All Activity

I did not. It is the most contested point Grok raised (by far, I think), so I presented for-and-against sources, then concluded that the "jury still seems to be out" about it. Nope. Every point Grok brought up is a constested point "moral, legal and ethical arguments typically cited in relation to surrogacy". Preventing families that don't look like yours from having children just happened to be most important to you.

"Active" can mean many things. If when you say "active" you are including people who intentionally break their covenants and have membership restrictions, that is one thing. If you mean Temple Recommend holders who are striving to keep their covenants, that is another. There are still more who say they are "active" in their ward, but aren't even members.

This isn’t completely accurate. Charlie Bird and his husband are still active in their ward and currently navigating surrogacy or adoption options. I couldn’t find any links that weren’t to his Instagram videos or stuff like that but you can Google it if your curious about it.

As I count it, outside the quotes your post was 569 words long. Supposedly trying to better understand your church's policy on surrogacy. Your post was mainly in response to a grok summary of the issues surrounding surrogacy. I was trying to lay the groundwork for a discussion, yes. I didn't really commit to most, if any, of the proffered reasons to oppose surrogacy. I'll take your percentages at face value. The detrimental effects on children of being raised by single mothers, with no father in the home, are apparently not really in dispute, anywhere. So I did not spend as much time assessing this because, well, I doubt anyone would dispute it. On the other hand, whether there are "detrimental effects on children" from being raised in a same-sex-couple household is very much in dispute. I quoted sources from both sides of the discussion, and concluded: "The jury still seems to be out, I guess." I did not. It is the most contested point Grok raised (by far, I think), so I presented for-and-against sources, then concluded that the "jury still seems to be out" about it. Well, that is what I was trying to discuss: the potential origins of the Church's policy. I suspect at least some of the items Grok noted may have been involved in the formulation of the policy. Grok: "Same-sex and single intended parenthood is sometimes opposed on those family-structure grounds." Is this correct? I don't know, but I suspect it has probably been postulated in some circles. Has this happened in the upper echelons of the Church? I see no evidence of that. I asked Grok: "Is there any published statement or evidence that the policy on surrogacy in the handbook of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was influenced, to any extent, but arguments along the lines of 'Same-sex and single intended parenthood is sometimes opposed on those family-structure grounds?'" The response: Children born through a surrogate are not born in the covenant; a sealing needs First Presidency approval. That is the whole published rationale: the husband-and-wife pattern in 2.1.3 / the Family Proclamation. It does not mention same-sex couples, single intended parents, or “family structure” as a reason to discourage the practice. What is documented nearby, but is not the surrogacy paragraph. Fertility treatments (38.6.9) are for “a married woman and man” / “a lawfully married man and woman.” Donor gametes from anyone but husband or wife are discouraged. The older Handbook 1 rule on artificial insemination was explicit about singles: “Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved.” Those who “deliberately refuse” were subject to discipline. Same-sex marriage is opposed on doctrinal family-structure grounds in 38.6.16 and the Proclamation. That is a separate heading. So the Church does oppose same-sex and (in the older AI rule) single-woman use of assisted reproduction. It has not published a sentence that says those objections are why surrogate motherhood is discouraged. What commentators infer. Some scholars read the structure as doing that work anyway: the policy is addressed only to “husband and wife,” and the First Presidency sealing gate can keep children of same-sex parents out of a sealing. That is an inference from how the rules fit together, not a disclosed drafting history. There is no First Presidency letter, newsroom Q&A, or handbook commentary that says “we discourage surrogacy because it is a path to same-sex or single parenthood.” Bottom line. On the evidence that is published: the stated influence is the husband-and-wife procreative pattern, not the family-structure argument against same-sex or single intended parents. That latter argument is real Church teaching in other sections. Connecting it as a cause of the surrogacy paragraph is plausible and undocumented. It would not be accurate to say the Church has acknowledged that influence. So there may be be some oblique association. Broadly, children should be created and raised by a man and a woman married to each other. So are people to violate the Law of Chastity in other ways. So are members who participate in polygamy. Well, you may be quite right about that. Thanks, -Smac

