Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[SamIam]

In the spirit of speculation, I think one reason the Church doesn’t debate much about organic evolution, yet teaches it at BYU, is because it can be taken in a context that takes nothing away from Creation, the Fall, and the 7,000 years of earth’s temporal existence (according to Adam’s reckoning, which began at that time).

 

For the sake of discussion, we can still have organic evolution play out exactly as proponents say it did and does, except it begins after the Fall of Adam. The progression of life on Earth is dependent upon an actual Creation, an actual Eden, man Adam and the Fall; such physical laws came into play after the Fall, when paradise became physically and spiritually separated from God.

 

This is how the law of opposition is manifest: a lengthy, trial-and-error, chance-affected, 4+ billion year physical process as opposed to a more immediate process that might have taken place had Adam exercised his agency to partake of the forbidden fruit with more preparation and tutoring from above rather than the premature coaxing of the adversary. Or more simply, as others prefer to use as a criterion of truth, trial and error and chance are in opposition to the exercise of  divine intent, just as chaos is in opposition to exaltation.

 

 

 

In part, I have had similar speculative observations as potential.  However, I have never considered the law of opposition being manifest as a chaotic state of evolutionary progression following an ordered state of creation. If I had had this thought before, which I freely admit I have not, I would have had certain expectations of the two states.  Off the top of my head the point of difficulty is that the prefall ordered state is constructive and building by its nature.  However, if you are saying that the chaotic state is progressive in genus proliferation then we are still maintaining processes dependent on an ordered state when the fall might be characterized by its nature as an entropic state.

 

 

 

Adam did not have to enter mortality at that moment billions of years ago, but he could have transitioned from a terrestrial body into a mortal body only after the process of organic evolution produced human beings. All mortal life is still dependent on Adam as the chief steward and catalyst of the mortal estate, and all human life must still be linked to him for exaltation. Just as Jesus is the father of our spiritual rebirth (whether we lived before or after Him), Adam is the father of our mortal birth (also whether we lived before or after Him).

 

A point of discussion then might get to how Adam became mortal through the evolutionary process and appeared on the scene some 6,000 years ago to prophesy the 7,000 year temporal existence of the earth. I think we can look at the replacement of his terrestrial body with a mortal genetic duplicate in three ways: not having parentage through the evolutionary process; having parentage through the evolutionary process; and, having surrogate parentage through the evolutionary process, as follows:

 

No parentage through the evolutionary process: he was the last to leave Eden, coming into the world as a fully developed man; or, he was held in abeyance in another terrestrial sphere until he came to this world as an adult. He became mortal through a fundamental change in his physiology according to what he ate, or by ordinance. Once he got here, he picked things up at Moses 4:31.

 

Parentage through the evolutionary process: when a genetic match finally appeared at the right time for the 7,000-year plan to commence according to teh reckoning given him, Adam's spirit was removed from his terrestrial form (wherever that had been residing or suspended for the previous 4 billion years) and placed into his mortal body. This is not quite reincarnation because the body is the same body (genetically speaking) as the terrestrial; it is more like placing Lazarus’s disembodied spirit into a new-and-improved, healthier, un-decomposed body after it had been removed through ill health three days earlier. These parents raised him and as he advanced through life with the advanced spirit he came here with, he picks things up at Moses 5:1.

 

Surrogate parentage through the evolutionary process: cloned cells from Adam’s cursed terrestrial body were preserved and implanted in zygote form into a mortal mother; or cloned gametes from Adam’s pre-Eden parents were implanted to mortal parents. Adam came out of his “coma” sometime at or after conception. His parents raised him, a spiritually precocious child, and he picked up where he left off at Moses 5:1.

 

 

 

 

It is apparent that you have given this much consideration.  I have one quote in support of your terrestrial state which you may or may not have.  It is as follows:

 

It is false to assume that all things have always been the same. For instance: When the Lord created this earth, it was in a terrestrial state, an Edenic state, a paradisiacal state; death had not then entered the world. Adam and Eve and all created things were in an immortal state.(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. p3.)

