Eternal Same-Gender Procreation

[rockpond]

It's not that simple, Rockpond.

What if the General Authorities came out tomorrow, and stated that it was now O.K. to drink alcohol, or view pornography, or something like that.

I might be tempted to conclude that God no longer directs his prophets today, because I find such habits appalling. I would seriously consider leaving the church, wouldn't you?

Perhaps this is what carbon dioxide was getting at.

Carbon Dioxide posed it as a matter a revelation.

If the prophet came forward today and said it had been revealed by God that it was okay to drink alcohol or view pornography, I'd first seek my own spiritual confirmation.

If that confirmation didn't immediately come, I'd still stay. If it never came, I'd still stay. Prophets make mistakes. They have in times past -- if that's Carbon's standard for leaving the church, why is s/he still here?

Either way, I wouldn't start drinking alcohol or looking at porn. I have personal convictions regarding (and general distaste for) those things.

[teddyaware]

Wow.how closed minded. If the church repealed the policy against alcohol, you'd leave? Read the 1st couple of verses of section 89 and tell me this is an eternal commandment. This is a great illustration of Daniels original point. Does this church really believe in continuing revelation or do we just claim it when convenient?

IF you believe in continuing revelation then there must at least be a possibility for change, no matter how remote you think that chance may be. But absolutely refusing continuing revelation because it doesn't match your current understanding is quite ironic.

Great OP, Daniel. It was very thoughtful and it's too bad there's so much hubris about eternal truth, despite acknowledgement that there is so much we don't know, that it becomes unlikely that a real conversation on this topic can be had.

If people know eternal truth as currently taught in the church we have little need of a prophet. Personally, I accept the possibility that virtually anything can change beyond our current, incomplete, limited understanding.

 

Amazingly ironic approach: Using the principle of continuing revelation as an excuse to minimize the validity and eternal importance of the present-day revelations of the Church's living prophets, seers and revelators. This is good because when I attend the upcoming sessions of General Conference I'll  have fun as I frequently remind myself that "virtually anything" being taught could someday end up being revealed to be a load of hogwash.

[Lachoneus]

Similarly, there's no evidence of Heavenly Mother and Father creating bodies through the means that we create them here.

 

Brigham Young did not agree with you.

       

He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that will ever be.

Brigham Young, 11 Journal of Discourses 122 (18 June 1865)

 

President Young sounds rather adament here that there is only one way to create a human being. If you think he is talking about some sort of same-sex arrangement, I will let you take that up with him. As for me, I think his words are sufficiently clear.

[CV75]

THEN it seems to me...

However Gods bear spirit children from their union, they require a Man and a Woman and no other combination (D&C 131, where marriage is taken to be between a man and a woman, as confirmed by D&C 132). At least the connection between this covenant and the continuation of the seeds is clear, even if some find the lack of procedural detail confusing or an opportunistic loophole.

These scriptures have nothing to do with how marriage is variously practiced throughout the world’s societies, but with how it is practiced in the eternities. As with many other practices and covenants, revealed marriage in each dispensation typically became earnestly imitated, secularized or perverted through wickedness, ignorance or apostasy.

D&C 131 and 132 are not about eroticism between men and women, but about “an increase,” “fulness” and “continuation of the seeds.” So no new revelation can change it to legitimize same-sex eroticism, no matter how “an increase,” “fulness” and “continuation of the seeds” may be achieved in the next life.

[Ahab]

However Gods bear spirit children from their union, they require a Man and a Woman and no other combination (D&C 131, where marriage is taken to be between a man and a woman, as confirmed by D&C 132). At least the connection between this covenant and the continuation of the seeds is clear, even if some find the lack of procedural detail confusing or an opportunistic loophole.

These scriptures have nothing to do with how marriage is variously practiced throughout the world’s societies, but with how it is practiced in the eternities. As with many other practices and covenants, revealed marriage in each dispensation typically became earnestly imitated, secularized or perverted through wickedness, ignorance or apostasy.

D&C 131 and 132 are not about eroticism between men and women, but about “an increase,” “fulness” and “continuation of the seeds.” So no new revelation can change it to legitimize same-sex eroticism, no matter how “an increase,” “fulness” and “continuation of the seeds” may be achieved in the next life.