You can keep using the word "theory" but it doesn't apply to previous teachings by LDS leaders. It was not taught as "theory" back then. I think this is more semantics than substantive. I think it's accurate: "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." Do all LDS Church teachings and policies in the past, present, and future need to be written down as revelation from God and canonized? No, but that was not Edward Kimball's point about going "beyond the evidence." I think it's difficult to dispute that point. I don't know that "there is no formal revelation of her recorded in canon." That this has moved from speculation to inference to "doctrine" is interesting. Previous teachings that it was doctrine and a direct commandment of the Lord does not freeze the latter disavowal and referring to it as theory. It's just an admission that previous Latter-day Saints were led astray. Plowed ground. Right. It was referred to as being spectacularly wrong by Dallin H. Oaks in lesson 26 of Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, 2015. Yes. I'm not sure that is correct. George Q. Cannon, of the First Presidency, labelled that (the quote from the thread The Indians are the Red Men) as gospel truth. I view it as error, which led people who believed it astray. So this discussion has become a different project? No, the LDS Church is not locked in. I happily stand corrected. Even your own definition of "lead people astray" does not support this: False teaching leads people in the wrong path, to worship a false God. What people were led down "the wrong bath, to worship a false God" by way of the justifications for the priesthood ban? I think it is the same person, with differing perspectives about Him. To suggest the Latter-day Saints worship a "Jesus Christ" numerically distinct from the one in the New Testament is, in my view, fundamentally unserious and indefensible. Critics can talk all day long about how our perspective on Him is wrong, but that's it. I'm not sure about that. A person can err in doctrine and still walk with Christ. Building upon your earlier logic, canonizing teachings would help prevent you from viewing all non-canonized teachings as theories. Not sure about that. Canonization tends to clarify and solidify, and I like that. I think the Proclamation would do all sorts of good in that way if it were canonized. Perhaps not, but I'd like to see it just the same. This sounds apt. There was only one Barack Obama, but all sorts of varied and mutually incompatible opinions about him. Thanks, -Smac

As I count it, outside the quotes your post was 569 words long. Supposedly trying to better understand your church's policy on surrogacy. Your post was mainly in response to a grok summary of the issues surrounding surrogacy. 6% of grok's 480 words were on the combined issue of single parenthood and same sex households. So let's say 3% on the gay angle. Of your words? 46%. And this excludes the additional quotes from Cornell and Grok that you included on that issue. So grok thought it was worth 3% and you made it the thesis of your post. And how exactly does the church handbook policy on surrogacy intersect with same sex couples using a surrogate? Not at all. Same sex couples are excommunicated from your church. They aren't looking for advice from your leaders on this issue. There is zero overlap. Add in the fact that you completely ignore Nehor's scriptural related references around surrogacy and you certainly seemed obsessed with the gay angle. Extremely so.