 

 

However, the possible challenge comes in from the several sources that speak of Adam having been in this terrestrial state but in a celestial body. (JOD 1:46-51) Additionally concerning his parentage references exist concerning his parents being resurrected celestial beings as well. Of course these can be difficult references as they embrace Brigham Young's Adam/God doctrines.   I can't discount them myself but I can't claim complete understanding either. I appreciate the small disclaimer of "or by ordinance" as you consider his physiological changes as that seems to me to be an absolute necessity in a creation driven by the exercise of priesthood authority.  His parentage to me cannot be other than he had parents, two beings that conceived a child.  I am more inclined to see Adam's physiological changes as evidenced by the scriptural record in several conditions.  First all men were affected and the earth as well in that the process of becoming mortal was a progressive state of entropy of the earth as a whole.  This is exampled by the potential length of a human lifetime as predicated upon the state of quickening the matter is in at conception of the life form. Thus we see a lifespan range of potentially 900 plus years for man before the flood to a brief phase of life spans in the 500 range until the days of Peleg when they drop to the 200 or less range.  After the Exodus it finally reaches a tapering off point consistent with modern age ranges which seems mostly to have remained a constant.  For me this is evidence of entropy that is affecting the entire earth organism in phases.  As the earth transitions from an eternal state to a mortal state the components that comprise the bodies of her children are also transitioning to increasingly mortal states.  An image is found below.

 

 

 

Some reasonable things to consider upon.  I have over the past few years tied the D & C verses concerning the 12 kingdoms as related to the observations that Benjamin Johnson recorded in the Gibb's letter as things that Joseph Smith taught him:

 

He was the first in this age to teach "substantialism", the eternity of matter, that no part or particle of the great universe could become annihilated or destroyed; that light and life and spirit were one; that all light and heat are the "Glory of God", which is his power, that fills the "immensity of space", and is the life of all things, and permeates with latent life, and heat, every particle of which all worlds are composed; that light or spirit, and matter, are the two first great primary principles of the universe, or of Being; that they are self-existent, co-existent, indestructible, and eternal, and from these two elements both our spirits and our bodies were formulated, and he gave us to understand that there were twelve kingdoms, or planets, revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave an equal division of His time or ministry and that now was His time to again visit the earth. He taught that all systems of worlds were in revolution, the lesser around the greater. (Benjamin F. Johnson, Letter to George F. Gibbs, 1903)

 

 

I appreciate your post.  Some new material to consider upon as well as confirmation that I am not the only one who has found this subject fascinating.

Edited November 29, 2015 by SamIam

[katherine the great]

Hmmm....*raises hand*...I see a problem with homosexuality and the continuation of the human race, and I see a connection to natural selection too. 

As I said, "Inclusive fitness".  Read up on it.  

[SamIam]

That is actually not the case.  Inclusive fitness and alloparenting would be perfectly compatible with same sex marriage and the evolution of low frequencies of homosexuality in populations.  Evolutionary fitness does not require direct reproduction.  Some ants and bees are good examples of inclusive fitness.

 

Inclusive fitness is not an area I have but passing understanding of but as I understand it, it is related to social conditions that may affect indirect reproduction.  Thus the focus is on reproduction and perpetuation of the specie as a whole.  As a county bee inspector and long-time bee keeper, I cannot really say that I have seen any behavior that is not specifically geared to sustaining the reproductive stability of the colony as a whole whether directly or indirectly.  Again, with my limited understanding, I cannot see where there is any function of SSM that is occupied with reproductive concerns or perpetuation of the species in the least.  These types of unions do not warn of pending danger that might protect another organism to allow it to reproduce as the ground squirrels warning voice, or shrimp that protect the young for future proliferation or bees that sting intruders to the colony so that the brood might develop and continue to sustain the hive.  I don't know, but for me it seems a forced theoretical contrivance to insure that we can squeeze an "evolutionary" square peg into an evolutionary round hole and somehow validate a behavior of dubious social value. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by SamIam

[katherine the great]

Inclusive fitness is not an area I have but passing understanding of but as I understand it, it is related to social conditions that may affect indirect reproduction.  Thus the focus is on reproduction and perpetuation of the specie as a whole.  As a county bee inspector and long-time bee keeper, I cannot really say that I have seen any behavior that is not specifically geared to sustaining the reproductive stability of the colony as a whole whether directly or indirectly.  

