Soloman questioned, "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (Eccles 3:20-21) (NIV).
Brigham Young stated, "When you lay down this tabernacle, where are you going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going into Abraham's bosom? No, not anywhere nigh there but into the spirit world. Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries of the organized earth? No, they do not." (Discourses of Brigham Young 33:376:4).
Many people see the spirits of departed loved ones at their funerals. The spirit goes along to see who turns up (I suppose), and to follow the family and friends they are used to being with. I remember an incidence where a person had died and things were being thrown around the room from then on. Someone picked up the point that the spirit was upset that they were taking no notice of him, and supposing that he was gone. So they talked to him as if he was still sitting on his chair, and there was no problem thereafter.
Many have also seen spirits just being around the place. Some having messages for remaining relatives. It would appear that once we are sent to earth we stay here until the whole thing is over. Unless we are resurrected and off doing something else.
I enjoyed watching the Star Wars movies. It was all very interesting watching the fight of good VS evil. But the logic suffered one obvious flaw. The dark side can't possibly be anywhere near as powerful as the light side (and that is a gross understatement). Why not? After all, aren't good and evil exact opposites? Therefore the power of evil should be as powerful as the power of good, shouldn't it? And why is it that God is more powerful than Satan? Surely they should be equal in power.
The answer to this lies in the question of what makes good, good? And what makes evil, evil? Why is it "good" to love others, and "evil" to hate others? Could God just as easily have commanded us to hate others? The answer to this is that eternity has laws. They have always existed. If you punch your hand against a brick wall it will hurt. The same combination of circumstances on any planet throughout eternity will create the same result. The laws governing us also govern God. Those laws include ways of acting upon substances to get them to form into planets etc. This requires enormous love by the person doing the holding of the planets together. No love - no power. It is as simple as that.
To understand this relative to dark and light sides, you could relate it to two people rowing in a raging river. Both are rowing as hard as they can. One is powering ahead and the other is going nowhere. What is the difference between the two? .... One is rowing with the current and the other is rowing against it. God is going with the laws of eternity, and Satan is trying to fight against them.
Some feel that Brigham Young said that Adam and God were the same person. I have read the statements of Brigham's that are used for this theory. My first response was that it was very clear that he was saying Adam to be the Father of Jesus Christ's body and our spirit body. And I considered that to be his opinion for a long time. However I have since found some statements that have changed my mind on the matter. Also I think I should throw in a fairly official statement on it.
When a prophet, Spencer W. Kimball made the following statement at general conference.
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." . Kimball, Spencer W. "Our Own Liahona." Ensign (Nov. 1976), p. 77-79
This was a plain statement that current GAs disagree with the doctrine of Adam being God, and that they feel Brigham Young's statements are misunderstood.
The question really is, "was Adam really our Heavenly Father"? Which will be answered by Scripture lastly. But in the interest of hopefully laying aside ALL concerns, it is a good question as to why someone with such revelatory ability and knowledge would believe something so obviously contrary to Scripture, if he did?
Here I should make you aware of surrounding beliefs that, I believe, would have influenced and concerned Brigham Young while making these statements. He was speaking against thinking created by Protestant/Catholic teaching. They, generally, totally condemn Adam and Eve as disgusting beings who are totally responsible for our present predicament. To them all would have been wonderful had Adam and Eve followed simple instructions. I have seen Protestant publications that draw Adam as a truly evil character. Brigham, therefore, is presenting what a wonderful and important character Adam actually was. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Paul the Apostle all suffer from the same problem. They were the first of a new breed. And they didn't realise that you must be extremely careful with how you put things. People take them completely out of context of your thinking. They knew what they meant, when they said things. But it sounds different to us.
Typical Opinions Brigham Expressed:-
"Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! 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-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50. (1852)
However in the very NEXT paragraph he stated, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael..." Any illusion that he was proposing Adam (Michael) to be Heavenly Father (Eloheim) is tossed out here. But for better understanding let's proceed anyway.
To try and understand what Brigham must have meant in the first bit, I will present some possible ideas. Adam is a god, as are all who accept and follow the gospel of Christ in its fulness (John 10:35). And as he is the first parent in fallen flesh, and we are cut off because of the fall, he is the only god with whom we have to do patriachally (as to get to the Father we must go through the Son, not patriarchally).