Ooooh! Great point! I like it! 1000 points for you!

[rockpond]

Brigham Young did not agree with you.

Brigham Young, 11 Journal of Discourses 122 (18 June 1865)

President Young sounds rather adament here that there is only one way to create a human being. If you think he is talking about some sort of same-sex arrangement, I will let you take that up with him. As for me, I think his words are sufficiently clear.

Well, it's not the only thing that President Young and I fail to agree on. His description also differs from the account I'm taught in the temple each month.

Despite those differences, I think we can all agree that we're talking about the creation of the first man/woman, not the method of creating billions+ of offspring.

[JLHPROF]

IF you believe in continuing revelation then there must at least be a possibility for change, no matter how remote you think that chance may be. But absolutely refusing continuing revelation because it doesn't match your current understanding is quite ironic.

If people know eternal truth as currently taught in the church we have little need of a prophet. Personally, I accept the possibility that virtually anything can change beyond our current, incomplete, limited understanding.

 

"We never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of their being no previous revelation to suit the case"

- Joseph Smith

 

"Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation." - Joseph Smith

 

The truth is new revelation cannot contradict previous revelation.  The idea that "virtually anything can change" makes a mockery of the gospel.  If God has already spoken, we should not ask again, because God does not change, neither does he vary what he has said.

 

Now, if we have NO revelation on a subject that's a different matter, but the new revelation will not contradict established truths.

ANY revelation received that violates these principles should be presumed false and ignored or rejected.

[JLHPROF]

Brigham Young did not agree with you.

       

Brigham Young, 11 Journal of Discourses 122 (18 June 1865)

 

President Young sounds rather adament here that there is only one way to create a human being. If you think he is talking about some sort of same-sex arrangement, I will let you take that up with him. As for me, I think his words are sufficiently clear.

 

I agree with this - as I've stated in my first post on this thread.

But given that Brigham is persona non grata with a lot of members, it will be easy for them to dismiss his teachings.  I honestly don't know why some members even consider him a prophet given how little they respect his teachings.

However, I do consider him to be one of the men who served as God's mouthpiece, and therefore would not be so hasty to dismiss any of his teachings just because I didn't agree.

[JLHPROF]

Well, it's not the only thing that President Young and I fail to agree on. His description also differs from the account I'm taught in the temple each month.

Despite those differences, I think we can all agree that we're talking about the creation of the first man/woman, not the method of creating billions+ of offspring.

 

The temple doesn't portray the creation of our spirits.  The creation that is portrayed there is the symbolic creation of Adam and even that isn't an accurate description of how it was accomplished.

 

Bodies, physical or spiritual, are made by heterosexual procreation according to the ONLY teaching we have on the subject by scripture or prophet.  Unless you believe the symbolic fairytale version about mud and ribs to be literal.  They are the only gospel options.  All else is speculation OUTSIDE of gospel truths.

[rockpond]

But given that Brigham is persona non grata with a lot of members, it will be easy for them to dismiss his teachings.  I honestly don't know why some members even consider him a prophet given how little they respect his teachings.

However, I do consider him to be one of the men who served as God's mouthpiece, and therefore would not be so hasty to dismiss any of his teachings just because I didn't agree.

 

But you do see how it's difficult to fully agree with President Young and with prophets who have followed him, right?  Since they don't always agree.

[rockpond]

The temple doesn't portray the creation of our spirits.

 

Agreed.  That was my point.  In part, at lease.

 

 

The creation that is portrayed there is the symbolic creation of Adam and even that isn't an accurate description of how it was accomplished.

 

Do we have a more authoritative description of how it was accomplished?

 

 

Bodies, physical or spiritual, are made by heterosexual procreation according to the ONLY teaching we have on the subject by scripture or prophet.  Unless you believe the symbolic fairytale version about mud and ribs to be literal.  They are the only gospel options.  All else is speculation OUTSIDE of gospel truths.

 

Where is that teaching?

[JLHPROF]

DEL

Edited February 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

But you do see how it's difficult to fully agree with President Young and with prophets who have followed him, right?  Since they don't always agree.

 

Which prophet that followed him taught that creation of spirit bodies wasn't procreative in nature?

None of them.

Given that there is no further revelation on the subject, the only teaching by a prophet of God will have to suffice.

