Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[CV75]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I thought things were murky. Now there are pragmatic "natural laws" essential for the survival of the species of spirits that will never change? That murkiness seems to have cleared up quickly.

This is the paradox of the church and many within it. On one hand a person may be comfortable saying that things are complicated and that we don't understand all the mysteries of God while on the other hand they speak, teach, and act like they have the mysteries figured out and God's ways will never change. So much for eternal progression, I guess.  

Now I assume a person who speaks with absolute certainty and understanding of God is more dangerous than the person who admits to not knowing. I view one as humble and the other not so much.

I resolve this by leveraging what I do know against what I don't know, and recognizing that the more I know, the more I must recognize I don't know. The stabilizing factor is the covenants, and that love (the aim of the Doctrine of Christ per 2 Nephi 31) teaches how to trust both God (whom we do not see in all His perfection) and His servants (whom we do see in all their imperfections).

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To put it simply, LGBTQ people don't have a place in the plan of salvation as currently taught *unless* they are fundamentally changed in the next life and they get a kind of do over as heterosexuals.

I think the confusion lies because of the teaching by science that some people are actually born that way, and that it isn't a choice as a lifestyle. Science is wrong on that point. We are not computers that are pre-programmed by our DNA. In fact studies have shown that DNA can be changed by our own choice of thoughts: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-through-mind-control/

Orientation, any sinful thought, or behavior, isn't part of our eternal identity. We are not going to get a do over. We aren't helpless, we are only born with our own set of weaknesses. If we succumb to those weaknesses instead of turning to Christ to help us make them strengths we will be helpless against them. It doesn't matter if those weaknesses are concerning orientation, or anything else. I think it's time to stop viewing LGBTQ people as helpless victims, but rather as anyone else. Just because some people's sinful behaviors are more apparent than others' doesn't make them any more severe. We either choose to live a Celestial law, or we don't follow Christ and utilize His atonement to it's full potential for us. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"All the fuss" is about the belief that homosexual sex is not sinful, hence gay marriage is perfectly fine and might at some time include temple sealings.

THAT is what the bottom line is, and this is the search for the justification of that idea

I concur!

[Daniel2]

Great topic, Happy Jack!

While I think a majority of Latter-day Saints' current beliefs about the topic of eternal procreation assumes a binary, dual-gendered, procreative process is required, it's clear to me that that is based on an assumption that sexual procreation requires two genders--an assumption that has historically been quire reasonable and understandable, since human procreation has historically always depended on two genders.

However, as with many other advances in science, technology, and medicine, our knowledge and understanding and even personal powers continue to unfold as our 'human experience' in mortality progresses.  And we are now on the verge of discovering that procreation isn't entirely dependent on having two genders:

http://time.com/3748019/same-sex-couples-biological-children/

Quote

 

Get Ready for Embryos From Two Men or Two Women

Dr. Guy Ringler

March 18, 2015

Dr. Guy Ringler is a board certified physician in both Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. He is a partner with California Fertility Partners.

Genetic research is advancing to the day when gay couples could fulfill their dreams of having children related to them both.

I’ve helped many same-sex couples over the years have children of their own through assisted reproductive procedures. Egg donation and surrogacy allow two gay men to have children genetically related to one partner and the egg donor, but not to both. It’s the same dynamic for lesbians and sperm donors. I’ve been asked many times by countless same-sex couples over the years: “can we make a baby that’s a combination of both of us?”

It’s a question that I’ve considered from a scientific and medical perspective for a long time. Advances in genetic research keep getting us closer to the day when the answer to that question is “yes.”

Throughout history, a child has come from a man and a woman. It’s been one of the tenets of anti-gay activists for decades: “Two men can’t have a biological child, and two women can’t have one either.”

For some anti-gay people, that seems to make these relationships somehow wrong, as though any relationship that can’t result in a child should somehow be forbidden. They deem it unnatural in the eyes of God.

However, science is advancing and may ultimately change all of that.

Stem cell research has demonstrated that human skin cells and fibroblasts (a different kind of adult cell) can be turned into embryonic stem cells. Now, researchers at Cambridge University and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel have shown that embryonic stem cells can be programmed to form primordial germ cells. These are the stem cells that can go on to form either eggs or sperm. If scientists can figure out how to turn a primordial germ cell that originated from the skin of a man into an egg, could it be fertilized with his partner’s sperm?

Research using primordial germ cells in mice has shown that these cells can be turned into eggs and sperm capable of forming pups (baby mice). Many experiments were required, but tremendous knowledge was gained.

