of his speculation over incest being a higher form of marriage and references to heiros gamos.
He interpreting meaning from scriptures.....you know...like we are supposed to do when we read Isaiah. I don't think you know very much about scripture or church history based on what you are saying in regards to this discussion...I don't know you but I think your remarks don't make sense. Because you say he doesnt follow LDS cannon, and yet some of what you are saying, like "jesus wasn't married"...is found in journal of discourse...In fact you will find that some of the brethren taught he was married as a polygamous...NOW I DON"T BELIEVE THAT, but it was still taught by apostles in the early church. So just because you don't believe it's in LDS cannon doesnt mean it wasn't taught.

He is referencing scripture and their parallels to other cultures. You will find that pagan worship is all over the old testament as well. I have studied both. An example is "Hades" being referred to in the new testament. Hades is from mythology. And Rahab and the dragon in the old testament.....just because pagan worship wasn't allowed doesnt mean that prophets of the old testament didn't use it as a reference to teach understanding. Its exactly what Abijah is doing. Using it as a reference for understanding. The tree of life is found in every single ancient culture...is that pagan too? Maybe there is overlap, which is what Abijah is saying in his post. I also believe that there is a thread of truth that exists in all ancient cultures, which is why I enjoyed his post. And you may not recognize when he is referring to scripture without quoting it because you haven't studied the way we study. For example...when he referred to opposites and opposition in all things, that phrase is in the scriptures, even though he didn't cite the specific scripture. His entire post is making parallels of various cultures and their worship to the scriptures. This is a stupid discussion, and you made an ignorant remark so I called you out. You were trying to make someone else feel dumb, and so I am just sticking up for them, and letting you know you got it wrong.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 9:25 pm
by abijah
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 8:35 pm didn't cite the specific scripture
I need to start doing this!

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 9:34 pm
by abijah
Craig Johnson wrote: March 7th, 2018, 7:41 pm It is that vulnerability which always makes evil the loser. Did satan think that he could ever defeat the Father, no, because he asked the Father to give him His honor. Therefore I believe that those who comprehend and love evil know this concept. They will eternally be in last place, but that is where they want to be.
I like that analogy. Satan brings about his own demise through blaming, bitterness and envy. I think pride is at the heart of it though, as Ezra Taft Benson implies in his talk. You talked about how those of perdition will eternally occupy "last place" and I think it is their own pride that holds them there.

I just realised now as I wrote that President Benson defined pride as "enmity" which naturally involves a duality, an A vs. B. This is reminiscent of what I mentioned I read a couple days ago, about how one of the results of the war in heaven was Lucifer's introducing of opposites. Before, all was Good and there could be no enmity, there was no pride. Then Satan enabled duality, inventing Evil, a distorted, less-potent version of Good, that he might make war against it.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 7th, 2018, 9:53 pm
by Craig Johnson
abijah wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:34 pm
Craig Johnson wrote: March 7th, 2018, 7:41 pm It is that vulnerability which always makes evil the loser. Did satan think that he could ever defeat the Father, no, because he asked the Father to give him His honor. Therefore I believe that those who comprehend and love evil know this concept. They will eternally be in last place, but that is where they want to be.
I like that analogy. Satan brings about his own demise through blaming, bitterness and envy. I think pride is at the heart of it though, as Ezra Taft Benson implies in his talk. You talked about how those of perdition will eternally occupy "last place" and I think it is their own pride that holds them there.

I just realised now as I wrote that President Benson defined pride as "enmity" which naturally involves a duality, an A vs. B. This is reminiscent of what I mentioned I read a couple days ago, about how one of the results of the war in heaven was Lucifer's introducing of opposites. Before, all was Good and there could be no enmity, there was no pride. Then Satan enabled duality, inventing Evil, a distorted, less-potent version of Good, that he might make war against it.
I often think of satan's response to the Father's reply as the ultimate form of jealousy. It is duality in a very pure and very deceptive form, but consider the source. He wanted what he knew the Savior would receive as the obedient Son, but he did not want to pay the required price in order to occupy that position, which was not really open to him in any event. So, he used a very deceptive lie that he knew the Father would reject but he must have also known and desired that it would bring to his portico many followers who wanted to have things their way and if they could not then they would fight, lose and raise their fists towards heaven in hatred forever. It is not admirable to me no matter how it is looked at.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 9:29 am
by The Airbender
I've read before that when God creates a man spiritually, he also creates a woman. As in, you cannot create one without creating the other. It's like Sodium and Chloride or Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 9:48 am
by abijah
The Airbender wrote: March 8th, 2018, 9:29 am I've read before that when God creates a man spiritually, he also creates a woman. As in, you cannot create one without creating the other. It's like Sodium and Chloride or Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Very interesting, and seemingly in line with the Adam & Eve dialogue. “It is not good that a man should be alone, I will create an helpmeet for him”

