Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are using the answers every day, all day long...There's no mystery about it. From Darwin to Einstein, the hospital healing my wife's cancer....Our lives are enriched, improved beyond imagination...You walk into any Natural History museum, any hospital, Observatory, where you get the answers for where the Universe originated from....

We were enlightened by Minds like Darwin, Sagan, Pasteur, Einstein and thousands like them. I do understand the world well enough not to depend on Prayers, hopes only.....

The source of those enlightened minds, leaps of intuition, and provision of knowledge - mere chance?
I don't think so.

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

I was only saying that getting out of control isn't ordained of God. Being in control is. I was always taught that is one of the main reasons we are here on Earth, to learn how to control physical things. It's part of gaining a physical body. I didn't say anything about conjugal love, only lack of control over our passions. If we let our passions dictate our actions we are not in control. If we exert our control over our passions we are better able to keep our conjugal love alive in a more perfect union, instead of being promiscuous. I was going off of what you described as Eros love and how Eros involved a loss of control:

Passion in marriage isn't what I was saying was bad at all.

Thank you for the clarification.  What you wrote above by way of saying that God ordains the expression of opposite-sex sexual intimacy within the bonds of marriage (an expression of eros--passionate love--within the confines of marriage) is what I meant previously, when I attempted to summarize your beliefs by saying them this way:

If I understand you correctly, you believe that being heterosexually-oriented (or, to use language analogous to how you refer to homosexual orientation, “Opposite-Sex Attraction,” or “OS attraction”) is a God-ordained characteristic that is preferable over being homosexually-oriented.  Presumably, you would consider being OS-attracted as the ‘strength of the flesh’ that is the flip-side of the coin of your belief that being SS-attracted is a ‘weakness of the flesh.’  You feel that individuals who are homosexually-oriented should change their nature, through the miraculous and transformative powers of the atonement, into becoming heterosexually-oriented, in alignment with God’s commandments.

 

 

So, I presume with the understanding that the paragraph above is referring to the expressions of 'OS-attractions' between husband and wife, you would agree that such is ordained of God, and not a 'weakness of the flesh.'  Correct?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are using the answers every day, all day long...There's no mystery about it. From Darwin to Einstein, the hospital healing my wife's cancer....Our lives are enriched, improved beyond imagination...You walk into any Natural History museum, any hospital, Observatory, where you get the answers for where the Universe originated from....

We were enlightened by Minds like Darwin, Sagan, Pasteur, Einstein and thousands like them. I do understand the world well enough not to depend on Prayers, hopes only.....

Now you're talking like a Mormon.  You are giving us the usual Mormon appreciation for the sciences and the natural world.  Mormons do not depend just on prayer and faith, but tackle problems in practical ways, applying the best in secular knowledge to the many issues which we face,  Yet, you didn't provide any specific answers.  Do you have any?

[Daniel2]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Now you're talking like a Mormon.  You are giving us the usual Mormon appreciation for the sciences and the natural world.  Mormons do not depend just on prayer and faith, but tackle problems in practical ways, applying the best in secular knowledge to the many issues which we face,  Yet, you didn't provide any specific answers.  Do you have any?

Well.... in several posts I shared in this thread, I've shared scientific proof showing that dual genders aren't necessary to form embryos.  That's one scientific secular step explaining that there's alternate ways of procreation that don't involve dual-gendered sexual reproduction, which contradicts some common assumptions (though not clearly-defined or revealed LDS doctrine, which is relatively silent on the subject) about procreation made by Latter-day Saints today.

D

Edited September 27, 2016 by Daniel2

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Well.... in several posts I shared in this thread, I've shared scientific proof showing that dual genders aren't necessary to form embryos.  That's one scientific secular step explaining that there's alternate ways of procreation that don't involve dual-gendered sexual reproduction, which contradicts some common assumptions (though not clearly-defined or revealed LDS doctrine, which is relatively silent on the subject) about procreation made by Latter-day Saints today.

D

I don't see any of those common assumptions or contradictions among Mormons, Daniel.  Most people have no knowledge of these issues anyhow.  I have mentioned several times on this board the likelihood that the technical capacity to design and create life will be in human hands during this century.  A recent conference at Harvard discussed that very likelihood:  http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/42104/20160516/secret-meeting-moots-creation-synthetic-human-genome.htm .  So asexual reproduction is certainly possible, and we have long had people donating eggs and having them fertilized in the lab, and then implanted in someone's uterus.  What's not to like?

One of the reasons why this is a fruitful area for study and comment is that it belies the idea that a god has to be omnipotent and omniscient, when they really have to be so much more advanced than we are to do some of the amazing things they can do -- through their mastery of natural law and engineering.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Well.... in several posts I shared in this thread, I've shared scientific proof showing that dual genders aren't necessary to form embryos.  That's one scientific secular step explaining that there's alternate ways of procreation that don't involve dual-gendered sexual reproduction, which contradicts some common assumptions (though not clearly-defined or revealed LDS doctrine, which is relatively silent on the subject) about procreation made by Latter-day Saints today.

