Church's Policy on Surrogacy - Looking for Input

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation?  How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?"

Exactly.  We are told this, we don’t typically know it automatically.  It is part of our cultural programming.  It may be an intellectual belief, but it may not be emotionally accepted and therefore not be much of a or even any part of a child’s motivation through their life.  It therefore may not have much effect on a child except to induce guilt, because they are told they should feel grateful but they don’t, or makes them feel manipulated.

Even if it is true, it doesn’t mean the child consented to the way a parent chose to have them or bring them up.  Their existence is still forced in that sense.

Edited Saturday at 09:18 PM by Calm

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Certainly tongue in cheek.  Still quite unseemly and troubling.

To you. That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more.  Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions.  Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon.   You feel a certain way about their choices.  100% valid.  Also 100% not fact.

Quote

If he were not presenting himself as an active Latter-day Saint, I would be broadly indifferent.  But he is, so I'm not.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent.  I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices.  You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter.

Quote

From Elder Holland:

True words.  I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them.  

Quote

 

I'll leave divine judgment to God, but I think Latter-day Saints need to be on guard against the sorts of things Charlie Bird is trying to present as compatible and in alignment with the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct.  Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

[Chum]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get that aligns more with our doctrine in the sense that we need to come to earth to get bodies, but our brains typically don’t have a sense of the preexistence,

I've thought about this. But that part of the Gospel is tied to the non-existence of any memory of those events.  The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best.
Binding my own children to it doesn't feel at all like good parenting to me.  Personally, it feels like leverage and exploitation.

[Chum]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I feel like the commandment to honor thy father and mother is a reminder that the relationship is meant to go both ways.

To be clear, your sentiment is especially honorable. 
To address the OT sentiment, shouldn't there be a corresponding commandment - or at least shouldn't this one include the two-way obligation?

I personally suspect that OT adults more comfortable (than I am) with seeing their children as material.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Certainly tongue in cheek.  Still quite unseemly and troubling.

To you.

Well, yes.  We are all here sharing our opinions.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more. 

I think I made it pretty clear:

Quote

I find this troubling.  Charlie wanting to be a father is understandable. What I cannot call consistent with what the Church teaches about family is treating a child’s mother as optional—or as merely one of a panel of potential “Egg Donors” to be evaluated based on "egg yield," "beauty," educational achievements, "genetics," and so on.

The Church teaches that a child is entitled to a father and a mother in a covenant marriage, and that a husband and wife are the appointed pattern for giving bodies to God’s children. Charlie's plan specifically and intentionally chooses a course of action in which a child will not have that, and he then assembles a genetic mother and a separate birth mother as parts.

If a married man and woman, or a lesbian couple, lined people up the same way, I would find it unseemly too.

As Latter-day Saints, I think we must speak on behalf of the Restored Gospel.  That may sometimes include saying something unpopular.  I think there is sort of a trend amongst some members of the Church in which they conflate the not condemning the sinner with championing sin or championing behavior that doesn't lead to, or is incompatible with, a covenant relationship with the Savior.  I think there is a lot of good will and goon intentions in there.  We want to be kind and warm and welcoming, and that is all well and good. But I also think there is some measure of fear.  We don't want to say things that go against popular sociopolitical worldviews.  And we really don't want to be the subject of character assassination simply for speaking reasoned, but unpopular, thoughts.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions.  Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon.   You feel a certain way about their choices.  100% valid.  Also 100% not fact.

I wasn't presenting my opinion as fact, just as my opinion.  I think what Charlie Bird is doing is profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel, both as to his marriage and as to his "Egg Donor" pageant.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

If he were not presenting himself as an active Latter-day Saint, I would be broadly indifferent.  But he is, so I'm not.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. 

I think since Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding are in this thread, the "Bigot!" accusations are a matter of when, not if.

That they go draw water from the ad hominem well so immediately and so often is, to me, an indication of some things.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices. 