The upshot: There likely will be a time when reproductive science could create an embryo from the cells of two men or two women.

Anti-gay forces will not want to hear this news, but science will continue to explore it in an attempt to explain biology. This is the role of science in our society: to improve the quality of life of all of us and to advance human equality. Scientific breakthroughs that can help two people who are committed to having children together—regardless of their sex—are inspiring developments.

Just like straight couples, many gay men and lesbians are eager to have a genetic relationship with their children. At times, I’ve taken sperm from one gay man and matched it with the eggs of his partner’s sister to create a stronger genetic bond between the couple and their child. But these new scientific developments could bring that process full-circle.

There are various scientific obstacles to reaching the point where the cells of two men or two women could make a baby. There will also be ethical debates. Religious and conservative leaders around the world still vehemently oppose same sex marriage and homosexual acts, let alone a gay couple having a child of their own.

But no one’s identity—be it race, gender, or sexual orientation—should ever play into the advancement of medicine. What’s important here is that we bring children into this world from a desire to love and provide a happy and healthy environment for their growth. These ingredients can be as powerfully provided by a same-sex couple as they can by heterosexuals. Studies have shown this, and I have seen it first hand in the hundreds of gay families from around the world who I’ve helped to conceive.

Medical science has transformed our society for the better in so many ways. It has helped the deaf to hear. It has cured many diseases and is pioneering the genetic targeting of agents to cure cancer. It has lengthened our lives and made them more fulfilling. And it has helped people—gay and straight, black and white, Christian, Jews, and Buddhists—to become parents.

When the time comes for two men or two women to have a biological child together, we should embrace it as another positive advancement to a happier world of fulfilled lives.

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

And here's another:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/25/biological-same-sex-parent-babies-could-be-a-reality-by-2017.html

Quote

 

Biological Same-Sex Parent Babies Could Be a Reality by 2017

A scientific breakthrough could offer new hope to same-sex couples and anyone suffering from infertility issues.

Charlotte Lytton

02.25.15 12:22 PM ET

Babies with two biological same-sex parents could be a reality in just two years.

Pioneering stem cell research undertaken at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. and Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel were able to create primordial germ cells (PCGs)—which go on to become eggs and sperm—using human embryonic stem cells. While the same process had previously been carried out among rodents, this is the first time it has been successfully trialed with human matter, which could be entirely transformative for the future of conception.

When fertilized by a sperm, an egg cell begins dividing into a cluster of cells (or a blastocyst), marking the early stage of the embryo. Some of these cells then form the inner cell mass—this is what develops into the fetus—while others collect to create the outer wall, which becomes the placenta. Stem cells, which can develop into any type of bodily cell, are created from those in the inner mass, and a small number of these then become PCGs. If these PCGs then become sperm and egg cells, these will be able to pass down genetic information to offspring created from this material.

It is hard to predict just how long it may take for PGCs to become fully fledged eggs or sperm, says Dr. Jacob Hanna, one of the study’s lead researchers, but he is confident that “this is going to be a very active area of research.”

“I am optimistic,” he adds. “We have succeeded in the first and most important step of the process, where we succeed in reaching the progenitor cell state for sperm and egg (though it is very important to emphasize that we have not achieved mature sperm and eggs). So we are now focusing on completing the second half of this process. Once that is achieved this may become useful for any individual with fertility problems.”

Though the research was not initially intended to serve as evidence of possible single-sex conception, the possibility of this as demonstrated by the findings has provided an unexpected leap forward for hopeful gay parents. Professor Azim Surani at Cambridge’s Gurdon Institute, who was also on the team behind the world’s first test tube baby in 1978, found that the S0X17 cell is key for “reprogramming” adult cells (in this case, into skin cells), which will enable further investigation into infertility and germlines. That 10 different donor sources could create new germline cells, and that these stem cells identically match those taken from aborted fetuses (a process used to check that the artificial and natural matter matches up) could revolutionize our notion of reproduction.

It isn’t just same-sex couples hoping for a baby genetically their own who would benefit from this process: People suffering from age-related diseases could, too. DNA picks up genetic mutations over time (known as epigenetic changes, caused by a person’s environment), but the cells that form eggs and sperm are able to get rid of these in the early stages, meaning that no damaged genetic material would be passed down if this process was used instead of natural conception. It could also greatly help those biologically unable to have children at all.

“It is probably a long way off, but it would be a way for people who have had treatment for conditions such as childhood leukaemia, which has left them infertile, to have children of their own,” Robin Lovell-Badge, head of stem-cell biology and developmental genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research, told The Sunday Times.