 

Agreed.  That was my point.  In part, at lease.

 

Do we have a more authoritative description of how it was accomplished?

 

Where is that teaching?

 

The Brigham Young teaching you've already dismissed out of hand.

 

"He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that will ever be."

11 Journal of Discourses 122

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Which prophet that followed him taught that creation of spirit bodies wasn't procreative in nature?

None of them.

Given that there is no further revelation on the subject, the only teaching by a prophet of God will have to suffice.

 

 

The Brigham Young teaching you've already dismissed out of hand.

 

"The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."  -- https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

 

I don't dismiss what Brigham Young teaches, I just don't agree with all of it.  (My response in post #35 was to your general point, not this specific example.)

 

In either case, we're still just referring to the creation of a world's first man/woman, not the "eternal increase" of creating billions of spirit children.

[ksfisher]

But you do see how it's difficult to fully agree with President Young and with prophets who have followed him, right?  Since they don't always agree.

 

But we don't have to sustain Brigham Young as a prophet today.  Or, for that matter, Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Moses, Peter, or even Gordon B Hinckley.  We are only asked to sustain the current president of the church as a prophet, seer, and revelator.  That's not to denigrate or say we don't believe the words of earlier prophets, but we only have to live by the words of the current one.  Those others were prophets for their day, we live by the words that are given to us today.

[rockpond]

But we don't have to sustain Brigham Young as a prophet today.  Or, for that matter, Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Moses, Peter, or even Gordon B Hinckley.  We are only asked to sustain the current president of the church as a prophet, seer, and revelator.  That's not to denigrate or say we don't believe the words of earlier prophets, but we only have to live by the words of the current one.  Those others were prophets for their day, we live by the words that are given to us today.

 

Agreed.

[JLHPROF]

In either case, we're still just referring to the creation of a world's first man/woman, not the "eternal increase" of creating billions of spirit children.

 

No, the Brigham Young teaching referred to spirit children to - "there is no other process of creation in heaven" would be spiritual, not temporal, don't you think?

 

Or you could go with "Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits [see D&C 76:24], and they were brought forth and lived with him."  DBY 50 as quoted in the "OFFICIAL" Teachings of Brigham Young Church manual - https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

 

And in case we feel like starting debate over the definition of "beget/begat" it's a pretty safe bet that Brigham meant it in the the Biblical sense - "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth".

 

From the german - begatten - "“to mate, copulate"

[JLHPROF]

 That's not to denigrate or say we don't believe the words of earlier prophets, but we only have to live by the words of the current one.  Those others were prophets for their day, we live by the words that are given to us today.

 

As long as they are in agreement.  A current prophet with a new revelation, even given by an angel, I would regard as false according to Joseph's restored teachings if it contradicted a prior revelation.

But I suppose if the current prophet gives a new revelation saying they don't have to agree with the old revelation, well then that makes it all alright and not self-fulfilling prophecy at all...

Edited February 24, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

No, the Brigham Young teaching referred to spirit children to - "there is no other process of creation in heaven" would be spiritual, not temporal, don't you think?

 

Or you could go with "Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits [see D&C 76:24], and they were brought forth and lived with him."  DBY 50 as quoted in the "OFFICIAL" Teachings of Brigham Young Church manual - https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

 

And in case we feel like starting debate over the definition of "beget/begat" it's a pretty safe bet that Brigham meant it in the the Biblical sense - "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth".

 

From the german - begatten - "“to mate, copulate"

 

The full quote...

 

"Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits [see D&C 76:24], and they were brought forth and lived with him. Then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, … consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth (DBY, 50)."

 

Yup, crystal clear.

 

And where do intelligences factor into this?

Edited February 24, 2015 by rockpond

[teddyaware]

No, the Brigham Young teaching referred to spirit children to - "there is no other process of creation in heaven" would be spiritual, not temporal, don't you think?

 

Or you could go with "Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits [see D&C 76:24], and they were brought forth and lived with him."  DBY 50 as quoted in the "OFFICIAL" Teachings of Brigham Young Church manual - https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-7?lang=eng

 

 

And in case we feel like starting debate over the definition of "beget/begat" it's a pretty safe bet that Brigham meant it in the the Biblical sense - "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth".