Eve was one of his celestial wives, looking backward (ie she now being one of his celestial wives). He brought her with him. But she wasn't one of his celestial wives at the time he brought her.
He is the Ancient of Days, being our first father to live a life of years here (as stated in D&C 27:11).
Of course these are only assumptions of his intent, as he isn't available for comment.
Brigham said "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Christ] 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....
"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven....
"Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Journal of Discourses. vol. 1, pp. 50-51.
Heavenly Father is the father of the human family (while Adam can be regarded so also).
Heavenly Father was also a character in the garden of Eden when talking to Adam and Eve (as stated in Genesis - I'll quote Brigham on this soon)(even though Adam lived there permanently at the time). So it could be that we should be reading Brigham's statements based on his assumption of the knowledge of the hearers. Others propose that there were errors in recording by those writing his talk down. Either way the following adds insight.
Reading these quotes of Brigham below makes it very clear what he thought of Adam and God, and Adam to Christ:
"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."
"The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are coworkers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" Discourses of Brigham Young. 2nd ed., p. 94.
"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.159
"Our Lord Jesus Christ-the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [Adam and Eve]." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.40.
Now consider the following Scripture references:
Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee."
D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) 78:15-16 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high. and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."
D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."
Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
Moses 6:22 "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed."
It is obvious from these latter collections that 1. Brigham Young didn't think Adam was our Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus Christ. And 2. (and most importantly) that the Scriptures oppose such a concept.
Meat - Eat in Moderation, if at All
There is more on this subject within scripture than I think most realise. Also the Scriptures are more interlinked than seems to be appreciated. The Old Testament law is discarded in the usual conversation of this subject, and reference is made to some interpretation of the New Testament to do this. But is this accurate? D&C 89 contains the obvious statements. But how many examine them relative to past instruction? Note verses 14 and 15, "...and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." So does this mean we can eat domesticated pigs but not wild ones? As we domesticate dogs and cats can we eat them, also? God gave instruction of what he was talking about long ago. He had Moses write it down. No pigs, dogs, cats, camels, shark, dolphins, squid, octopus, crabs, crayfish, mussels, oysters, eagles, ants, cockroaches and so on. Because the Israelites of the time were so spiritually backward he made it a commandment, so at least some would follow it. Have you questioned yourself as to why God would ask such a thing? It is because the meat of these things is worse than the meat of the other animals. Isn't that plain? Now God has made it a request, not a commandment. But don't the Scriptures tell us that it is a slothful and not a wise servant that needs to be commanded in all things (D&C 58:26)? In regard meat he has said that it is pleasing to him that it shouldn't be eaten, unless it is cold or there is a famine. As personal advice from personal inspiration let me advise anyone wishing to stop eating meat that they should break off it slowly. Quit all the really bad stuff mentioned above immediately. Then break off red meats, and just eat fish and chicken. Then break off the chicken. And then off the fish, eventually. This should be done over at least a couple of years. Also women shouldn't break off meat during pregnancy or for a while after birth.
Whenever I see a woman showing cleavage I feel she is insulting womanhood. I feel it a slight on my sisters (meaning all women). I also think to myself, "I didn't want to see that." I feel that this has been thrust upon me, and my choice has been taken away: If I wanted to see that I could buy pornography. I also feel this is a thorn in the side of those men and women trying to straighten their lives out after lust problems.
Some women will use the excuse that the temperature is hot, and so it keeps them cool. Well, hey, why wear clothes at all? Why not just turn up naked and resolve the problem? I wear a shirt with a collar. At church I wear a tie. So am I to accept that it is right with God that women come partly clad but not me? What if I walked around showing the top of my bottom at church? After all, it would be cooler.
Spence W. Kimball said, "I wonder if our sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered or dress in tight-fitting, body-revealing, form-fitting sweaters." (Miracle of Forgiveness, 16:226)
Brigham Young said, "I am ashamed to see the tight clothes -- to see the shape of the ladies." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 19:75). How would Brigham get on with cleavage, do you think?