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 10:16 am
by TrueIntent
abijah wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:25 pm
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 8:35 pm didn't cite the specific scripture
I need to start doing this!
yes, sure,....But I knew you were referring to scriptures. Well thought out post.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 10:21 am
by brianj
The Airbender wrote: March 8th, 2018, 9:29 am I've read before that when God creates a man spiritually, he also creates a woman. As in, you cannot create one without creating the other. It's like Sodium and Chloride or Hydrogen and Oxygen.
I have never come across claims that male and female spirits were created in equal numbers. If you can recall the source, I would like to read it.

Matter and antimatter would probably be a better similie than Na and Cl or H and O. A lot of oxygen exists independent of hydrogen, and there's plenty of sodium and chloride that exist independent of one another. You can easily find KCl in stores sold as a substitute for NaCl.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 10:38 am
by AI2.0
My responses in BLUE:
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 8:35 pm
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 1:26 pm
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am

Hmm....you just know you're in trouble when someone starts a thread like this.


Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.
Abijah pulled quite a bit from the scriptures. Are the scriptures not LDS cannon? He's just offering thoughts on interpretation, just like everyone else does on the forum. He said he doesn't know if what he says is true...unlike some people who claim truth not really knowing if it's even from the scriptures. While I don't agree with everything he posted, it sounds like it was well thought out. He has an understanding of Old Testament influence and ancient cultures...which is what I would argue many lack (specifically LDS). He did pull from themes of the scriptures. You just may not be aware of them.
Where did he share scriptures (I'm not sure there were any references--did you see some actual scriptural references cited?), other than a couple of psalms and mentioning Leviticus in general? He did refer to some people in scriptures, such as Abraham, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but I'm curious of the sources he's reading in regards to his thoughts on these.

His reference to Innana and Dumizid, is not in the bible, it's pagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Heiro gamos is not something that I believe would have been approved of in ancient times, by worshipers of Jehovah, since it was also a pagan practice, associated with the groves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hieros-gamos

And we've got no proof that Jesus was married to anyone, so all that about Jesus and Mary of Bethany is speculation, that's not in the canon.

I asked what he was advocating, because of his speculation over incest being a higher form of marriage and references to heiros gamos.
He interpreting meaning from scriptures.....you know...like we are supposed to do when we read Isaiah. I don't think you know very much about scripture or church history based on what you are saying in regards to this discussion...I don't know you but I think your remarks don't make sense. Because you say he doesnt follow LDS cannon, and yet some of what you are saying, like "jesus wasn't married"...is found in journal of discourse...In fact you will find that some of the brethren taught he was married as a polygamous...NOW I DON"T BELIEVE THAT, but it was still taught by apostles in the early church. So just because you don't believe it's in LDS cannon doesnt mean it wasn't taught.

I'm certain I don't know as much about the scriptures or church history--there are a lot of people on this forum alone who know a ton more than me.

Sorry, I do have to offer a correction. The word is 'canon'--and the Journal of Discourses is not part of LDS canon. I do know that many early church leaders believed Jesus was married, and some believed he was married to Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus. But, that's not part of our canon--it's speculation so it doesn't have the authority of scriptures, such as the D&C, New Testament, etc. And, you don't have to believe it, since it's in the Journal of Discourses, you are free to reject their speculations.

What I need is to know where Abijah is coming up with his theories--I had to look on the internet to find out more, because either I really don't know the Old testament, or a lot of what he's sharing isn't in it.