See my previous replies. It was a doctrine and direct commandment from God. It was characterized in that way, yes. Whether it actually was, however, is something we cannot state with clarity and confidence. Right. They believed the previous LDS leaders were leading the people astray when they claimed it was a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. I think we see "leading the people astray" differently. We've plowed that ground many times now. I don't think we can impute this ("they believed...") onto the leaders of the Church. That's just speculation. We have other sources. But nothing that is in any way definitive. Hence the utility and value of the Church's current posture. It is fair to say that the problematic historical justifications of the ban were false teachings: they asserted things about Black people, premortality, and divine disfavor that the Church now says are not true, and leaders taught them as if they were. I think it is less fair to use “false teachings” as a synonym for “the Church now admits its prophets were frauds,” which is how the phrase is often deployed. The precise wording that matches both the record and the current official position is: leaders taught explanations that were wrong; those explanations have been disavowed; they are not doctrine. I am not admitting that. At all. And we cannot definitively say which one is correct, hence the utility and value of the Church's current posture. That appears to have been Pres. McKay's experience, yes. I don't think that amounts to evidence that the Lord instituted the ban. Right. Because they now believe those previous LDS prophets were leading the people astray. But they don't want to phrase it that way. Again, you are imputing a point of speculation ("they now believe those previous LDS prophets were leading the people astray") onto the leaders of the Church. I don't think we can do that. Because I don't think the leaders of that religious organization are endowed with the same priesthood authority and spiritual gifts as are given to the leaders of our Church. "Astray" from what? The LDS Church says the 1978 revelation came to President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. But I've never seen this revelation. From OD-2: What are your thoughts about this? We do know that black skin was put upon the Lamanites based on the three BOM passages I provided before. I don't think we can say we know this. I do. What I am less sure of is a potentially eisegetical interpretation of the text. See my prior citations to Gardner. How do you know that? The 2015 Gospel Topics essay “Mother in Heaven,” reviewed by the First Presidency and Twelve, opens: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. … The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.” That is official language. They call it doctrine. Elder Oaks: “Our theology begins with heavenly parents.” The 1995 Family Proclamation, issued by the First Presidency and Twelve, says each person is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” A 1909 First Presidency statement said men and women are “in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” The hymn “O My Father” is in the hymnbook. In April 2022 Elder Renlund pointed members to that essay as the summary of what is known. Existence of heavenly parents is official Church teaching, repeatedly affirmed by the First Presidency and Twelve. In current institutional usage, that is doctrine. It is not canonized doctrine. No scripture names her. No published revelation describes her. Almost nothing about her has been revealed. Calling it doctrine is therefore a claim about who gets to define doctrine (living prophets), not a claim that the same evidentiary bar used for the Resurrection or the Book of Mormon has been met. If you reserve “doctrine” for what is in the standard works or in a revelation presented for a sustaining vote, then “Heavenly Mother” is a cherished authoritative inference, not doctrine. If you accept the Church’s present definition — united teaching of the Fifteen — then it is doctrine with an unusually thin revelatory file. The discomfort is, I think,, not confusion about the essay. It is that the Church uses one word for both. Right. Those LDS prophets were leading the people astray if the ban was not of God. Again, plowed ground. I think we'll just need to disagree about what "leading the people astray" means. The Pearl of Great Price refers to Adam's transgression as a sin. "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents [Adam and Eve] cannot be answered upon the heads of the children [Abel, Cain, etc], for they are whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:44). Here is that passage: A scripture referencing a "saying abroad among the people" does not, in my view, amount to calling that "saying" authoritative. Also, not quite sure what this has to do with my comments. Could you elaborate? Was this a restriction by commandment of men or of God? We currently do not have sufficient knowledge to say either way. The priesthood ban and the reason for it is not a moral hinge. Okay. That is surely the impression you have been giving. Whether past leaders "led people astray" and/or taught "false doctrine" and such are all predicated on their justifications for the ban. That prophets and apostles are not perfect, and that they can make mistakes, even some serious ones (such as by erroneously propagating speculation, devoid of any known revelatory provenance, as "doctrine") is not a "moral hinge" for me. I don't use this as a pivot point for listening or not listening to the leaders of the Church, for sustaining them or not sustaining them, and so on. The impression I have been getting from your comments is that you do use this (some form of inerrancy/infallibility) as a pivot point / hinge. What is a "moral hinge" is whether God exists, and whether Jesus Christ is His Son, and whether the Plan of Salvation is true, and whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and whether the other foundational events involving Joseph Smith - particularly the restoration of the Priesthood and the organization of the Church - are true and confirmed by the Spirit. I agree. That some of Joseph's successors allowed and propagated substantial error in the Church (non-revelatory justifications for the priesthood ban) is not a hinge or a pivot point or a litmus test for the "legitimacy of the Restored Gospel." I'm not sure what this means. Maybe you believe the LDS Church needs a written revelation for everything it teaches or every policy it institutes. I do not. When Muslims speak of Jesus, are you claiming that they are speaking of a numerically distinct Jesus wholly differentiated from the Jesus of the New Testament? No. I believe Muslims have different perspectives and opinions about the Jesus of the New Testament. Yes, that. I think I have accurately stated what Muslims believe. I respect their views, but I disagree with them insofar as they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Okay. I think we'll have to disagree about that. Some people believe that Barack Obama was a great president, others thought he was a terrible president. Differing perspectives on Mr. Obama, but not two separate Obamas. Person A's statement was most accurate decades ago – LDS leaders previously taught the ban and the reason for it were of God. Right. But that wasn't my question. I'm not sure this is accurate. Again, plowed ground. We'll just need to agree to disagree. I guess we'll disagree about this as well. I'm okay with that. Thank you for your comments. -Smac

If you have a start, middle, and finish worked out, you are in a good place! Back when I was a teenager I came up with a premise for a science-fiction novel, and had even started writing it, but wasn't sure how it was going to end. I wrote to famous science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov asking for advice, and he actually replied! He said that what I should do is come up with an ending first, and then let the start and middle bend towards it. Since have all three, you're golden!

No, not really. As @Calm said, CC is an important thing to consider in the situation brought up in the OP. All I was saying at the end there was that getting down and dirty with climate change has the potential of blowing the thread way off course. And maybe that would be fun. You and I are not as different as you may think. Some have called me a "climate change denier," but I'm not. The climate's been changing for billions of years. Humans do have an impact. How can we not? But none of the radical solutions that have been proposed stand a chance of changing things, but do, if attempted, stand a chance of doing a great deal of harm. In my humble opinion. And I'm speaking globally. Back to the OP, what can be done to fix the observed local problem? I don't know. I also don't know if it can be fixed, or if it can be fixed economically. I do believe that some folks out there will have ideas that won't fix the problem, but will cost an arm and a leg in the process of failing. Some of the solutions that maybe can work may be economically infeasible.