The ad hominem stuff in this thread is, in my view, an effort to squelch viewpoints.  Toe the line or shut up.  I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs.  We ought to be able to express an interested viewpoint on a topic, or else be indifferent to it.  We ought to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being diverted by ad hominems.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter.

I think it matters a bit.  Charlie Bird is trying to influence people to a particular set of principles relating to the Restored Gospel.  I find some of the more important principles he is presenting are profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel.  He is trying to influence people, and that matters.  Others ought to be able to attempt to persuade and influence people away from the problematic things Charlie is advancing.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.” To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” and “whosoever … shall break one of [the] least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be … the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once).

True words.  I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them.  You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct.  Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

Charlie seems to be advocating for, and seeking from others condoning treatment of, violations of the Church's teachings relative to marriage and the Law of Chastity.  On these points I feel we must choose to listen to the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church (such as Elder Holland), or we can choose to listen to Charlie Bird.  It's one or the other.  Charlie has set himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and is, I think, implicitly asking other Latter-day Saints to listen to him more than to the Lord's anointed, at least in regards to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

I think we should listen to the Brethren, and to set aside, and not endorse or condone or advocate for, the problematic things for which Charlie is seeking - and is getting - notoriety and influence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I have reconciled this in a way that seems to be driving the extraordinarily good relationship I have with (all 5 of) my sons.  

It is my choices that forced them into existence.

This is an interesting thought.  Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation?  How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?"

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me.

There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence). 

 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Chum said:

I had all the power of consent and due to this extremely one-sided arrangement, I remain in their debt for the rest of my life.  I reside in a permanent state of servitude to them.  These are the defaults, our starting points. 

That's another interesting thought.  What debt do you owe them?  

I don't know the name of my debt but I pay it by helping them achieve happiness.

Secondarily, I strive to encourage my kids to help others achieve happiness (which enriches their world). 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Chum said:

The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best.

Yep.  Would you trust someone who insisted you agreed to pay them for a product you didn’t like or even hated when you don’t remember agreeing to buy it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What debt do you owe them?  

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What debt do you owe them?  

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

This works.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Quote

This is an interesting thought.  Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation?  How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?"

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning.

I can appreciate that perspective.  For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview.

1 hour ago, Chum said:

It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me.

There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence). 

I was not referring to a "my kids owe me" notion.  Sorry if I gave that impression.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was not referring to a "my kids owe me" notion.  Sorry if I gave that impression.

The notion of "kids owing parents" is on the table somewhere here but I'm not ascribing it to you.  I think you're maybe exploring the cave it happens to live in. 

And as long as we're here, I'd like to drag the notion into the sunlight and pummel it a bit. 

[Chum]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning.

I can appreciate that perspective.  For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview.

My phrasing is admittedly pointed. But every way I tried to soften it, it wandered away from the reality that kids face. Which is that they had no say so in getting existed. I strongly believe we have no call to impose a debt on them for that; I feel it shifts the whole circumstance toward unethical territory.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Which is that they had no say so in getting existed.

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those.   When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’.  Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting?  Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those.   When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’.  Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting?  Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

This is a topic on which quite a few near-death experiencers have weighed in.  Their reports are pretty consistent.  I come away with the impression that we are not victims; rather, we ourselves are intense experiencers of mortality and the unique opportunities for growth it offers us.  I also come away with the impression that we simply do not have enough information to reliably sit in judgment.  

Here are two compilation videos wherein NDEers (and a few others) talk about planning our lives.  While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence.  Each video is cued up to a clip that stood out to me, but imo all of the clips offer valuable insights.

I think we are now living in one of the most amazing times in all of human history, having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side and returned to report for the benefit of the rest of us:

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:19 AM by manol

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those.   When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’.  Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting?

No.  This is something I've always struggled with.  If we understood then we wouldn't "need" it.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence.

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception.  Testimony meetings are a great example of this,

Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence.  NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me.

Certain ideas about ghosts likely never existed until film portrayals of ghosts were shown and then they became common.  The floating immaterial ghost is a result of Victorian era technology…the artifacts of early cameras.

https://www.boredpanda.com/origin-idea-ghosts-floating-translucent/

Pirates never were thought to talk that way until a certain actor did it in Treasure Island.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/english-pirates-accent-west-country-blackbeard/

There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience).