 

From the german - begatten - "“to mate, copulate"

 

This thread has me wondering if men and women will be resurrected anatomically incorrect, like Ken and Barbie dolls, or if they will be resurrected with the same procreative "equipment" they had while dwelling on earth? But if the resurrected Gods do have bodies that are anatomically correct, one wonders if the procreative organs will only be vestigial in nature, just kinda hanging there like baubles or ornaments?

Edited February 24, 2015 by teddyaware

[ksfisher]

As long as they are in agreement.  A current prophet with a new revelation, even given by an angel, I would regard as false according to Joseph's restored teachings if it contradicted a prior revelation.

But I suppose if the current prophet gives a new revelation saying they don't have to agree with the old revelation, well then that makes it all alright and not self-fulfilling prophecy at all...

 

So what if something Joseph Smith taught contradicted something Moses or another earlier prophet taught?  Would Joseph Smith then be a false prophet? 

[JLHPROF]

The full quote...

 

"Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits [see D&C 76:24], and they were brought forth and lived with him. Then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, … consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth (DBY, 50)."

 

Yup, crystal clear.

 

And where do intelligences factor into this?

 

You are heading off on a derailing tangent and I decline to follow.  The subject at hand is the birth/creation of spirit children.

 

The arguments are basically either Brigham was right and spirit children are procreated heterosexually as all other life has been, or there is some other option in creation in which case that would allow homosexual creation of spirit children.

 

The physical creation of Adam is not the subject.  The creation of billions of spirit children by either procreation or some other method (allowing homosexuals to participate) is the topic posed by the OP.

 

Yeah, I'm going to go with the only prophetic teaching on this subject - Brigham Young's.  Until further light that contradicts no prior revelation is revealed.

[Storm Rider]

I was uncomfortable with some of the comments on the first two pages of this thread.  Daniel asked a question or two as he was trying to imagine a desired reality in the future.  It is evident that for the vast majority of LDS the concept proposed was in error on many levels; however, it was the manner of the responses that made me uncomfortable.

 

We have many brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction.  It matters how we respond to honest questions or sincere questioning of what the future may hold.  We do not have all the answers; we should feel comfortable acknowledging that fact.  At the same time, we can state what we believe has been revealed in a manner that does not condemn the individual.  

 

Those that endure SSA have just as strong a need for companionship as everyone else.  The challenge is that to be a faithful disciple of Christ requires they never act upon their sexual drive.  This should be understood to be a daunting challenge and it is easy to understand how some through in the towel and succumb to our carnal nature.  

 

Further, our brothers and sisters often struggle to understand how or why they are the way they are.  The majority express a strong commitment that they came this way; they are the way God made them.  I personally believe this, but I also believe that the emphasis must remain on holiness and seeking to be like Christ.  Their burden is a heavy one and we should strive to be compassionate in our responses.

 

Daniel is not one to insult others purposely.  I believe his intentions are sincere and he struggles to gain an understanding that meets his desires just as we all do.  The issue is coming to a full denial of self in order to follow Christ.  This demand sacrifice of each and every disciple of Christ.  The challenge is to submit fully and willingly so that release our burdens to him whose shoulders are strong and he willingly takes the weight from us and walks beside us.  

 

We need to be a source of peace in the world without any need to purposely hurt others.  I am not supporting a position that leads to hiding truths, but rather one that supports focusing on the what is our goal - to be like Christ in order to realize the oneness with our Father that we recognize as exaltation.  

[JLHPROF]

So what if something Joseph Smith taught contradicted something Moses or another earlier prophet taught?  Would Joseph Smith then be a false prophet? 

 

If it contradicted a doctrinal principle I would say the new revelation is very suspect.

If you are talking about the new covenant vs the old covenant that is no contradiction.

 

Which doctrinal teaching of Moses did Joseph contradict?

[ksfisher]

This thread has me wondering if men and women will be resurrected anatomically incorrect, like Ken and Barbie dolls, or if they will be resurrected with the same procreative "equipment" they had while dwelling on earth? But if the resurrected Gods do have bodies that are anatomically correct, one wonders if the procreative organs will be only vestigial in nature, just hanging there like baubles or ornaments?

 

I don't think we understand enough about the nature of a resurrected and exalted being to know this, but I don't think their would be anything vestigial about a perfected body.

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in [our] philosophy.