Where do you see that the subject of your quote was referring to spirits?All people according to LDS theology are literal children of HF
LOL. I guess you don't want to answer the question. Or maybe you can't.If up don’t understand this basic teaching you might want to sit in on primary lessons (LOL sorry I couldn’t resist).
Pratt's speculation does not make it doctrine. It has holes. Your theory has holes as well. Mine has fewer and holds water better.If you have been following I was quoting Pratt, and from the Seer…here is another teaching from the apostle, in the same periodical.
This is an idea that teaches that spirits have a beginning. This is clearly opposite of Joseph Smith's teachings and the scriptures which are doctrine.112. We have in this article on preexistence traced man back to his origen in the heavenly world as an infant spirit; we have shown that this spirit was begotten and born by celestial parents long anterior to the formation of this creation.
It isn't too hard to figure out where Pratt got this idea. It comes right out of the Bible. And again, how that comes about is anyone's guess but the fact remains, we do not teach that God had sex with his wife to make them. Some people imagine it occurred that way, but it's pure speculation and unfortunately for them and you, it doesn't fit. You can't make what already exists.like unto their Father God by whom their spirits were begotten.
No, it doesn't agree with what the church teaches today. Nowhere in the church is it taught that God made spirits through sexual relations with his God wife.I understand to you he is a dead prophet and apostle, but above agrees with what the church teaches today.