Technically inclusive fitness is an explanation of the evolution of altruistic behavior.  The part of your quote I bolded:  I agree and this is what I was referencing.  Humans have even more complex social behaviors than bees and we have to look at why a trait that appears "maladaptive" would still exist in high enough frequencies worldwide to definitely notice it.  Indirect fitness can be obtained for an "infertile" individual (which historically would have been the result for a homosexual individual) through investing in family members' child rearing and contributing to the upbringing of nieces and nephews.  Because of gay marriage and such, I think this is an area that will probably be researched quite a bit more in the future.  It doesn't explain gay marriage (obviously), that's a cultural thing, but it does explain how this sexual orientation could have evolved and not been wiped out by natural selection.

p.s.  That is very cool that you work with bees.  My son grows ghost peppers to make his ghost pepper jelly and is very interested in learning to be a bee keeper to have honey as well.

Edited November 29, 2015 by katherine the great

[SamIam]

Technically inclusive fitness is an explanation of the evolution of altruistic behavior.  The part of your quote I bolded:  I agree and this is what I was referencing.  Humans have even more complex social behaviors than bees and we have to look at why a trait that appears "maladaptive" would still exist in high enough frequencies worldwide to definitely notice it.  Indirect fitness can be obtained for an "infertile" individual (which historically would have been the result for a homosexual individual) through investing in family members' child rearing and contributing to the upbringing of nieces and nephews.  Because of gay marriage and such, I think this is an area that will probably be researched quite a bit more in the future.  It doesn't explain gay marriage (obviously), that's a cultural thing, but it does explain how this sexual orientation could have evolved and not been wiped out by natural selection.

p.s.  That is very cool that you work with bees.  My son grows ghost peppers to make his ghost pepper jelly and is very interested in learning to be a bee keeper to have honey as well.

 

I guess the question from me for you is why do you think that "a trait that appears "maladaptive" would still exist in high enough frequencies worldwide to definitely notice it" as it relates to those seeking SSM.  Do you propose it is evolutionary or could it simply be an exercise of agency?

[katherine the great]

I guess the question from me for you is why do you think that "a trait that appears "maladaptive" would still exist in high enough frequencies worldwide to definitely notice it" as it relates to those seeking SSM.  Do you propose it is evolutionary or could it simply be an exercise of agency?

i'm not sure I understand your first sentence.  Since "marriage" is a cultural practice, I assumed that you were specifically talking about homosexuality when you stated: " while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts."  The instinct to mate is biological but "marriage" in humans can be truly monogamous, socially monogamous, serially monogamous, polygynous and sometimes even polyandrous.  These things are cultural.  Same sex marriage, of course is a very recent construct, but homosexual orientation itself seems to be biological and not just a conscious choice.

[mfbukowski]

How does one inherit homosexuality?

How is the trait selected?

Edited November 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

 

 

 

 

 

i'm not sure I understand your first sentence.  Since "marriage" is a cultural practice, I assumed that you were specifically talking about homosexuality when you stated: "

 

while LDS doctrine cannot support Same Sex Marriage neither can the common theories of evolution justify it - I guess it is out on both counts

."  The instinct to mate is biological but "marriage" in humans can be truly monogamous, socially monogamous, serially monogamous, polygynous and sometimes even polyandrous.  These things are cultural.  Same sex marriage, of course is a very recent construct, but homosexual orientation itself seems to be biological and not just a conscious choice.

 

 

 

No problem, your answer provided what I needed to gain insight into your perspective.  I have had many friends of homosexual persuasion and some I have observed from youth to adulthood.  I am willing to conceed that there is potentially some aspect of biological influence that appears to predispose someone to homosexual behaviors.  So I think we may be in agreement that there is potential for a biological influence. Nonetheless, I have always equated this tendency with the equal tendency that heterosexual men have to be predisposed towards interest in multiple female companions.  At some point one has to determine that this behavior is inconsistant with being obediant and the ambition to grow in a spiritual sense if one determines they wish to know God.  Thus some must choose to go against their predisposition and choose monogamy.  

While, I can see distinctions, I consider my ability to choose to alter my predisposition no different than any who may have a same sex predisposition.  Yes it may be a heavier cross to bear in terms of desired relationships of intimacy but that is the nature of existance for all of us each of us having burdens of varying weight throughout our lives. Nonetheless, from my perspective biological influences of this nature do not trump agency.  Consistant with the scriptures as stated in 2 Nephi 2:15-16:

2 Nephi 2:15-16

15 and to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to thetree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

 

 

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

My reading on this is that God creates everything and then enables a very peculiar distinction for man.  He is permitted to act for himself.  Every other creature acts according to a set of parameters defined by God, but man was given a bit more leeway in the process.  He alone was given the right to choose his responses to the choices before him.  To say that a biolgical predisposition to a homosexual tendency is the result of an evolutionary act and that justifies a requirement to act out on the behaviors is not a positive observation.  It places man back on par with the brute beast, absent any recognition of his higher status and capacity to direct the behaviors in which he will engage. Thus in order to be fairly judged we must all be able to claim equal potential to overcome biology with determined acts of decisive agency. To practice homosexual behaviors is simply the wrong exercise of agency from my perspective.