As with all IVF developments, though, concerns remain that the process will enable those who want a “designer baby” to take control of its genetic makeup for unethical reasons. “I am not in favor of creating engineered humans,” Dr. Hanna explains, “and the social and ethical implications…need to be thought through, but I am very confident it will work and will be very relevant to anyone who has lost their fertility through disease.”

While the risk of malpractice will always remain, this is surely a minor factor when considering the enormous potential such genetic discoveries have. Although Dr. Hanna’s predictions that such a process could materialize in two years seem extremely confident, this will undeniably be a breakthrough with the power to change an immeasurable number of lives.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

It will be interesting to see if and how these medical advances impact LDS theology.  Will it be embraced along with a "line upon line, precept upon precept" mindset?  Or will it be rejected as "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture"? (odds are, I can probably predict those that would respond to either of those paradigms that post here on this board...  )

After all, (during a period of human history in which medical science has evolved to the point of routinely allowing same-sex couples the ability to biologically procreate) if LDS theology continues to teach that God is supra-naturally Omnipotent (all-powerful), but that exalted, divine beings are incapable of procreating same-sex children, one could make the case that there seems to be a disconnect somewhere (though I have no doubt that many won't see a disconnect, either, and will find sense and assurance in narratives that continue to explain how divine omnipotence could never encompass an ability for same-sex couples to procreate).

Another seeming problem that current LDS theology will likely have to confront... if/when same-sex couples are able to biologically procreate, it seems LDS genealogy records  will require some additional direction on how to reflect such same-sex parentage...?  When same-sex couples pass away, presumably they won't be posthumously baptized, given current church policy on same-sex marriage... However, if said same-gender couples do have children of their own, to whom are their children sealed...?  To some other opposite-sex couple....?

Lastly, I realize that the topic of this thread deals more with the procreation of intelligences, and the examples I list above are biological in nature, rather than spiritual... However, it still seems related, given Mormonism's belief that all things are created spiritually before they are created physically, as well as the idea that "there is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

Note:  The "quote" feature seems to be messing up the format when I try to post... The above three posts of mine were all supposed to be in one single post, but for some reason, I can't post them all together and had to separate them into three separate posts...  Sorry!

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I think the confusion lies because of the teaching by science that some people are actually born that way, and that it isn't a choice as a lifestyle. Science is wrong on that point. We are not computers that are pre-programmed by our DNA. In fact studies have shown that DNA can be changed by our own choice of thoughts: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-through-mind-control/

Orientation, any sinful thought, or behavior, isn't part of our eternal identity. We are not going to get a do over. We aren't helpless, we are only born with our own set of weaknesses. If we succumb to those weaknesses instead of turning to Christ to help us make them strengths we will be helpless against them. It doesn't matter if those weaknesses are concerning orientation, or anything else. I think it's time to stop viewing LGBTQ people as helpless victims, but rather as anyone else. Just because some people's sinful behaviors are more apparent than others' doesn't make them any more severe. We either choose to live a Celestial law, or we don't follow Christ and utilize His atonement to it's full potential for us. Just my two cents worth anyway.

Waveslider, this is absurd. If it weren't so ridiculous it would be offensive. We do not change biologically influenced factors by mind control. I'm embarrassed just writing this.

A person does not change their race by will power. They don't change their hair or eye color. They don't change millions of factors that are a part of who they are, and is part of their DNA, by thinking about it. I consider orientation to be among these personal characteristics that are not changed because a person wants it to change.

I don't view LGBTQ as victims of their DNA. I view them as victims of society who treat them differently because of who they are. That's a pretty significant difference. LGBTQ people don't change their orientation or gender based on mind control, will power, or even prayer.

Edited September 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it weren't so ridiculous it would be offensive. We do not change biologically influenced factors by mind control. I'm embarrassed just writing this.

A person does not change their race by will power. They don't change their hair or eye color. They don't change millions of factors that are a part of who they are, and is part of their DNA, by thinking about it. I consider orientation to be among these personal characteristics that are not changed because a person wants it to change.

I don't view LGBTQ as victims of their DNA. I view them as victims of society who treat them differently because of who they are. That's a pretty significant difference. LGBTQ people don't change their orientation or gender based on mind control, will power, or even prayer.

And we are back to the start again.

What is the nature of SSA? 
- Is it an unalterable and possibly eternal biological trait like race?
- Is it a personality trait, something we may be born with but that can be overcome, like a predisposition to temper, anxiety issues, or jealousy?
- Is it a nutured trait or a choice?

