Replies

It seems to me Brigham Young was stipulating that the manner/methods of human procreation are necessarily binding on how God procreates. I don't see any rational basis for this supposition. There is no equivalence between God and man. God cannot be "reduced" to human criteria. (Nor, it seems to me, can man be "elevated" to divine status.)

I agree. In light of your comment, "there is no equivalence between God and man," Mormon contextual beliefs in this regard are:
(1) God was once a man (hence, Lds already reduce the heavens to mere anthropology);
(2) They "upgrade" mankind to the status of eternal spirits (as in eternity past -- who are "gods-in-embryo" -- and hence some will grow up into full-blown gods!)

They do precisely what Lucifer did -- yank God down -- and seek to ascend their own divine throne. (See Isaiah 14:12-14)

Colofornian, I'm no judge of these matters, being pretty ignorant of LDS doctrine.

But if it as as you say (and my dearest sister in Christ has suggested as much to me), then this would constitute the divinization of Man on two scores....

It actually makes God, in a sense, derivative from Man. That is, Man is the "real" creator here [or rather, Man's self-regard, as scored according to your points (1) and (2)].

In which case it seems LDS would be in perfect accord with that [nefarious! IMHO] German philosopher Ludwig von Feuerbach ("flaming brook"), who held that God was merely the mass "psychological projection" of the highest [moral?] aspirations of human beings in the collective. Which is a huge pile of mush, it goes without saying.

For one thing, what is this "collective???"

GOD DEALS IN SOULS, not "collectives!!!"

Just thinking out loud....

Thank you so very much for your insights Colofornian!