He is referencing scripture and their parallels to other cultures. You will find that pagan worship is all over the old testament as well. I have studied both. An example is "Hades" being referred to in the new testament. Hades is from mythology. And Rahab and the dragon in the old testament.....just because pagan worship wasn't allowed doesnt mean that prophets of the old testament didn't use it as a reference to teach understanding. Its exactly what Abijah is doing. Using it as a reference for understanding. The tree of life is found in every single ancient culture...is that pagan too? Maybe there is overlap, which is what Abijah is saying in his post. I also believe that there is a thread of truth that exists in all ancient cultures, which is why I enjoyed his post. And you may not recognize when he is referring to scripture without quoting it because you haven't studied the way we study. For example...when he referred to opposites and opposition in all things, that phrase is in the scriptures, even though he didn't cite the specific scripture. His entire post is making parallels of various cultures and their worship to the scriptures. This is a stupid discussion, and you made an ignorant remark so I called you out. You were trying to make someone else feel dumb, and so I am just sticking up for them, and letting you know you got it wrong.
Yes, Rahab is in the Old testament, but not in the context which I can tell that Abijah is referring to, as far as I can see. Rahab and the dragon is medieval jewish folklore, I believe. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I think that references are helpful so I know what texts he's looking at, so I know how valuable the sources are--the sources make a difference to me.

And Yes, Pagan worship is in the old testament, but it's considered 'bad', not something to find spiritual truths in. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been twisted, but arisen out of true forms of worship, but I will say, if it involves claiming the the 'true form of worship' included prostitution or sexual relations being part of a religious worship, I would reject that. The idea of incest being some kind of holy union reminded me of the Kingston clan--they are polygamists who believe they need to keep the bloodlines pure by marrying their own family members--I'm not saying he's advocating this, but I was asking where his theories might take us. If embraced by some today, could they lead to something like the Kingstons believe?

That's why I was asking for clarification on what he is advocating and for the sources he's using. We get a lot of posters with views I find very strange--I like to know what the person is trying to teach us or prove to us. I wasn't trying to make anyone feel dumb. I'd just like more references and an idea of where he's going with his theories and how they are pertinent to LDS doctrine.

But, it seems that others don't need this to enjoy the discussion so I'll leave you to it.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 2:02 pm
by Crackers
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 8:35 pm
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 6:30 pm
TrueIntent wrote: March 7th, 2018, 1:26 pm
AI2.0 wrote: March 7th, 2018, 9:58 am

Hmm....you just know you're in trouble when someone starts a thread like this.


Yea, you are right, it's not LDS canon, not even close. I don't know what it is. I really don't know what you are advocating with this.
Abijah pulled quite a bit from the scriptures. Are the scriptures not LDS cannon? He's just offering thoughts on interpretation, just like everyone else does on the forum. He said he doesn't know if what he says is true...unlike some people who claim truth not really knowing if it's even from the scriptures. While I don't agree with everything he posted, it sounds like it was well thought out. He has an understanding of Old Testament influence and ancient cultures...which is what I would argue many lack (specifically LDS). He did pull from themes of the scriptures. You just may not be aware of them.
Where did he share scriptures (I'm not sure there were any references--did you see some actual scriptural references cited?), other than a couple of psalms and mentioning Leviticus in general? He did refer to some people in scriptures, such as Abraham, Adam and Eve and the serpent, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but I'm curious of the sources he's reading in regards to his thoughts on these.

His reference to Innana and Dumizid, is not in the bible, it's pagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Heiro gamos is not something that I believe would have been approved of in ancient times, by worshipers of Jehovah, since it was also a pagan practice, associated with the groves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hieros-gamos

And we've got no proof that Jesus was married to anyone, so all that about Jesus and Mary of Bethany is speculation, that's not in the canon.

I asked what he was advocating, because of his speculation over incest being a higher form of marriage and references to heiros gamos.
He interpreting meaning from scriptures.....you know...like we are supposed to do when we read Isaiah. I don't think you know very much about scripture or church history based on what you are saying in regards to this discussion...I don't know you but I think your remarks don't make sense. Because you say he doesnt follow LDS cannon, and yet some of what you are saying, like "jesus wasn't married"...is found in journal of discourse...In fact you will find that some of the brethren taught he was married as a polygamous...NOW I DON"T BELIEVE THAT, but it was still taught by apostles in the early church. So just because you don't believe it's in LDS cannon doesnt mean it wasn't taught.