Science has not found the answer yet.  God hasn't confirmed one way or the other.  All we can do at this point is apply reason.

[Rivers]

I don't think eternal heterosexual marriage is needed for the  purpose of eternal procreation in the same way that mortals procreate. 

There is complimentary relationship between men and women. 1 Cor. 11:11.  Men and Women will need each other in same way in which body and spirit need each other.  It's like the whole yin and yang concept. 

So for me it's not so much a question of whether same-sex attraction is eternal as whether gender is eternal.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Rivers

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

 

I think God organized Himself the same we do. He, like we, was never alone. He had the various family relationships, spiritual and physical, in a progressive fashion fitting the various estates.

 

In this way, each individual is both preexisting (co-eternal with God) and organized by God into a spirit with his preexisting personal attributes, and each spirit is created (organized) by God from the material of intelligence. No preexisting personal attribute is fixed until the end of our probation, and the mode of a spirit’s creation is not relevant. By that I mean, a co-existing intelligence may have as much to do with his development into a spirit as God does—it is likely a shared enterprise involving choice and covenant, much like our mortal birth is a shared enterprise between God, us, and those who bring us forth (choices and covenants made in the premortal world, and those fortunate enough, in the temple as well. For example, we all chose to come into the world through a sperm and an egg, or for those near the end of the sixth seal, a reasonable facsimile thereof!

 

The covenants that allow progress are structured irrespective of our personal attributes or the material nature of our intelligences. They are structured by God's attributes and intelligence (both spiritual and elemental). When we make and keep them within the realm or estate in which we abide, we have access to the higher realms and choices.

 

We are all a work in progress, regardless of our wherewithal.

 

So I think it good to meld what the best minds have to offer on this subject. In my effort to do that from what you've shared from Pratt and Young: People we label today as LGBT developed their psyche as intelligences co-eternal with God, were organized into spirit children and sent into the probationary state to obtain the covenants of exaltation. The same with those we label straight. Both sets of children suffer challenges related to mortal sexuality, and both have the opportunity to develop a sexuality that is fitting for exaltation. The only perfect model we have for that is Christ, and we gain insight into what He does with what He’s got by staying in touch with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Not all justification, cleansing, purifying and sanctification will occur in this life, and certainly not all physical challenges, but enough so to keep us on the path and progressing through the days God grants us.

 

I am a sinner pure and simple but I do not choose to identify myself by my sins- I am VERY aware of them

As my poor longsuffering sweetheart said to me this morning, "You do not need to remind me of my imperfections- I am very aware of them".

We definitely do not need to identify with them thereby making them "US".

Romans 7

Quote

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

If we identify ourselves as BEING that sin that dwells in me, WE as humans having agency have just died.  We are born that way- there is nothing we can do about it.

Let's party!!

THAT is the principle- we must fight against carnality all our lives.   I must admit this is a personal fight for me as it is for all of us, and I have little sympathy for those who give up on the struggle. It is a daily issue, a daily fight.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Waveslider, this is absurd. If it weren't so ridiculous it would be offensive. We do not change biologically influenced factors by mind control. I'm embarrassed just writing this.

A person does not change their race by will power. They don't change their hair or eye color. They don't change millions of factors that are a part of who they are, and is part of their DNA, by thinking about it. I consider orientation to be among these personal characteristics that are not changed because a person wants it to change.

I don't view LGBTQ as victims of their DNA. I view them as victims of society who treat them differently because of who they are. That's a pretty significant difference. LGBTQ people don't change their orientation or gender based on mind control, will power, or even prayer.

Yeah, well I was born this way too.

It is just as biological for me as it is for them.  I battle my demons every day and often they win, but I never identify with the demons.   They are NOT ME!

"If my thought/dreams could be seen they'd probably put my head in a guillotine, But it's all right ma, it's life and life only"- Bob Dylan

Being offensive is not the worst thing in life, the liberal mindset notwithstanding.  

Democrats are not inclusive of Republicans because they disagree with them.  Catholics are not inclusive of Jews.  Atheists are not inclusive of theists.

There ARE different points of view still allowed in this world- barely.

"It's all right ma, it's life and life only"

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

I'm so glad that God judges us by the intents of our hearts.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm so glad that God judges us by the intents of our hearts.

We are judged according to our works as well.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We are judged according to our works as well.

Never said we weren't. God takes everything in consideration.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

LGBTQ people don't change their orientation or gender based on mind control, will power, or even prayer.

And neither does anyone else.  That is the nature of what we call the "fall".