In Matthew 5:28 Jesus says that anyone looking on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Is that what you women want in a husband: An adulterer? Or in other women's husbands. I think it is about time that women started respecting their womanhood far more. I am not talking to all women, as I notice some with respect for their bodies and womanhood. But I'm talking to those who perhaps haven't thought about it, or those who just don't care.
Back to Subject List
The point of the atonement is to make us clean so that we may re-enter the presence of God (3 Nephi 27:19). Sin has made us filthy. But what is this filth? Yes, we can say it is sin that we have committed, but where does this filth actually exist and why? And why do we need it removed to be in God's presence?
The scriptures tell us that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16). Why? To please himself? Did Christ really perform the atonement because Heavenly Father insisted for self-indulgence? What kind of a God of love would that be?
I believe Mosiah 2:38 answers these questions. "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."
This demonstrates that it is us who demand justice: Our "immortal soul". It also is stating that it is our own sense of guilt that causes us to stay out of God's presence. In addition to this it is saying that it is us who send ourselves to hell.
So how does this fit in with statements about Jesus being the judge, and the saints being judges etc? I believe this refers to the idea that any person who has taught us any truth is our judge in the sense that their words stand to praise or condemn us. Depending on whether we listened or not. Christ provided the atonement that anyone can accept. If a person doesn't then that also stands as condemnation in that judgement of ourselves. His words stand to condemn or praise; depending on our acceptance also. Heavenly Father arranged for a saviour to come into us and do the suffering on our behalf. But this requires us to open to him and to really repent. A truly repentant person doesn't go out doing the same thing again. Jesus was the chosen saviour. And he suffered for these sins in the garden.
The apostle Orson Pratt, presented that matter had intelligence. And that it was made up of particles. Each having intelligence. That it could collect itself into smaller groups of intelligences, or go into large groups. That it had 3 dimensions. These particles are extremely small. Far smaller than anything we are capable of seeing with microscopes. He also presented that intelligences have power within themselves. (Absurdities of Immaterialism, Orson Pratt, Liverpool, 1849).
Abraham 4:18 declares, "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." This seems to suggest that those creating had to get the matter to obey, and that this took time.
On 2 occasions I have come across members who have seen these basic parts of matter with their spiritual eyes. And that these have intelligence. This idea presents a far more rational concept of creation, to me, than a God that is all-powerful relative to nothing. What is the power of creation? According to Abraham, an ability that allows you to order particles. And Orson Pratt is stating that particles have intelligence. Therefore God has mental ability to persuade particles to move. And God trained those creating this earth to use these abilities under the direction of Jesus Christ. All this sounds more accurate than magical powers of creation being passed on by this same magic.
These are just some thoughts to consider.
John 14:12 states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
Jesus Christ healed the sick, even those with leprosy. He made the blind see and the lame walk. Even those with life long illnesses and disabilities were cured. He commanded the storm to stop and it stopped. He commanded a tree to die, and it did. He had nets so full of fish that they had trouble bringing them in. He had a fish give a coin to pay taxes. And to top off his visible miracles, he brought back Lazareth from the dead. And how can we even equal his work of the atonement, let alone do a greater work?
Why then did Jesus say to his apostles that they shall do greater works than him?
I believe the answer lies in a better examination of the statement. He has stated that the reason why they shall do greater works than him is, "because I go unto my Father". So how does him going to the Father make it that the apostles could do greater works? The answer must surely be that when he said "greater" he didn't mean the greatness of each individual work, but greater in number. Because he was only doing works for three and a half years, and then was going to the Father, the apostles would have opportunity to do a greater amount of works, having decades to do them in.
Even though what I am about to say was given to me by inspiration, I can demonstrate it to be true, from scripture and church doctrine.
Having stated that, I must declare that the things I say are purely as a church member, not an authority of the church. And I have never heard or read a general authority of the church, living or past, make these comments (or any other member). So I must declare them as only those things of which I have been informed by the Holy Ghost, as one person: Not established church doctrine. My purpose in placing this here was primarily in consideration of any negro who may be searching for understanding. Secondly for any other seeker of truth.