Edited December 14, 2015 by SamIam

[katherine the great]

How does one inherit homosexuality?

How is the trait selected?

I don't think anyone knows at this point how it is inherited or if it even really is.  There doesn't seem to be a "gay" gene and it is definitely not as simple as Mendelian inheritance, but a lot of traits are not.  A trait can be biological but not genetic.  For instance, the conditions that makes me a feminine female are my two x chromosomes and the hormones that caused me to develop as a female.  A percentage of people are born xy and yet develop as a female because of a resistance to androgens.  In the past, this person could have grown up female, been attracted to men, married and simply been viewed as infertile with no one ever suspecting that they were a chromosomal male.  The line between male and female is really often fuzzier than I ever used to think.  It seems more logical to think that true homosexuality is probably more closely related to the process of masculinization and feminization through hormones.  I use the term "true homosexuality" because I do think that for some biologically heterosexual people who are in a same sex relationship, it really is just a preference-maybe because of bad experiences with opposite sex partners.

[CV75]

In part, I have had similar speculative observations as potential.  However, I have never considered the law of opposition being manifest as a chaotic state of evolutionary progression following an ordered state of creation. If I had had this thought before, which I freely admit I have not, I would have had certain expectations of the two states.  Off the top of my head the point of difficulty is that the prefall ordered state is constructive and building by its nature.  However, if you are saying that the chaotic state is progressive in genus proliferation then we are still maintaining processes dependent on an ordered state when the fall might be characterized by its nature as an entropic state.

I think each state is in opposition, or in contrast, to the other in a variety of ways. In a successive sense, one is “before” and the other “after;” in a contrasting sense each is distinct from the other; in a progressing sense one leads to the other through the action of an intelligence’s agency (whether that be God’s or His children’s). For example: We begin the story with Chaos as a reference point, then Creation, then Eden as it was set apart from Creation, then the Fall, then the World, then the Millennium, then the Kingdoms of glory (the highest of which is the real beginning of the story, for these beings fins Chaos and do something with it). With regards to the various states, Chaos (unordered); Creation (ordering); Eden (ordered or static); the Fall (disordering); the World (where both order and chaos are found); the Millennium (reordering); Kingdoms (ordered or static). With regards to adversarial relationships, Satan sees some of these states as in conflict (knowing not the mind of God), and tries to leverage them against each other by influencing those with agency to use them to destroy God’s plan, which he seems to have begun with instigating the war in heaven. In evolution, we see the light of Christ, which governs and gives life to all things, being contradicted by the occasional chaos (extinction events), and enduring time and chance, eventually prevailing to the point where Adam could be reintroduced as steward over a mostly ordered sphere (thanks to the settling of physical natural laws).

It is apparent that you have given this much consideration.  I have one quote in support of your terrestrial state which you may or may not have.  It is as follows:

Whatever the original state of his body, Adam would still have fallen into the temporal, telestial form, and however this body was created (I believe he was the literal offspring of actual parents from that terrestrial or celestial place), it would not have been the result of organic evolution, which is reserved for a fallen world. The planet and everything in it is certainly dying in the long run, but this net entropy will follow an ebb and flow with the “multiply and replenish” force (the light of Christ) which may not add but recycles energy through the system. Whatever energy is used from the fallen system to allow the “increase” needed for human probation is certainly taking its toll, for example, with the 7,000-year time limit placed on the earth’s temporal existence (this temporal existence being reckoned from the point of Adam’s arrival into the system).

However, the possible challenge comes in from the several sources that speak of Adam having been in this terrestrial state but in a celestial body. (JOD 1:46-51) Additionally concerning his parentage references exist concerning his parents being resurrected celestial beings as well. Of course these can be difficult references as they embrace Brigham Young's Adam/God doctrines.   I can't discount them myself but I can't claim complete understanding either. I appreciate the small disclaimer of "or by ordinance" as you consider his physiological changes as that seems to me to be an absolute necessity in a creation driven by the exercise of priesthood authority.  His parentage to me cannot be other than he had parents, two beings that conceived a child.  I am more inclined to see Adam's physiological changes as evidenced by the scriptural record in several conditions.  First all men were affected and the earth as well in that the process of becoming mortal was a progressive state of entropy of the earth as a whole. 