Life is tough and we all face a fight against the natural man

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I thought things were murky. Now there are pragmatic "natural laws" essential for the survival of the species of spirits that will never change? That murkiness seems to have cleared up quickly.

This is the paradox of the church and many within it. On one hand a person may be comfortable saying that things are complicated and that we don't understand all the mysteries of God while on the other hand they speak, teach, and act like they have the mysteries figured out and God's ways will never change. So much for eternal progression, I guess.  

Now I assume a person who speaks with absolute certainty and understanding of God is more dangerous than the person who admits to not knowing. I view one as humble and the other... not so much.

I'm ok with MFB's statement that there are pragmatic natural laws that exist, I just don't think we mortals can know for a surety what those laws are.  I think we'll continue to experiment through trial and errors, I think this is what it means to have line upon line revelation.  Trial and error experimentation, and think this is compatible with Alma 32.  

The problem with our policies dealing with the LGBT community is that many church leaders believe they already know and have the divine truth about the laws with respect to this issue.  Many of them are unwilling to budge.  Christofferson said that this will "never change".  This idea that we've already arrived at our destination, that an unchanging law has been declared and is known for 100% certainty.  This is contrary to the principles of line upon line revelation.  History shows as much, we have to open our eyes and not assume we have all the truth and need no more truth (a bible a bible).  

Edited September 21, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Orientation, any sinful thought, or behavior, isn't part of our eternal identity. We are not going to get a do over. We aren't helpless, we are only born with our own set of weaknesses. If we succumb to those weaknesses instead of turning to Christ to help us make them strengths we will be helpless against them. It doesn't matter if those weaknesses are concerning orientation, or anything else. I think it's time to stop viewing LGBTQ people as helpless victims, but rather as anyone else. Just because some people's sinful behaviors are more apparent than others' doesn't make them any more severe. We either choose to live a Celestial law, or we don't follow Christ and utilize His atonement to it's full potential for us. Just my two cents worth anyway.

Hi, waveslider,

As a citizen of the United States of America, I, for one, do not feel like and would prefer not be viewed as a "helpless victim" because of my homosexual orientation, and would hope no one would view my LGBTQ brothers and sisters as such (speaking of those that are here in the United States).  Our government empowers us to seek out redress for injustice, and we've seen that at play in recent years.  There is still work to be done, and at times, LGBTQ individuals are victims on a case-by-case basis, but in most non-life-threatening cases, there ARE channels to seek help, redress of wrongs, and protection from future injustice.

Instead of a "helpless victim," I'd prefer to be viewed as another amazing, marvelous, and beautiful manifestation of the diversity of God's infinite creation (just as all of my straight brothers and sisters are), and I'd prefer that the love and devotion that I feel and express for my husband to be appreciated as another equal (in scope, even if different in purpose) facet of the same divine and ennobling love that reflects through my heterosexual brothers' and sister's opposite-sex relationships; the love that brings out the best in each of us, according to 'the measure of our creation.'  I'd prefer to be recognized as someone who's sexual orientation is as innate and unchangeable as any of my heterosexual counterparts, with the same capacity to channel and direct my actions according my orientation to the objects of my affection within the scope and bounds of the measure of my creation, just as my heterosexual counterparts channel and direct their actions according to their orientation within the scope and bounds of the measure of their creation towards the objects of their affection.

We each must choose how to channel our romantic and sexual attractions... After a failed and miserable attempt at a mixed-orientation, opposite-sex marriage, it was clear to me that that was beyond the scope of what and how I was created.  To me, there's no higher and happier calling than to love and devote myself to the one man I am blessed to call my husband, just as my loving mother and father demonstrated for me. 

No... I am not a victim of my sexual orientation.  And the love I innately feel blesses, enriches, and ennobles my life and continually urges me to be the best version of myself I hope to continually be.  Thankfully, society has evolved to the extent to allow my husband and I, and others like us, the full and equal opportunity to pursue happiness according the dictates of our own conscience.  LGBTQ individuals around the world may be victims of the very real anti-gay forces attempting to alter or destroy them... but that is the result of said societies, not a natural result of our innate homosexual orientation.

I hope you find the same fulfillment, joy, and happiness in whatever relationship you have chosen to pursue, according to the measure of your creation, as well.

Best to you, your spouse, and your family, whomever they may be, and however they love...

D

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am a sinner pure and simple but I do not choose to identify myself by my sins- I am VERY aware of them

As my poor longsuffering sweetheart said to me this morning, "You do not need to remind me of my imperfections- I am very aware of them".