He is referencing scripture and their parallels to other cultures. You will find that pagan worship is all over the old testament as well. I have studied both. An example is "Hades" being referred to in the new testament. Hades is from mythology. And Rahab and the dragon in the old testament.....just because pagan worship wasn't allowed doesnt mean that prophets of the old testament didn't use it as a reference to teach understanding. Its exactly what Abijah is doing. Using it as a reference for understanding. The tree of life is found in every single ancient culture...is that pagan too? Maybe there is overlap, which is what Abijah is saying in his post. I also believe that there is a thread of truth that exists in all ancient cultures, which is why I enjoyed his post. And you may not recognize when he is referring to scripture without quoting it because you haven't studied the way we study. For example...when he referred to opposites and opposition in all things, that phrase is in the scriptures, even though he didn't cite the specific scripture. His entire post is making parallels of various cultures and their worship to the scriptures. This is a stupid discussion, and you made an ignorant remark so I called you out. You were trying to make someone else feel dumb, and so I am just sticking up for them, and letting you know you got it wrong.
I'm not sure what justified such a strong and negative response to AI2.0's comments, which in my opinion were thoughtful and spot-on. I had the same initial reaction as her to the OP. To start a thread with such a disclaimer can come across as a tad arrogant, and is basically hedging off disagreement by implying ignorance on him who might disagree. It’s just off-putting. And then to venture in and out of potentially sexually perverse ideas without putting forth any coherent premise is, well, interesting.

Just to touch on one of the points, I think most of us agree that the idea of Jesus being married is simply that, an idea. No clear doctrine has been set forth relating to that. However, the original poster seemed to be putting it forth as fact, which is where the breakdown comes.

I honestly don't know where you got the idea that AI2.0 was making ignorant remarks or trying to make someone feel dumb. That clearly did not happen.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm
by Craig Johnson
It kind of blows my mind that any LDS person would think that our Lord was not married during His mortal life. This shows, to me anyway, a real lack of understanding about the Lord, the Church, the Gospel, the Priesthood, the Supreme Example and a host of other related topics. I have no doubt He was married and had children, He may have even been a Grandfather at the time of His Atoning Sacrifice, since marriage at age 12 was common in His time, although this does not mean He had children immediately. No, I don't know that it is true, but I think it is vapid to hypothesize that it is not true and I do feel that it is true.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 2:25 pm
by Crackers
Craig Johnson wrote: March 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm It kind of blows my mind that any LDS person would think that our Lord was not married during His mortal life. This shows, to me anyway, a real lack of understanding about the Lord, the Church, the Gospel, the Priesthood, the Supreme Example and a host of other related topics. I have no doubt He was married and had children, He may have even been a Grandfather at the time of His Atoning Sacrifice, since marriage at age 12 was common in His time, although this does not mean He had children immediately. No, I don't know that it is true, but I think it is vapid to hypothesize that it is not true and I do feel that it is true.
My point was simply that it is not doctrine.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 8th, 2018, 8:24 pm
by abijah
Craig Johnson wrote: March 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm It kind of blows my mind that any LDS person would think that our Lord was not married during His mortal life. This shows, to me anyway, a real lack of understanding about the Lord, the Church, the Gospel, the Priesthood, the Supreme Example and a host of other related topics. I have no doubt He was married and had children, He may have even been a Grandfather at the time of His Atoning Sacrifice, since marriage at age 12 was common in His time, although this does not mean He had children immediately. No, I don't know that it is true, but I think it is vapid to hypothesize that it is not true and I do feel that it is true.
I agree, I’m shocked at church members who don’t think Jesus is married. Walking in darkness at noonday indeed.

Re: Sacred union

Posted: March 9th, 2018, 12:38 am
by simpleton
abijah wrote: March 8th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Craig Johnson wrote: March 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm It kind of blows my mind that any LDS person would think that our Lord was not married during His mortal life. This shows, to me anyway, a real lack of understanding about the Lord, the Church, the Gospel, the Priesthood, the Supreme Example and a host of other related topics. I have no doubt He was married and had children, He may have even been a Grandfather at the time of His Atoning Sacrifice, since marriage at age 12 was common in His time, although this does not mean He had children immediately. No, I don't know that it is true, but I think it is vapid to hypothesize that it is not true and I do feel that it is true.
I agree, I’m shocked at church members who don’t think Jesus is married. Walking in darkness at noonday indeed.
Actually it is not shocking as we are becoming more and more just like the Catholics, and the Protestant religions, and of course very politically correct, and for that matter getting to be just like what Nephi saw, " a bible , a bible, we have got a bible and we have no more need of a bible.... There is enough reference in the bible all by itself to intimate that Jesus was married. Actually I think even quite some glaring things. I will say something else, I have not completely read all 26 volumes of the Journal of Discourses, but, I have read throughout all of them various different discourses and I will have to say I have not been disappointed yet. Those men were quite inspired and full of the light of the gospel. And I think that the light of the gospel has been dimming as time goes on.
To the point of the OP, well, it seemed kind of like a sensual write up. But I guess we are carnal sensual and devilish... And that is the road we are spiraling down in Mormonism.