 

Some reasonable things to consider upon.  I have over the past few years tied the D & C verses concerning the 12 kingdoms as related to the observations that Benjamin Johnson recorded in the Gibb's letter as things that Joseph Smith taught him:

I too have taken the passage in D&C 88 as twelve kingdoms to which the Lord gives a portion (not necessarily strictly equal) of His time and ministry. But I think this can also be applied to twelve kingdoms or stages of the plan of salvation, and with some imagination I’m sure I can come up with twelve! Let’s see: Intelligence Phase, Pre-Council in Heaven, Post-Council in Heaven, Creation, Eden, Fall, Pre-Meridian of Time, Post-Meridian of Time, Millennium, Post-Millennium, Judgement, Kingdom of Glory. Or, the “seven seals” plus the five periods outside of them: Intelligence, Pre-Mortal, Creation and Eden, Post-Millennium (the final war and judgment) and Kingdoms.

 

Also regarding the “substantialism” idea, Joseph Smith taught that "there is no fundamental principle belonging to a human system that ever goes into another in this world or the world to come" (HC 5:339). I’m thinking this "fundamental principle" permitted Adam to translate his paradisiacal body (whether one wants to classify it as celestial or terrestrial) into his mortal body, and eventually possess his unique, resurrected body after his death.

[deli_llama]

What is interesting is that no matter how often or forcefully someone points this out, the urge to treat everything anyone said in a Big Book of What to Think is somehow either eternal and binding (an excuse for intellectual immobility) or eternally problematic (and therefore a point of leverage from which a person can base their blase skepticism or indignation).

See Midgley here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

[...]

Thank you for your thoughts and the two reading suggestions. I really appreciate it. I especially for the Midgley essay informative, and it rounded out some of my understandings and provided some new sources to chew on for a bit.

[CV75]

How does one inherit homosexuality?

How is the trait selected?

I think human sexuality is more complex than inheritance, but theoretically just about any gene or trait that doesn't exist in nature can be artificially designed and engineered.

[SamIam]

On 11/28/2015, 10:09:41, katherine the great said:

Inclusive fitness is not an area I have but passing understanding of but as I understand it, it is related to social conditions that may affect indirect reproduction.  Thus the focus is on reproduction and perpetuation of the specie as a whole.  As a county bee inspector and long-time bee keeper, I cannot really say that I have seen any behavior that is not specifically geared to sustaining the reproductive stability of the colony as a whole whether directly or indirectly.  

Technically inclusive fitness is an explanation of the evolution of altruistic behavior.  The part of your quote I bolded:  I agree and this is what I was referencing.  Humans have even more complex social behaviors than bees and we have to look at why a trait that appears "maladaptive" would still exist in high enough frequencies worldwide to definitely notice it.  Indirect fitness can be obtained for an "infertile" individual (which historically would have been the result for a homosexual individual) through investing in family members' child rearing and contributing to the upbringing of nieces and nephews.  Because of gay marriage and such, I think this is an area that will probably be researched quite a bit more in the future.  It doesn't explain gay marriage (obviously), that's a cultural thing, but it does explain how this sexual orientation could have evolved and not been wiped out by natural selection.

p.s.  That is very cool that you work with bees.  My son grows ghost peppers to make his ghost pepper jelly and is very interested in learning to be a bee keeper to have honey as well.

I forgot to mention that if your son is in northern Utah feel free to PM if he is interested in starting in bees.  I'm glad to help and assist others in getting started.  However, I have no interest in ghost peppers - those things are deadly.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2015‎ ‎12‎:‎11‎:‎12‎, mfbukowski said:

How does one inherit homosexuality?

How is the trait selected?

