The distinction between "born of" and "born to" is in fact quite simple, and is a consequence of the core meanings of 'OF' and 'TO'. Their different meanings are not essentially related to "historical"/"habitual"/"correct", and so on, uses but to the very meanings of the contrasting elements 'TO' and 'OF'. This constrat has to do with discourse ORIENTATION, which enunciation lingistics, as well as other branches of manguage studies, are interested in tracing and interpreting.
'OF' denotes ORIGIN, within a retrospective (backwards) orientation, often very much in a similar way to 'FROM'; whereas 'TO' denotes DESTINATION, within a prospective (or onwards/forwards) orientation.
Thus the previous example 'A boy, Charles Edward, was born to Mike and Melanie Jackson, at 7.15am on 26th October'indicates that Mike & Melanie "received" a son on 26th October, etc., "a son was born onto them", "their baby boy arrived on that date", and so on. The ORIENTATION here is that the producer of that sentence is looking at "what happened to" Mike & Melanie, the "destination" of the child in question.
About the same supposed event, you could just as validly, but in a different discursive context, say/write: "Charles Edward, that rascal, caused such much pain and suffering in his life, although he was born of gentle and benevolent parents, Mike & Melanie Jackson, on..."
In this last example, 'OF' means that the discourse is oriented backwards, to look at the origin and provenance of the event, thing, person notion, etc. in question.
So if you want to shorten "Memories can only ever be created now", "born to now" would not translate the original meaning ; it would rather mean "memories become real in the present moment when you evoke them" not "are created now". The appropriate solution is "born of now" = produced in the present moment.