I considered myself to have a good idea of the topic of race in the scriptures, but there were several new concepts in this video that I hadn't considered before. I'm super grateful for this presentation.

No, it wouldn't. But it is virtue signaling to reprimand someone for failing to mention climate change. Which is what he did. He could simply have added a comment stating that the problem described in the OP is due to climate change. That adds to the discussion. But reprimanding Pyreaux for failing to say the proper incantation? Virtue signaling: "See how virtuous I am making sure everyone is thinking about climate change?" But it was likely the very first thing everyone thought of, anyway, simply because it's been done to death.

Yes, but it's likely to get the thread shut down, given the political elements that come with it, pre-mixed.

Do you want to argue about climate change? I do not. Again, I am simply saying that virtue signaling about climate change is a null program. It does nothing.

If I may ask a similar question (at least in my mind); Is the current ban on non-LDS Christians having the Gift of the Holy Spirit and a valid baptism a doctrine, an historical consensus, or ????? Is this ban a result of a revelation? If so, when, where, and by whom was it received? Can you provide me the wording of the revelation? Might it have been an 1850's reformation-era belief that gained acceptance in all the doctrinal turmoil in the 1920s? When and to whom did Christ say that no non-LDS Christian would hold the Gift of the Holy Spirit and that all non-LDS Baptisms are invalid in the mind of God? Can we look forward to the day when this LDS ban is lifted? I certainly look forward to it. It would be wonderful to be able to worship, minister, and fellowship with the LDS without this ban dividing us as it does now. Reading all your posts in this thread about the priesthood ban reminds me every time of the ban I as a non-LDS Christian am under. It is certainly a dividing mechanism; not a unifying mechanism. Thanks. Navidad

You can keep using the word "theory" but it doesn't apply to previous teachings by LDS leaders. It was not taught as "theory" back then. That's why the LDS Church's essay on Blacks and the priesthood is not an entirely accurate – those past teachings were not portrayed as theory. Do all LDS Church teachings and policies in the past, present, and future need to be written down as revelation from God and canonized? Based on your earlier logic, the so-called doctrine of a heavenly mother is actually a theory because there is no formal revelation of her recorded in canon. Previous teachings that it was doctrine and a direct commandment of the Lord does not freeze the latter disavowal and referring to it as theory. It's just an admission that previous Latter-day Saints were led astray. Right. It was referred to as being spectacularly wrong by Dallin H. Oaks in lesson 26 of Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, Religion 225, 2015. This is an admission that the LDS Church was leading its members astray before. George Q. Cannon, of the First Presidency, labelled that (the quote from the thread The Indians are the Red Men) as gospel truth. I view it as error, which led people who believed it astray. No, the LDS Church is not locked in. I commend the LDS Church in correcting doctrinal errors. It helps to prevent more people from being led astray. Building upon your earlier logic, canonizing teachings would help prevent you from viewing all non-canonized teachings as theories. The LDS Church currently considers it [the existence of a heavenly mother] as doctrine, so there's no need to add it to canon as Official Declaration 3 for example. I can't recall. This thread wasn't even about a priesthood ban; but rather an LDS gospel truth that the Indians are the Red Men. By the way, do you believe the LDS doctrine that Jesus reached some level of intelligence to be ranked as a God? "By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual). Following a different Jesus leads one to a different destination.