We definitely do not need to identify with them thereby making them "US".

Romans 7

If we identify ourselves as BEING that sin that dwells in me, WE as humans having agency have just died.  We are born that way- there is nothing we can do about it.

Let's party!!

THAT is the principle- we must fight against carnality all our lives.   I must admit this is a personal fight for me as it is for all of us, and I have little sympathy for those who give up on the struggle. It is a daily issue, a daily fight.

I think the (well, one) unfortunate thing is that our capacity, orientation, preference or ideation -- in any singular aspect of our makeup (in this conversation, our sexual makeup) does not become sinful until we allow it to take us across the line circumscribed by the covenants. We do this when we identify ourselves by them. When one disqualifies himself from the covenants (characterized as his place in the plan of salvation in the OP) on the basis of these things alone, he has already turned from the greater light which invites him to partake. As imperfect, fallen creatures, we cannot rightly conclude that these things carry as much weight as what God is trying to lead us into by way of His covenants. We are given the choice of assuming an identity based on one / few attributes or the complete identity -- that of a child of God --  God is giving us (this is why we take upon ourselves the name of Christ). As you say, assuming the identity of anything less is counterproductive to say the least.

And I think Pratt and Young would agree LOL

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

However, as with many other advances in science, technology, and medicine, our knowledge and understanding and even personal powers continue to unfold as our 'human experience' in mortality progresses.  And we are now on the verge of discovering that procreation isn't entirely dependent on having two genders:

This is the sort of thing I was referring to here Posted 5 hours ago when I said, “For example, we all chose to come into the world through a sperm and an egg, or for those near the end of the sixth seal, a reasonable facsimile thereof!”

No matter what is used, the source genetic material is always traced back to a man and a woman, even in cases where completely artificial rather than human-derived cells are used. And the people performing these feats will always trace their minds back to an originating sperm and egg.

This is one important lesson of the story of Adam and Eve. No matter how far removed we may get from their practices, there is always an origin that serves as the template for the saints, just as the eternal template served as its origin. They are many impressive ways that "human experience" has done things differently, and just because things can be done differently than commanded, doesn’t make them “true” or suitable for that happiness the Lord invites us into.

P.S. It is wonderful that a life can be brought into this world through whatever means, but more especially so when enlightened  by the Lord to have an eternal family according to His design. As we all know, despite the wonder of it all, circumstances are important, and the Lord has arranged for us to obtain those eternally rewarding circumstances.

Edited September 21, 2016 by CV75

[Daniel2]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No matter what is used, the source genetic material is always traced back to a man and a woman, even in cases where completely artificial rather than human-derived cells are used. And the people performing these feats will always trace their minds back to an originating sperm and egg.

This is one important lesson of the story of Adam and Eve. No matter how far removed we may get from their practices, there is always an origin that serves as the template for the saints, just as the eternal template served as its origin. They are many impressive ways that "human experience" has done things differently, and just because things can be done differently than commanded, doesn’t make them “true” or suitable for that happiness the Lord invites us into.

P.S. It is wonderful that a life can be brought into this world through whatever means, but more especially so when enlightened  by the Lord to have an eternal family according to His design. As we all know, despite the wonder of it all, circumstances are important, and the Lord has arranged for us to obtain those eternally rewarding circumstances.

This sounds poetic and even symbolically beautiful, but I'm not sure I understand the practical implications of what you're saying in so far as it relates to the religious practice of how or to whom children should be sealed when they are procreated by two women or two men, or how families should be recorded on the genealogical records of the church, or the glaring discrepancy of why human mortals are able to use far inferior (when cared to divine omnipotence) modern medicine to help same-sex couples procreate and have children of their own, but an allegedly all-powerful divine being can/will not.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This sounds poetic and even symbolically beautiful, but I'm not sure I understand the practical implications of what you're saying in so far as it relates to the religious practice of how or to whom children should be sealed when they are procreated by two women or two men, or how families should be recorded on the genealogical records of the church, or the glaring discrepancy of why human mortals are able to use far inferior (when cared to divine omnipotence) modern medicine to help same-sex couples procreate and have children of their own, but an allegedly all-powerful divine being can/will not.

I would say such children, when of age when they no longer have claim upon their parents for their maintenance, may simply opt to be sealed to parents according to the covenants. That would follow baptism, at which point the record is made for them in the Church and they link up with the family of their adoptive parents. As you know this may also be done in the temples after this mortal life is over, before the resurrection.