Quote

having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side 

Exactly….

Added:  I don’t have the years or intense interest that would drive this, so lazily resorted to Chat and asked if the idea of choosing to be born (present in many NDEs apparently, though not considered one of the universal or even more common themes) or an idea of a life planned by us were hinted at in any ancient or medieval likely NDE accounts (there were cultures who believed in a preexistence).  Chat says no.  I would be very interested if anyone (manol or anyone else) has come across possibles from non modern examples.

Edited yesterday at 04:50 AM by Calm

[manol]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception.  Testimony meetings are a great example of this,

Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence.  NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me.

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, and/or vice-versa, or something else? 

8 hours ago, Calm said:

There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience).

Well my brain state seems to be one of density... it sounds to me like you're saying, in effect, that extraordinary claims (such as NDEs and/or LDS folklore on pre-birth planning) require extraordinary proof... am I misunderstanding you?

Edited yesterday at 01:08 PM by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, and/or vice-versa, or something else? 

It could work either way or both were influenced by something else. I think it’s a feedback system or whatever you call the back and forth of influences.  Betty Eadie was a major voice in the NDE community for awhile.  Drew quite a bit of criticism from more traditional Christians, but her  book Embraced by the Light was extremely popular.  She then modified her account to make it more palatable to nonLDS Christians.  Then there’s Raymond Moody. I would love to collect accounts and map content and language in collected accounts against a timeline of the most highly publicized accounts over the decades, see what changes and what doesn’t.  I had chat come up with others. 
 

Timeline of Major Bestselling NDE Books

• 1975: Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody
  • The Impact: Coined the term "near-death experience" and set the modern standard for studying the phenomenon. It became a massive cultural bestseller and introduced NDEs to the mainstream public. [1, 2, 3]

• 1990: Closer to the Light by Melvin Morse
  • The Impact: A pediatrician expanded the field by researching and documenting near-death experiences specifically reported by children, achieving significant bestseller status. [1]

• 1992: Embraced by the Light by Betty J. Eadie
  • The Impact: A deeply personal, widely read account that stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for years, becoming one of the most commercially successful NDE books ever published. [1, 2, 3]

• 1994: Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley
  • The Impact: Detailed the author's dramatic account of being struck by lightning and clinically dead, capturing massive public attention and topping bestseller lists. [1]

• 2004: 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper
  • The Impact: A Baptist minister's story of a horrific car crash and his subsequent heavenly experience, which sold millions of copies and spent years on bestseller lists. [1, 2]

• 2006: Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo
  • The Impact: The extraordinary account of a 4-year-old boy's emergency surgery and trip to heaven, becoming a global publishing phenomenon and feature film. [1]

• 2012: Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander
  • The Impact: Written by an academic neurosurgeon who experienced a severe case of bacterial meningitis, lending high-profile mainstream and scientific curiosity to the debate over consciousness. [1, 2]

• 2012: Dying to Be Me by Anita Moorjani
  • The Impact: A profound personal recovery story detailing an NDE from end-stage cancer, which became a prominent international bestseller. [1, 2]

• 2016: Imagine Heaven by John Burke
  • The Impact: Synthesizes hundreds of NDE accounts with scriptural parallels, remaining a top seller on digital audiobook and book charts. [1, 2]

I do believe we should have evidence that such ideas first appeared independent of the most likely influences if the claim is independence.

Edited yesterday at 04:12 PM by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/19/2026 at 4:06 PM, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  We are all here sharing our opinions.

I think I made it pretty clear:

As Latter-day Saints, I think we must speak on behalf of the Restored Gospel.  That may sometimes include saying something unpopular.  I think there is sort of a trend amongst some members of the Church in which they conflate the not condemning the sinner with championing sin or championing behavior that doesn't lead to, or is incompatible with, a covenant relationship with the Savior.  I think there is a lot of good will and goon intentions in there.  We want to be kind and warm and welcoming, and that is all well and good. But I also think there is some measure of fear.  We don't want to say things that go against popular sociopolitical worldviews.  And we really don't want to be the subject of character assassination simply for speaking reasoned, but unpopular, thoughts.