There is an excellent set of Mormon Matters podcasts that addresses this. Dr. Bill Bradshaw taught Biology at BYU for 38 years and reviews many studies and evidence for the biological factors that contribute.

http://mormonmatters.org/2015/11/23/308-309-making-sense-of-the-research-on-homosexuality-parts-1-2-biological-factors/

[Gray]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is an excellent set of Mormon Matters podcasts that addresses this. Dr. Bill Bradshaw taught Biology at BYU for 38 years and reviews many studies and evidence for the biological factors that contribute.

http://mormonmatters.org/2015/11/23/308-309-making-sense-of-the-research-on-homosexuality-parts-1-2-biological-factors/

I've heard it theorized that because gay men tend to be younger brothers in families with multiple male siblings, there are more gay people per capita among the LDS population than in the general population, due to high birth rate. Not sure if that's true, but it would be interesting to explore. 

[katherine the great]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is an excellent set of Mormon Matters podcasts that addresses this. Dr. Bill Bradshaw taught Biology at BYU for 38 years and reviews many studies and evidence for the biological factors that contribute.

http://mormonmatters.org/2015/11/23/308-309-making-sense-of-the-research-on-homosexuality-parts-1-2-biological-factors/

Thanks for posting that.  I listened to a couple of them and I admit I was not crazy about some of the psychiatrist's explanations but I thought Dr. Bradshaw was spot on.

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Thanks for posting that.  I listened to a couple of them and I admit I was not crazy about some of the psychiatrist's explanations but I thought Dr. Bradshaw was spot on.

 

Spot on? Are you by chance English? I always thought you were American!!! I love the muffins!!!!

[katherine the great]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

 

Spot on? Are you by chance English? 

Lol!  Nope!  I'm a Yank!

[theplains]

On 29/11/2015, 13:22:06, katherine the great said:

I don't think anyone knows at this point how it is inherited or if it even really is.

How do you understand Romans 1:26-27?

Thanks

Jim

[SamIam]

17 hours ago, theplains said:

17 hours ago, theplains said:

How do you understand Romans 1:26-27?

Thanks

Jim

In light of this thread title "Evolving Mormon Doctrine" and this presentation of a scriptural source, Romans 1:26,  which should be consider the most dependable source of what might be considered "Mormon Doctrine" this thread actually provides almost a perfect microcosm to consider upon what forces influence this dichotomy of thought. 

From my perspective, if we simply go back 60 years or so to the ‘50s and then back from there to the beginning of organized society, predominately it would appear that the majority of the world’s societies did not favor same sex anything.

Of course this is a very broad stroke with a very broad brush…and of course there will be those who are disposed to refute that by finding the historical pockets of time where in the course of a various societies advancement there were periods where the societal evolution became tolerant and then accepting of same sex activities.

For instance, one of the most obvious, Rome at the height of its “greatness” encouraged these activities, at least among men, with some very strict social constructs to define the parameters of engaging in such activities.  However, finding these chronological pools of indulgence may be less, conflicting to the premise I suggest in that they themselves provide a historical trail to follow of how a society evolves/devolves to behaviors which tolerate same sex activities. Yes, some will find their justifications but those pockets only sustain the position and do little to blot out the broad strokes of time no matter how much we inflate the significance of this list of historical practitioners, or that list of peppered societies on the world map that transitioned from rejection to acceptance.

Not really wanting to spend time in analyzing the various era’s claims for how these behaviors became an acceptable practice, is it not enough to recognize that regardless of what we think may justify the practice in our current paradigm the pattern exists and should be measured by its standard development in a society at a certain point of that societies maturation. In the typical social development, perfectly according to Book of Mormon expectations, as societies mature, classes of people emerge and mores begin to change with a general top down flow of unacceptable behaviors becoming present and eventually encouraged.  

Also, the degree to which sodomy and same-sex attraction were accepted varied by class, with the middle class taking the narrowest view, while the aristocracy and nobility often accepted public expressions of alternative sexualities. At times, even with the risk of severe punishment, same-sex oriented subcultures would flourish in cities, sometimes only to be suppressed by the authorities. .( Pickett, Brent, "Homosexuality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/homosexuality/>.)

Currently, we have gone beyond all of the characteristic patterns that emerge in a society in which same-sex behaviors begin to develop and are in the proliferatin phase.  Many of have lived sufficient decades to observe a closeted behavior that began to emerge as our society become more advanced in terms of wealth, comfort, education and presumed self-determination.  It is generally unique to our era that we have determined to justify same sex behaviors in terms of biological forces. Otherwise it was not an explanation that had sufficient convincing technologies to insinuate but only the remotest possibilities.