Human beings use medicine and other extensions and creations of mortal body and mind to carry out all sorts of things God does not opt to do with His, or condone us to do. Discrepancies are the reason for the Atonement and the terms for making it efficacious.

Edited September 21, 2016 by CV75

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I would say such children, when of age when they no longer have claim upon their parents for their maintenance, may simply opt to be sealed to parents according to the covenants. That would follow baptism, at which point the record is made for them in the Church and they link up with the family of their adoptive parents. As you know this may also be done in the temples after this mortal life is over, before the resurrection.

Human beings use medicine and other extensions and creations of mortal body and mind to carry out all sorts of things God does not opt to do with His, or condone us to do. Discrepancies are the reason for the Atonement and the terms for making it efficacious.

So, to state what you're suggesting above in plain terms, you're saying that:

In cases where the parties are still alive: once biologically-begotten children of a same-sex couple are old enough to no longer depend on their same-sex parents for help, after disavowing their own parents' (same-sex) marriage and getting baptized, they can (or should be able to) simply choose another good LDS family to be sealed to that has parents that are male and female... Is that it?

Your explanation of that which happens "after mortal life is over" is a little less clear to me... You say "this may also be done in temples" after said parties are all dead.  But that still doesn't get to the heart of what I meant.  Lets say both of the same-gender, biological parents and their children are already all deceased, and genealogy is attempted to be done so that temple work can also be done.  Presumably (and quite obviously), the same-gender parents won't be sealed to one another... So how do temple workers decide who to seal the children to...? Should they just 'skip' over any same-gender parent generations, erasing them the intent, using God's sealing power, to link together the entire great human family back to Adam and Eve?

Interesting notion that humans use medicine to carry out all sorts of things that God does not opt to do with his powers... or condone us to do.  But by focusing only on the "opt(ion) not to do," I think that's moved the goal post ever so slightly.  Also, while the Atonement allegedly exists to bridge the gap between people who choose to sin, I don't see that it's relevant to the question of whether or not divine beings are capable of procreation... So that also seems to be a bit of an unrelated tangent.

It seems to me that everything that medicine has come up with, thus far, is something that God is historically ABLE to do, even if/when he choses not to.  The implication that God simply chooses not to procreate with a same-sex spouse seems to be an admission that He would be just as physically capable of doing so, it's just that He "opts not to"... Is that what you're saying...?  That he's powerful enough to do so, but he just "opts not to"?

EDIT: P.S.  LOVE Gibran's self portrait there... His poetry is part of my post-Mormon scriptural cannon.  Bonus points for his artwork!  

Edited September 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

So, to state what you're suggesting above in plain terms, you're saying that:

In cases where the parties are still alive: once biologically-begotten children of a same-sex couple are old enough to no longer depend on their same-sex parents for help, after disavowing their own parents' (same-sex) marriage and getting baptized, they can (or should be able to) simply choose another good LDS family to be sealed to that has parents that are male and female... Is that it?

Your explanation of that which happens "after mortal life is over" is a little less clear to me... You say "this may also be done in temples" after said parties are all dead.  But that still doesn't get to the heart of what I meant.  Lets say both of the same-gender, biological parents and their children are already all deceased, and genealogy is attempted to be done so that temple work can also be done.  Presumably (and quite obviously), the same-gender parents won't be sealed to one another... So how do temple workers decide who to seal the children to...? Should they just 'skip' over any same-gender parent generations, erasing them the intent, using God's sealing power, to link together the entire great human family back to Adam and Eve?

Interesting notion that humans use medicine to carry out all sorts of things that God does not opt to do with his powers... or condone us to do.  But by focusing only on the "opt(ion) not to do," I think that's moved the goal post ever so slightly.  Also, while the Atonement allegedly exists to bridge the gap between people who choose to sin, I don't see that it's relevant to the question of whether or not divine beings are capable of procreation... So that also seems to be a bit of an unrelated tangent.

It seems to me that everything that medicine has come up with, thus far, is something that God is historically ABLE to do, even if/when he choses not to.  The implication that God simply chooses not to procreate with a same-sex spouse seems to be an admission that He would be just as physically capable of doing so, it's just that He "opts not to"... Is that what you're saying...?  That he's powerful enough to do so, but he just "opts not to"?

EDIT: P.S.  LOVE Gibran's self portrait there... His poetry is part of my post-Mormon scriptural cannon.  Bonus points for his artwork!  