The LDS Church taught that the dark skin was a sign of the curse and that it originated from God. It doesn't need to apologize for that or for the Pearl of Great Price teaching that Ham and their descendants were cursed as pertaining the priesthood (Abraham 1:24-27). See my previous replies. It was a doctrine and direct commandment from God. Right. They believed the previous LDS leaders were leading the people astray when they claimed it was a doctrine and a direct commandment from God. We have other sources. But you're admitting they were false teachings, which led past members astray. The Gospel Topics page states, "When the Lord wants to direct His Church, He speaks through the living prophet who serves as the President of the Church". So either the ban came from God or from man. Why didn't the LDS prophets reverse the ban before 1978? Because they believed they were not being directed by the Lord to do so at that time. Right. Because they now believe those previous LDS prophets were leading the people astray. But they don't want to phrase it that way. I asked this question of you the last time, but you didn't address it. The Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses publish/teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that he returned invisibly in 1914 and made them (members of that body) the faithful and discreet slave to dispense spiritual food to the world. Only 144,000 belong to the Bride of Christ. Are they leading people astray? The LDS Church says the 1978 revelation came to President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. But I've never seen this revelation. Kimball also says, "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld…" But he's vague on why it was withheld and by whom. Early LDS leaders were dogmatic. We do know that black skin was put upon the Lamanites based on the three BOM passages I provided before. Is that a recorded revelation? Yes; if you believe Joseph Smith and other leaders. One could also refer to that passage in the Pearl of Great Price for Ham and his descendants being cursed as pertaining to the priesthood. There is no recorded revelation for a heavenly mother. Using your logic, therefore it is a theory, even though it is referred to as a doctrine nowadays. Right. Those LDS prophets were leading the people astray if the ban was not of God. The Pearl of Great Price refers to Adam's transgression as a sin. "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents [Adam and Eve] cannot be answered upon the heads of the children [Abel, Cain, etc], for they are whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:44). Alma 42:1-9 adds further support. Was this a restriction by commandment of men or of God? The priesthood ban and the reason for it is not a moral hinge. The only legitimacy of the Restored Gospel turns on believing what Joseph Smith said was told to him in supposed vision of two heavenly personages – "that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof". The LDS Church falls under the condemnation of the commandments of men if the priesthood ban was not of God. Needing to perform temple ordinances in New Testament times to return to live with Heavenly Father is another example of these "commandments of men". Yes, but not in this version of a different hinge (Jesus, aka Michael the Archangel) or Jesus (the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God) or Jesus (only an Islamic prophet). The door doesn't open when you have the wrong hinge. Maybe you believe the LDS Church needs a written revelation for everything it teaches or every policy it institutes. Same comment as above. Maybe you believe the LDS Church needs a written revelation for everything it teaches or every policy it institutes. When Muslims speak of Jesus, are you claiming that they are speaking of a numerically distinct Jesus wholly differentiated from the Jesus of the New Testament? Or is it that Muslims have different perspectives and opinions about the Jesus of the New Testament? Muslims base their teachings about Jesus on the Quran – not the Son of God, not crucified, not the Saviour of the world, not God. It's not their perspective or opinion unless you say it's only their perspective or opinion that the Quran is the Word of God. Similarly, one could have negative perspectives and opinions against LDS Church teachings. On the flipside, one could have favourable perspective opinions for LDS Church teachings. Perspectives and opinions do not determine truth. And yes, when I say Jesus has always been God and the LDS Church teaches Jesus was the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God, then we are talking about different Christs. They are not the same person. Person A's statement was most accurate decades ago – LDS leaders previously taught the ban and the reason for it were of God. Person B's statement is more accurate nowadays – "the priesthood ban and the reason for it were not of God, but from man". This is just an admission that past LDS prophets led the Latter-day Saints astray. Entity C is invalid – many recorded teachings from past LDS leaders are crystal clear on the origins of the practice. There was no ambiguity.

You lost me. Other than Satan, can you name a few heavenly gods who you believe Elohim gave authority over the nations? What’s the difference between those who are called “gods” but are not deity by nature as God is? How do you understand this passage in Galatians - “when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God”? Weren’t they worshipping the false gods (Baals, Chemosh, and Dagon)? How were they not gods by nature? No being is equal to Yahweh, but I understand that the LDS Church teaches future exalted beings will be made “equal in power, and in might, and in dominion" as the Father (Doctrine and Covenants 76:95). For me, there is only one true God (Deity). There are not an endless backward and forward chain of deities. Is Baal a real deity but not exactly equal to God, another heavenly deity? What purpose do you believe Heavenly Father ordained this being to do? LDS theology presents hierarchically ordered spiritual realms, where there are many Gods and Heavenly Fathers before Heavenly Father of Earth became a Father himself, each presiding over his own respective realm.