I wasn't presenting my opinion as fact, just as my opinion.  I think what Charlie Bird is doing is profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel, both as to his marriage and as to his "Egg Donor" pageant.

I think since Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding are in this thread, the "Bigot!" accusations are a matter of when, not if.

That they go draw water from the ad hominem well so immediately and so often is, to me, an indication of some things.

The ad hominem stuff in this thread is, in my view, an effort to squelch viewpoints.  Toe the line or shut up.  I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs.  We ought to be able to express an interested viewpoint on a topic, or else be indifferent to it.  We ought to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being diverted by ad hominems.

I think it matters a bit.  Charlie Bird is trying to influence people to a particular set of principles relating to the Restored Gospel.  I find some of the more important principles he is presenting are profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel.  He is trying to influence people, and that matters.  Others ought to be able to attempt to persuade and influence people away from the problematic things Charlie is advancing.

Charlie seems to be advocating for, and seeking from others condoning treatment of, violations of the Church's teachings relative to marriage and the Law of Chastity.  On these points I feel we must choose to listen to the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church (such as Elder Holland), or we can choose to listen to Charlie Bird.  It's one or the other.  Charlie has set himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and is, I think, implicitly asking other Latter-day Saints to listen to him more than to the Lord's anointed, at least in regards to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

I think we should listen to the Brethren, and to set aside, and not endorse or condone or advocate for, the problematic things for which Charlie is seeking - and is getting - notoriety and influence.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is a certain amount of hubris associated with calling someone's most significant, life defining and meaningful relationship as immoral, sinful, and wrong because of the gender of one's spouse on the one hand, and objecting to someone else labeling you a bigot on the other. 

If I wanted to call your relationship with your spouse as immoral, sinful and wrong simply because of your Latter-day Saint faith that would be my right, but it would be your right to call me wrongheaded and bigoted to do so. Same if I were to condemn someone's interracial marriage because of the ancestry and color of their spouses skin. I could certainly do it, and it would certainly make me a racist to do so.

Edited 18 hours ago by SeekingUnderstanding

[manol]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

It could work either way or both were influenced by something else. I think it’s a feedback system or whatever you call the back and forth of influences.  Betty Eadie was a major voice in the NDE community for awhile.  Drew quite a bit of criticism from more traditional Christians, but her  book Embraced by the Light was extremely popular.  She then modified her account to make it more palatable to nonLDS Christians.  Then there’s Raymond Moody. I would love to collect accounts and map content and language in collected accounts against a timeline of the most highly publicized accounts over the decades, see what changes and what doesn’t.  I had chat come up with others.

Timeline of Major Bestselling NDE Books

• 1975: Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody
  • The Impact: Coined the term "near-death experience" and set the modern standard for studying the phenomenon. It became a massive cultural bestseller and introduced NDEs to the mainstream public. [1, 2, 3]

• 1990: Closer to the Light by Melvin Morse
  • The Impact: A pediatrician expanded the field by researching and documenting near-death experiences specifically reported by children, achieving significant bestseller status. [1]

• 1992: Embraced by the Light by Betty J. Eadie
  • The Impact: A deeply personal, widely read account that stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for years, becoming one of the most commercially successful NDE books ever published. [1, 2, 3]

• 1994: Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley
  • The Impact: Detailed the author's dramatic account of being struck by lightning and clinically dead, capturing massive public attention and topping bestseller lists. [1]

• 2004: 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper
  • The Impact: A Baptist minister's story of a horrific car crash and his subsequent heavenly experience, which sold millions of copies and spent years on bestseller lists. [1, 2]

• 2006: Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo
  • The Impact: The extraordinary account of a 4-year-old boy's emergency surgery and trip to heaven, becoming a global publishing phenomenon and feature film. [1]