In the pre-existence Satan presented a plan that was impossible, but appealed to many. One third of all spirits present, in fact. Of the other two thirds many were not certain who to go with. They had concerns. Being loving, Heavenly Father made a deal with them that if they went down he would make sure that they couldn't go to outer darkness - which, apparently concerned them. To go there requires the priesthood. So he promised them that a mark would be put on them that no one would put them in the position they feared. In his love God placed a dark skin upon them to distinguish them from those wishing the priesthood. He made sure that these spirits were born to negro parents. Of more recent years there seems to have been reached a point where these have all come down already, or aren't in a position to receive that which concerned them. Consequently the priesthood has also been given to negros since that time.
In Hebrews 5:5-6 we are told that Jesus Christ received the Melchizedek Priesthood. Jesus gave this authority to his apostles and they eventually performed many mighty miracles. Male members eventually receive this priesthood. So how come Jesus could heal more effectively than we seem to? After all, it is the same priesthood. Doesn't God's power to heal just come zipping down that line of authority into our hands?
Healing takes spiritual effort and faith. Jesus noticed something go out of him when the woman touched his clothes to be healed (Mark 5:30). Luke 6:19 makes this same statement: "...for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all".
Scattered throughout the D&C we find many virtues that we must have for an effective use of the priesthood. It also states that if used for wrong reasons you have no priesthood authority (D&C 121:37). Of the many virtues necessary to use priesthood, many relate to love. We must have love for the person we are healing. Love is so important in regard having heavenly type powers. The apostle John said, "God is love". How can a statement more plainly express how much love God has? This love is a driving power that helps us heal.
Receiving the priesthood gives us the authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. Then we must add the ingredients to ourselves to make it effective, in such situations as healing. Heavenly Father is there to lend a hand to help us to fully bring out our latent abilities. The priesthood gives us the opportunities to develop ourselves to become more like our Heavenly Father.
In several places in the Scriptures we find sins categorised into three different types. Though we find sins coming in various shapes and sizes, they all fall into these categories. It is significant to note this so that it may assist us in recognising and opposing temptation.
Genesis 3:1 - 6 _ "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?''
And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'' Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil'. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."
This states that Eve noted three things of the tree. First that it was good for food. Second was that it pleasant to the eyes. And third was a tree desirable to make one wise. Let's look at this relative to the next quote.
Luke 4:1 - 13 _ "Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry. And the devil said to Him, 'If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.' But Jesus answered him, saying, 'It is written, 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'' Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if you will worship before me, all will be yours.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'' Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, 'If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you,' And, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'It has been said, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time."
So first we have the devil asking Jesus to turn stone into bread, because he knew He was hungry. Secondly the devil shows Jesus all these kingdoms and says He can have them all. Thirdly the devil challenges Jesus to prove that He is the Son of God. So let's go on and look at another.
1 John 2:15 - 16 _ "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not of the Father but is of the world."
There are three mentioned again here. First we have the lust of the flesh. Secondly we have the lust of the eyes. And thirdly we have the pride of life.
So putting this all together we have the first defined as - good for food, Jesus being asked to feed Himself, and the lust of the flesh. These are just different ways of saying the same thing. Food fills the desire of the flesh. Satan wanted Jesus to lust after food because He was hungry, and do the wrong thing in His lust. But Jesus resisted the lust of the flesh, as John also mentions we must do. Genesis is stating that this temptation is a wrong thing also.
The second is defined as - pleasant to the eyes, Jesus being offered all the kingdoms He's shown, and the lust of the eyes. I think that this, again, can be seen to be different ways of saying the same thing as each other. Satan will try to make things look good, to entice you into evil. Satan promises so much, yet delivers nothing that anyone really has.
And the third we have defined as desirable to make one wise, Jesus being challenged to prove His Sonship, and the pride of life. Some may have trouble seeing the connection here, so I'll go through each. Wanting to feel wiser than others is usually a pride thing. A person shouldn't judge their wisdom relative to other people, but next to God. If that doesn't keep you humble then you've got problems. If you want to be like our Father in heaven then you must look at yourself relative to your goal, not relative to the person down the road. Satan was presenting to Eve that she would suddenly be as wise as God. So he appealed to her pride. Jesus has His Sonship challenged by the devil, to try and get at His pride, by asking Him to prove it. It sounds like some kid at school, doesn't it: "Oh, you can't do that, I bet you can't." And the last one says it quite plainly, "the pride of life".