I think the new policy follows an eternal template that is already carried out in the temples of the Lord, which honors and builds upon the records of the Church for both time and eternity by virtue of the powers to bind and to unbind as exercised by the Lord’s Apostles. Some binding and loosing is carried out for people in the flesh, and some wait until the next life be sorted out, We commonly teach that the Millennium will be a time to do this, for genealogies (including adoption into them) will be cleared up. Everyone will have a choice as to what to do to enter the covenants.

I don’t understand the “option not to do” reference in relation to moving a goal post. But exalted beings certainly procreate (by definition, regardless of how one believes the procreation might be done), and they become exalted through the Atonement, or by being reconciled or atoned with God. They can only become exalted beings if married as Adam and Eve.

I don’t know the precise genetic origin or the mechanics used in bringing about the advent of the Only Begotten in the flesh; could have been anything. But the Father would not have been able accomplish it outside of exaltation as explained in the paragraph above. So however He procreated us as spirits or the Only Begotten in the flesh, He is married to a Woman.

In the same way, I don’t know if asexual reproduction gave rise to sexual reproduction (for those that subscribe to evolution; by the terms of exaltation, God could not have done it without a Wife), but the story and the template – the covenant -- we are commanded to follow is that of Adam and Eve, and that is where our obligations begin.

Suffice it to say that there are conditions under which God would cease to be God, so He opts not to do them and to sustain eternal law. This teaching is intrinsically intertwined with the teaching of the story of Adam and Eve (Alma 42, 2 Nephi 2).

And thank you for the compliment!

I'd like to add, for what it's worth, that as a consultant to the Church in the early 80's, the Brethren were studying these very (and related) issues! You should see what they're looking at now!

[Rock_N_Roll]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

I think the confusion lies because of the teaching by science that some people are actually born that way, and that it isn't a choice as a lifestyle. Science is wrong on that point.

I assume from these comments (I could be wrong), that you have not had the experience of raising a child who came out as gay at some point.  Maybe you haven’t been a father who has knelt in prayer with a son that desperately wanted this – gayness – to go away, so he could be a “normal” LDS boy like his friends and fellow quorum members. Is it possible you haven't been a parent to a boy with a great testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and a desire to fulfill a mission and marry in the temple…who fasted, prayed, asked for fathers’ blessings and met with numerous bishops and stake presidents to help him “make it go away”?  If not, then maybe that is why you are confused by these teachings of science.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

So, to state what you're suggesting above in plain terms, you're saying that:

In cases where the parties are still alive: once biologically-begotten children of a same-sex couple are old enough to no longer depend on their same-sex parents for help, after disavowing their own parents' (same-sex) marriage and getting baptized, they can (or should be able to) simply choose another good LDS family to be sealed to that has parents that are male and female... Is that it?

Your explanation of that which happens "after mortal life is over" is a little less clear to me... You say "this may also be done in temples" after said parties are all dead.  But that still doesn't get to the heart of what I meant.  Lets say both of the same-gender, biological parents and their children are already all deceased, and genealogy is attempted to be done so that temple work can also be done.  Presumably (and quite obviously), the same-gender parents won't be sealed to one another... So how do temple workers decide who to seal the children to...? Should they just 'skip' over any same-gender parent generations, erasing them the intent, using God's sealing power, to link together the entire great human family back to Adam and Eve?

Interesting notion that humans use medicine to carry out all sorts of things that God does not opt to do with his powers... or condone us to do.  But by focusing only on the "opt(ion) not to do," I think that's moved the goal post ever so slightly.  Also, while the Atonement allegedly exists to bridge the gap between people who choose to sin, I don't see that it's relevant to the question of whether or not divine beings are capable of procreation... So that also seems to be a bit of an unrelated tangent.

It seems to me that everything that medicine has come up with, thus far, is something that God is historically ABLE to do, even if/when he choses not to.  The implication that God simply chooses not to procreate with a same-sex spouse seems to be an admission that He would be just as physically capable of doing so, it's just that He "opts not to"... Is that what you're saying...?  That he's powerful enough to do so, but he just "opts not to"?

EDIT: P.S.  LOVE Gibran's self portrait there... His poetry is part of my post-Mormon scriptural cannon.  Bonus points for his artwork!  

Biologically begotten children of a same sex couple ?

Temple workers do not decide to whom someone should be sealed, the family does. Gay people, like all of us sinners, can be sealed to whomever is appropriate. Their legal spouses are inappropriate.

Thanks for pointing out so many reasons why this is incompatible with Mormonism. That is the reason such a child should not be baptized until of age

We're I a child of a same sex couple, I would pick to whom I wanted to be sealed

Very simple. It need not be according to biology

Edited September 21, 2016 by mfbukowski