• 2012: Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander
  • The Impact: Written by an academic neurosurgeon who experienced a severe case of bacterial meningitis, lending high-profile mainstream and scientific curiosity to the debate over consciousness. [1, 2]

• 2012: Dying to Be Me by Anita Moorjani
  • The Impact: A profound personal recovery story detailing an NDE from end-stage cancer, which became a prominent international bestseller. [1, 2]

• 2016: Imagine Heaven by John Burke
  • The Impact: Synthesizes hundreds of NDE accounts with scriptural parallels, remaining a top seller on digital audiobook and book charts. [1, 2]

I've read most of those.  My understanding is that the at-the-time-revolutionary LDS concept of a pre-existence wherein choices were made, possibly including "plans", predates Raymond Moody's book by maybe 145 years or so. 

On the other hand my recollection is that the musical "My Turn On Earth" rather clearly depicts people making plans in the pre-existence, and it came out a two years after Raymond Moody's book.  Were such ideas present in LDS culture before then?  I don't know.  But I don't think pre-birth planning was mentioned in Moody's book.  AI doesn't think so either.

I also asked AI when the first near-death experience accounts describing the making of pre-birth plans were published and it said 1992, but I do not trust AI to have made a thorough search.

So if the one is informing the other it is not clear to me who started it, but I think the idea showed up in LDS culture first.  What do you think? 

 

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I do believe we should have evidence that such ideas first appeared independent of the most likely influences if the claim is independence.

I did imply independence, and have no idea how I could ever present evidence of such.  It would be like trying to prove a negative: Theoretically possible but not practical.  So I now formally withdraw the implication of independence and will edit my post accordingly.  <- EDIT:  The time window for editing the post I was referring to has passed, so I hope this retraction is sufficient. 

Imo the bigger question is, are we being screwed over, or not?  It is quite possible that our confirmation biases will present us with evidence supporting whichever belief we already have. 

Edited 3 hours ago by manol

[smac97]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is a certain amount of hubris associated with calling someone's most significant, life defining and meaningful relationship as immoral, sinful, and wrong because of the gender of one's spouse on the one hand, and objecting to someone else labeling you a bigot on the other.  

More ad hominem / tu quoque, as opposed to discussing the topic.

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I wanted to call your relationship with your spouse as immoral, sinful and wrong simply because of your Latter-day Saint faith that would be my right, but it would be your right to call me wrongheaded and bigoted to do so.

I think the "Bigot!" schtick is so frequently utilized because it's all you've got.  I can articulate a reasoned basis for my position.  I don't think you can, either that or you are so immersed in your own worldview that you cannot accommodate the possibility that viewpoints divergent from yours might be reasonable.  So you retreat to name-calling.

Here is a set of propositions by which I have assessed my perspective on the Law of Chastity, sexuality, and marriage."  I will lay them out and ask you to consider them.  If you want to discuss them, we can start a separate thread:

Proposition #1: Our Involved Heavenly Father

I believe God exists, and that He sent us here to experience a mortal probation, to exercise agency, to choose between right and wrong, to develop and maintain faith, to repent, to serve our fellow man, and so on.

I believe God is not some distant and indifferent "Cosmic Clockmaker."  Rather, I believe His perspective is along the lines of "this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).  And because He "so loved the world," He "gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).  Furthermore, God - our Heavenly Father - and His Son have sent prophets and apostles, and endowed them with authority and revelatory capacity to communicate truths and commandments and corrections to us.

Proposition #2: Sex is Important

In effectively every dispensation of time, sex and sexuality have proven to be very powerful and important components of the human experience/probation.  It is the sine qua non of the propagation of the species, both via reproduction and - hopefully and ideally - having children raised by both a mother and father.

