Possibly? You used the word literal. Now you tell me we don't know? Tell me, based on what you do know, what justifies the use of the word literal?
'Possibly' refers to the process which you mentioned. Doesn't speak to the issue of literal parentage at all.
Also, where in the scriptures is this? If it is not in the scriptures then how is it more of a definite doctrine than say, BR McConkie's or JFS's anti-evolution stuff?
To what are you refering? My theory is just that, not doctrine.
Otherwise, the LDS stance on doctrine is that which is published by the Church. Doctrine is not canon, but the interpretation of such or that of modern prophecy.
By the way, do our spirits look like HF and HM but our earthly bodies look like our parents (think genetics of hair color, nose size, height etc)?
Ether 3:16 seems to be a good indication.
Why would spirits being literally born to HM have the form of an evolved primate? Evolution led to the human form by a biohistorically contingent process.
Since God set it all into motion with this outcome in mind, how is such unreasonable or even in conflict with LDS doctrine?
How does a spirit body come out of a resurrected physical body? Wouldn't offspring of a physical bodily God be physical?
Sounds like a good reason for me to say 'possibly' as per the above.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
Plus, your picture of how it works makes Ed Decker's movies anything but an exageration.
I suspect that's because you are filling in the gaps with nonexistent doctrine.