These are attacks against our three parts _ physical body, spirit body and intelligence. These are the three areas from which all temptations stem. This can help you recognise sins, with the help of the Holy Ghost.
The so called "Book of Enoch" talks of angels coming down and having sexual relationships with women. Some therefore interpret the Bible to support this claim. So what does the Bible actually state?
Genesis 6:1 - 4 states, "And it came to pass, when man began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown." AKJ.
From this Scripture mixed with others that say absolutely nothing of giants or angels coming down to marry women, so don't bear mentioning, this weird concept has arisen of fallen angels fathering giant children. While this sounds an interesting yarn to perhaps rival Jack and the Beanstalk, this isn't what the Scriptures have said. Verse 1 states that men had daughters, and verse 2 states that the sons of God married them (we'll come to that term in a moment, but that means the normal sons of men). Then we have God mentioning that man's average life span is to be reduced in length. Then we have mention that there happened to be giants in the land at that time. Then it goes on to say that the sons and daughters had children, men who made a name for themselves. I think it is important to note that Moses (the writer of the book) had just mentioned the great patriarchs from Adam to Noah and sons in chapter 5. Of Noah, verse 9 of chapter 6 states that he "was a just man, and perfect" and "walked with God." And in chapter 5 he's also talked of such greats as Seth, Abel, and Enoch (the latter of whom God translated _ Hebrews 11:5). These are men of renown, even today. Is it any wonder then that he refers to "sons of God" only two verses later (remember that the Hebrew Scriptures weren't written in chapters)? Psalms 82:6 refers to normal people as being "sons of God". Hosea 1:10 refers to sons of Israel (meaning Israelites) as becoming "the sons of the living God" by obedience. Acts 17:29 "you are the offspring of God" _ meaning all mankind. And there are more scripture references showing that the term "sons of God" refers to normal people. Of course it also refers to us before we were born, as is mentioned in Job chapter 38.
The Bible gives no explanation of why they happened to be giants, but as we know from modern science, even eating certain foods will produce this effect. Pygmies are very small only because of their diet, which would make us giants to them. Then what would we say of dwarfs, are we to make up some doctrine built around their existence also? These are just natural things.
Next we have the problem of more giants long after the flood. The flood would have wiped out these giants at Noah's time (whatever one wishes to decide the reason for their height to be) _ unless we decide that they were so tall that they had their heads above water during the flood. In Genesis 7:22 it says, "...all that was on the dry land, died." (NKJ). So that means these giants too. So where did the Anakim and Emim etc come from? These peoples were giants too. The Emim were as numerous and as tall as the Anakim (Deuteronomy 2:10). And verse 21 makes mention of another people as tall and numerous as the Anakim, who had long ago been wiped out by the Ammonites (but perhaps some had survived as seems to be implied in the next verse). Of the height of the Anakim the spies stated, "There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight" NKJ (Numbers 13:33). While we would assume that it was somewhat of an exaggeration to state that they were so huge that the Israelites size could be compared to grasshoppers, obviously the Anakim were quite huge. And the Scriptures have made these references to 2 other groups of people just as huge, that they were aware of in their little corner of the world, all living after the flood. Even with our limited knowledge we know of ways to make people a lot larger _ though obviously their skills here were way beyond ours.
So firstly we don't have the Scriptures stating any definite connection between the fact that giants were there and the fact that anyone was getting married. Secondly we have no mention in Genesis chapter 6 of anyone leaving heaven at that time. Thirdly we have all these giants well after the ones at Noah's time were long drowned. And fourthly we have far more Scripture references to males on earth being referred to as "sons of God" than we do heavenly beings, and none stating a reference to fallen angels. Verses 5-7 go on to talk of man having problems, not angels. This claim is based solely on a book not accepted as Scripture. So while we can enjoy fantasy such as Star Wars and Planet of the Apes, let's keep realistic about truth.