Proposition #3: Sexual Ethics are Important

Among other precepts, the Lord has given us the Law of Chastity, which constrains sexual behavior to two purposes: procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife.  Elder Renlund put it this way: 

Quote

The law of chastity is an eternal law, given by our Heavenly Father to all His children in all ages. It remains in force and is as applicable today as it was in earlier times in history. As with other commandments, the law is given by Heavenly Father to bless and help His children achieve their divine potential. Obeying the law of chastity includes abstaining from all sexual relations before marriage and remaining completely faithful and loyal after marriage. Sexual relations are to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman.

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

The foregoing constraints make a lot of sense to me, both theologically and practically.  Many of the worst social ills in our society arise with varying degrees of proximity to violations of the Law of Chastity.  

Proposition #4: Everyone has Sexual Ethics / Parameters / Boundaries

Because I believe the Law of Chastity is a revelation of God's will regarding His children, and because it makes a lot of sense, I accept it as a valid mechanism to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior.  Metaphorically speaking, let's say that "Y" represents a box into which each and every form of sexual expression can be placed.  Procreative sex.  "Just for fun or to scratch and itch" sex.  Same-sex sexual behavior.  Married sex.  Unmarried sex.  Adultery.  Masturbation.  Sexual assault and abuse.  Incest.  All of it.  Let's now say that "X" represents a smaller box, within Y but still differentiated from it.  X is a subset of Y, a subset of appropriate and divinely authorized - even mandated - purposes and uses of sex and sexuality, with the rest of Y being comprised of behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity, by God. 

The Law of Chastity situates sex between a husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and/or strengthening their union, as within X.  All other forms of sexual expression are outside of X.

Proposition #5: Latter-day Saints are Entitled to Articulate an X/Y Differentiation

The X / Y differentiation described above can cause a lot of disagreement.  For example, some people differentiate X from Y by using a “Between Consenting Adults” (“BCA”) standard.  That is, X includes anything in which adults consent to participate.  Thus X would not include sexual behavior with children, or nonconsensual sexual behavior (such as rape).  However, the BCA standard facilitates some real problems.  Adultery may be “consensual” by and between the participants, but not the innocent spouse who is being cheated on.  BCA also greatly increases risks associated with STIs, unwanted pregnancies (and, therefore, abortions), emotional turmoil (the “Hookup Culture” is pretty terrible), and so on.  Nevertheless, BCA or some variation on it is how much of the world differentiates X from Y.

In my view, our society has become way too sexualized.  Children are being exposed to far too much of it, usually in harmful ways.  Today’s “hookup” culture is creating all sorts of damage to the emotional and mental and physical health of those who participate in it.  Pornography is stunting and distorting perspectives on sexuality.  Various forms of abuse are happening with increasing frequency.  The Internet has played a big role in that, but so too has the weakening of individual sexual ethics and standards.  We need to return to seeing sex as an important, beautiful, sacred thing.  We also need to strongly resist the tendency to inject sexuality into areas where it does not belong.  Casual and coarse conversation does this.  Crass jokes and vulgar humor does this.  Imputing a sexual dimension onto relationships that are and/or ought to be nonsexual does this.  

Whether we are willing to admit it or not, everyone approaches sexual behavior with the above two boxes.  I suppose there are some few truly depraved persons and groups in whose minds X is coextensive with Y (that is, without any differentiation between the two, where literally any sexual behavior is allowed).  We all, either as individuals or as groups, create boundaries to differentiate appropriate and acceptable sexual behaviors (X) from those that are not (Y).  I therefore respectfully reject criticisms of the Church (and its members) for its differentiation of X from Y, since all groups and individuals do this, and are entitled to do so.

Proposition #6: The Law of Chastity is a Reasonable Basis for Sexual Ethics

I think the Law of Chastity makes a lot of sense.  Sexual behavior needs to be seen as more than just a biological impulse, more than just an itch to be scratched.  Instead, sexual behavior must be constrained, it must be allowed within a narrow "closed set" of circumstances (marriage between a husband and wife), and is otherwise prohibited.  In a biological sense, it creates children, and those children are, sociologically, much more likely to have a safe and stable childhood, and to avoid dysfunctional behaviors, and to grow into productive members of society, when they are raised by a father and a mother who love each other and are emotionally and sexually faithful to each other.  Sex also is, or ought to be, very important to the individuals participating in it.  That importance is undermined, even negated, when sexual profligacy is the norm.  Parameters are necessary.  