Clearly the rise in the prestige of medicine resulted in part from the increasing ability of science to account for natural phenomena on the basis of mechanistic causation. The application of this viewpoint to humans led to accounts of sexuality as innate or biologically driven. The voluntarism of the medieval understanding of sodomy, that sodomites chose sin, gave way to the modern notion of homosexuality as a deep, unchosen characteristic of persons, regardless of whether they act upon that orientation. The idea of a ‘latent sodomite’ would not have made sense, yet under this new view it does make sense to speak of a person as a ‘latent homosexual.’ Instead of specific acts defining a person, as in the medieval view, an entire physical and mental makeup, usually portrayed as somehow defective or pathological, is ascribed to the modern category of ‘homosexual.’ Although there are historical precursors to these ideas (e.g., Aristotle gave a physiological explanation of passive homosexuality), medicine gave them greater public exposure and credibility (Greenberg, 1988, ch.15). .( Pickett, Brent, "Homosexuality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/homosexuality/>.)

The point is that independent of our current capacity to formulate more “intelligent” causal theories, it does not adequately explain how there are certain stages of societal existence when the behavior all but disappears until the stage where the reduced demands of subsistence permit greater pursuit of behaviors associated with the accruement of intellectual, cultural and the wealth building of a society.

It should also not be overlooked that these conditions naturally occur as God prospers a people and then in that prosperity they “advance” to the point that God is replaced with self-determination and an increasingly greater reduction of adherence to the very conditions that permit a societies advancement until that society collapses.  

It might appear that the more cohesive a society is in sustaining right behaviors that the naturally curbing influence of unacceptability reduces “biological tendencies” sufficient to validate that the choice to act out on such tendencies is generally not manifest in great degrees until the changing winds of tolerance and then acceptance create permissibility.  And while there are other factors than just religious influence that contribute to the absence of these behaviors in society, regardless of the primary influences it only proliferates in a consenting environment.

Interesting in this day and age is the presence of a technological framework which enables all of the societies of the world to interact and share in one another’s societal evolvements. For this cause we see an unprecedented commonality of social acceptance of same sex behaviors such as have never existed in the annuls of time.

Nonetheless, there does seem a pattern that transcends our intellectually justifying tendencies, and the pattern has manifest in our own history that the greater distance a people become in their observance of Godly principles the more likely they are to visit increasingly more hedonistic behaviors.

I suspect that if biological markers do exist they seem easily enough suppressed under certain societal conditions that discourage wrong doing and only manifest en masse when societies nod in approval.

Mormon doctrine recognizes these scriptural conditions and often references the requirements of humility and obedience etc. as keys to the blessings of heaven.  There are numerous references in the Book of Mormon that chronical the cyclical pattern of how societies eradicate wrongful behaviors and prosper, until in prosperity man forgets God and revisits sinful behavior.

And while Mormon doctrine can clearly sustain that certain conditions within the ebb and flow of society lend themselves to increases and decreases in sinful behavior, “evolving Mormon Doctrine” prefers to distance itself from the clarity and black and white reasoning of scriptural truths and increasingly looks outside of scriptural precedents and explanations preferring more “intellectual explanations” that avoid accountability.

Edited December 6, 2015 by SamIam
formatting

[katherine the great]

On December 5, 2015 at 2:10:15 PM, theplains said:

How do you understand Romans 1:26-27?

Thanks

Jim

The same way I understand anyone who lacks a knowledge of biology.

[Maedros]

On 11/18/2015, 5:55:55, jaberwocky said:

This will be my last post here.  The moderators have limited my ability to post simply because I asked a question they didn't like.  I refuse to participate in a forum where the moderators are all gay.

I know what you mean - it seems like a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy:  Isa 5:20  ²⁰ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! If you speak against sin then you're evil and if we speak favourably about it then you're good and having good discussion. 

[Calm]

So you think it is appropriate to label all the moderators as "gay" simply because you disagree with their moderating style?  You don't see that as a form of inappropriate labeling?

There are a variety of ways to condemn sins of all types, including some that aren't seen as sins by others.  Some are effective in communication, others come across as mostly soapbox preaching without any attempt to have a two way conversation.  The former is accepted by the moderators here from what I've seen.  The last is not.  If one is so insistent on approaching discussion of sin in a soapbox way that one would prefer not to post at all if one is told that is unacceptable, then one seems to be more concerned about oneself than getting the message of the gospel out there, imo.  And the board does not need to cater to those who want bully pulpits for themselves, but not others imo.  And I am grateful that the moderators use this standard.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Calm