Thank you for your post. As I noted previously, I asked Grok to summarize the the moral, legal and ethical arguments typically cited in relation to surrogacy, one of the responding results of which was: "Same-sex and single intended parenthood is sometimes opposed on those family-structure grounds." Note that I did not ask Grok about the Church's "moral, legal and ethical arguments," but rather the arguments that are presented in general. I had not drawn that connection, either as to single-mother households or same-sex marriage households. So we have here a family structure in which children will be intentionally deprived of either a mother or a father. When that happens by circumstance, we must cope as best we can. However, mothers are extremely important in relation to the welfare and rearing of children, and so are fathers. There may therefore be a derivative moral argument against surrogacy, since it can be the mechanism whereby the child is intentionally deprived in this way. Whether or not this issue specifically affected the development of the Church's past and/or current policies, I don't know.. I did not "bash" any category of persons. I noted sociological data, some of which support these family structures and some which oppose them in some way. And as to the latter, I specifically noted: "The jury still seems to be out, I guess." I don't think there were any "cheap shots" in my post. The fallacy of reliance on consensus—often called the appeal to common belief, bandwagon fallacy, or argumentum ad populum—occurs when an argument claims a statement or position is true simply because a lot of people believe it or agree on it. Again: "{O}verwhelming scholarly consensus" about a controversial sociopolitical issue doesn't really carry much cachet these days. I feel that much of the "soft sciences" in academia are ideologically captured and compromised. Their interests lie in advocacy of particularized sociopolitical topics and objectives, at the expense of genuine academic inquiry. Again: "As with most controversial sociopolitical and moral issues these days, I am concerned about the evaluation of data without one side or the other (or both) trying to put their proverbial thumb on the scales." I think discussion of controversial sociopolitical issues is being driven more by ideological commitments than by a straightforward pursuit of truth and coping with reality the best we can. It seems pretty clear that large-scale absence of fathers from the lives of their children has been hugely detrimental to society. I say so not because I like it or don't like it, but because that is what the data indicate. As for whether children raised in same-sex households fare better, worse or the same as their peers, again: "The jury still seems to be out." I was laying out generalized observations, most of which I reported as coming from Grok. If you think any of that stuff is wholly "irrelevant" to the topic, please lay out your reasoning. I would like to better understand your position. Given our past history, going back years, I understand why you might impute such a thing. But as with the endless accusations of "Bigot!", it's not really substantive. Ironically, your responses to me seem "reflexive at this point." I would rather we discuss the topic. Thanks, -Smac

In the Bible, “offspring” (or “seed,” “descendants,” “children”) is sometimes used non-literally—to describe people who belong to, resemble, follow, or arise from someone or something, rather than literal biological children of a heavenly parent. A few clear examples: Genesis 3:15 — “offspring/seed” of the woman and “offspring/seed” of the serpent. The serpent's offspring are not presented as literal children biologically fathered by the serpent. The language is commonly understood as referring to those aligned with the serpent and those opposed to him. Matthew 3:7 / Luke 3:7 — John the Baptist calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a “brood of vipers.” This is figurative lineage language: they are characterized as belonging to or resembling vipers, not literally descended from snakes. John 8:39–44 — Jesus distinguishes physical descent from figurative “fatherhood.” The people say, “Abraham is our father,” but Jesus says that if they were truly Abraham's children, they would do Abraham's works. He then says, “You are of your father the devil.” The point is spiritual/moral affiliation, not biological descent. Romans 4:11–12, 16–18 — Paul describes Abraham as the “father” of those who have faith, including Gentiles who are not his biological descendants. “Father” and “offspring” language is therefore used relationally/representatively. Galatians 3:7, 29 — “Those of faith are the sons of Abraham” and “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring.” Most of these people are not Abraham's literal biological descendants; the designation is based on faith and covenant relationship. Revelation 12:17 — the dragon goes to make war against “the rest of her offspring,” identified as those “who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Again, “offspring” functions as an identity/relationship metaphor rather than ordinary biological parentage.

Well, perhaps we should turn to scripture to look into surrogacy: Okay, but that is just one incident and…. Then you have levirate marriage where a man was to take his dead brother’s wife as his own and have children that will be the heirs of the dead brother which sounds a lot like surrogacy. Also, did you really have to take time in the original post for some gay-bashing as if they are heavily tied to surrogacy? Just had to get some cheap shots in where you defy the scholarly consensus just because you don’t like it even though it is mostly irrelevant? Is it reflexive at this point?

Not really. Climate change is an important part of the discussion for those interested in the science and causes of why we need water conservation.

Sorry, as I watch the world crumbling. It's been on the mind. I know we're different by a mile and a half, I did a no no on here.

Would it be virtue signaling in an article about the decrease of animal life in the bay to mention an oil spill and garbage left on beaches or polluted rivers flowing into that bay that had contributed to the decrease or just sensible to describe known causes, especially if the intent was to motivate people to change behaviour?

I hear that manufacturers are increasing the distance between the rungs of ladders due to people getting taller. This is being announced as " climb-it-change " 🙃

Nature works on the same principle as computers - GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.