I acknowledge that different people have different views on these matters.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things such as what should and should not be in X.  I am not suggesting that all conclusions reached by such “reasonable minds” are of equal value or validity, but I am saying that we need to allow each other some room for such principled and reasonable disagreement.  I think such space gives us time and opportunity to utilize evidence and reasoning and analysis to persuade.  Without such space, ideological narratives are sometimes coercively imposed onto us, narratives with baggage we may later find to be problematic.

Even putting aside, arguendo, the argument about whether the Law of Chastity is revelatory, I think this point is difficult to dispute: It is reasonable and defensible as the basis for a code of sexual ethics.  It may not be everyone's cuppa, but it works.  If other people and other groups want to make X a larger box than it is for the Latter-day Saints, such are the perqs of living in a modern, pluralistic society.  However, I think it is a very different proposition to assert that the Latter-day Saints are uniquely disallowed from drawing the boundaries between X and Y.  That's just special pleading and fundamental unfairness and unreasonableness.

Proposition #7: Treating the Law of Chastity as "Bigotry" is Unreasonable

The Church’s sexual ethic (based on the Law of Chastity) is, though sensible, admittedly far more restrictive than the BCA approach.  Despite the the fact that everyone differentiates X from Y, the differentiation espoused by the Church is often singled out as being terrible, awful, “bigoted,” etc.  I submit, though, that the Church’s Law of Chastity makes a lot of sense.  Sociologically, compliance with it helps the individual avoid all sorts of problems arising from unrestrained (or less restrained) sexual behaviors, such as avoiding unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexually-transmitted infections, sexual assault allegations, “hookup culture” issues, and so on.  The Church’s teachings also make a lot of sense in biological, sociological and other contexts.  

This is where your "Bigot!" accusation comes into view.  It is unreasoned and unsubstantiated.  It is an accusation without support.  It is presented not to rebut, but to silence and shame.  The value of the constraints of the Law of Chastity are routinely and emphatically ignored in facile criticisms of the Church's teachings, which teachings are unfairly and falsely characterized as punitive, weird, etc.  Such criticisms implicitly refuse to grant the Church any ground to teach what it believes regarding sexual ethics.  I think that is unfair and inappropriate, particularly given the “(almost) anything goes” licentiousness inherent in the BCA approach.  On this point I offer a quote from Pres. McKay:

Quote

One, related to the earthly or animal life; the other, akin to the Divine. Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whims of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.

There is a real social “cost” which Latter-day Saints bear when the espouse and defend the Law of Chastity.  It is always unfortunate - and never justified - for any Latter-day Saint to harbor prejudicial or bigoted sentiments against LGBT people (or anyone else, for that matter).  But "bigotry" being an across-the-board synonym for "you disagreeing with the sexual parameters I prefer" is just not reasonable.  A few reasons:

• First, principled and reasoned disagreement about sexual ethics (and about many other topics) is not bigotry, it is just disagreement.  
• Second, baseless accusations of bigotry are generally intended more to silence and shame and stifle divergent viewpoints than to persuade or explain.  They are coercive.
• Third, I sense that there is a lot of the above stuff going on, and that it is frequently directed to Latter-day Saint children, teenagers and young adults.  There is a fairly potent “Mormons Hate Gays”-style accusation present in online social media content and platforms, websites, and so on.  While there are undoubtedly some individual Latter-day Saints who harbor prejudices against LGBT folks, they are not following prophetic counsel when they do so.  

I recognize that, in the context of some “LGBT” folks, the foregoing assessment of the Law of Chastity, of the constraints the Church places on sexual behavior, can be hard to hear.  But when viewed from a broader perspective, sex and sexuality regain their importance, their sanctity, and their beauty.

Again, I am happy to discuss these propositions with you, and to listen to whatever propositions you use to develop your preferred set of ethics.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 1 hour ago by smac97