D

That is well and good, but there are no alternate ways of becoming exalted, which is what drives the capacity to procreate by whatever means. So, yes, dual genders are necessary to form the embryos through any means. We learn to become exalted beings by practicing in this life, in the order, time and place best suited for that purpose.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is well and good, but there are no alternate ways of becoming exalted, which is what drives the capacity to procreate by whatever means. So, yes, dual genders are necessary to form the embryos through any means. We learn to become exalted beings by practicing in this life, in the order, time and place best suited for that purpose.

Are these the "common assumptions" you are talking about, Daniel?

[mfbukowski]

Doncha love all this celestial porn worrying about how Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother make babies?  Objectifying the Divine Pair?  Trying to do the celestial science?  How ridiculous can you get?  It's an abomination

I think it's none of our business.  We have clear instructions- I think I will just follow them.

Some things should remain mysteries. 

All this to justify sin

No thanks

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Well.... in several posts I shared in this thread, I've shared scientific proof showing that dual genders aren't necessary to form embryos.  That's one scientific secular step explaining that there's alternate ways of procreation that don't involve dual-gendered sexual reproduction, which contradicts some common assumptions (though not clearly-defined or revealed LDS doctrine, which is relatively silent on the subject) about procreation made by Latter-day Saints today.

D

Secular science 

Great idea.  Why don't you figure out how much God weighs and how his spleen works as well so we can take this thing and make it more scientific.  Oh wait he has no blood so no spleen I suppose?  What other details about his anatomy can you fantasize?

How absurd can you get- using science in this context?  Why do you suppose these questions remain undefined?

Shockingly absurd

Time to turn over some tables in the temple in my opinion even if it is politically incorrect.  I'd mention plaiting whips but some might like that

Edited September 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are these the "common assumptions" you are talking about, Daniel?

Those ignorant Mormons

No understanding of science whatsoever

[mfbukowski]

One of the major rules of Neoplatonic Christianity is that God has an unchangeable nature

LDS people know that the word "nature" is an undefinable word which can mean anything and nothing.  Christianity is based on the idea that Christ has a "dual nature" which actually is a circular argument based on the idea that a "nature" exists and cannot be changed- so if one acts in more than one way one must have a dual "nature"

It is much like the idea of "substance" which is an amorphous word designating nothing.  What does "nature" or "substance" mean?  What kind of substance?  An oily substance?  A rocky substance?  A fleshy substance?   "Substance" alone means nothing without a modifier describing what kind of substance we are talking about

Same with "nature"

A man's nature is to be a man.  A dogs nature is to be a dog.  A mean nature is to act with meanness.  A happy nature is to be happy.   By itself a "nature" is nothing,

So is a nature unchangeable?  Since the word itself is meaningless I have no idea.  Are we talking about behaviors? feelings?  What is the word supposed to mean?

 

Quote

If I understand you correctly, you believe that being heterosexually-oriented (or, to use language analogous to how you refer to homosexual orientation, “Opposite-Sex Attraction,” or “OS attraction”) is a God-ordained characteristic that is preferable over being homosexually-oriented.  Presumably, you would consider being OS-attracted as the ‘strength of the flesh’ that is the flip-side of the coin of your belief that being SS-attracted is a ‘weakness of the flesh.’  You feel that individuals who are homosexually-oriented should change their nature, through the miraculous and transformative powers of the atonement, into becoming heterosexually-oriented, in alignment with God’s commandments.

Yes the atonement can do that but not until you believe it

But of course I know nothing.   No man knows my history

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are these the "common assumptions" you are talking about, Daniel?

They sure are!  As well as those demonstrated in mfbukowski's subsequent posts.

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Doncha love all this celestial porn worrying about how Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother make babies?  Objectifying the Divine Pair?  Trying to do the celestial science?  How ridiculous can you get?  It's an abomination

I think it's none of our business.  We have clear instructions- I think I will just follow them.

Some things should remain mysteries. 

All this to justify sin

No thanks

The scope of this thread is to discuss what is known and what is unknown about the procreation of spirit children, and whether or not there could be any possible means by which same-sex parents could procreate in the eternities.

It appears you feel that such contemplative discussion (and admitted speculation, given the limited official word on the topic so far as scriptural cannon is concerned) is, to use your words, 'ridiculous,' and 'an abomination.'

However, LDS history is full of such contemplative attempts to try to understand the nature of divine procreation, including (but not limited to) the creation of spirits, as well as the procreation regarding Christ's virgin birth.

Early church leaders searched for many such answers regarding the nature of our existence, how we came to be, our relationship to the divine, the methods and purposes of the creation of our spirits and our mortal bodies... Besides many of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s writings on the topic of Celestial procreation, Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation  and Gospel Doctrine and Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine have all touched on it, and one of my favorites was Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt (in fact, I'd REALLY recommend this last one... it's fascinating).

I'm not sure why it appears you feel these are inappropriate topics to be contemplating... such are the mysteries that were being approached and explored as marvelous, restored truths of the Restoration of the Gospel.  The modern church seems to be distancing itself from many of these types of discussions (as your comments reflect), instead favoring an emphasis on mainstreaming itself as a branch of Christianity that isn't as obscure as it originally may appear to modern audiences.  In more recent years, there seems to me to be a renewed emphasis on obedience, faithfulness in the face of doubt, authority, tithing, etc. (the clear exceptions being the gospel topic essays that address 'uncomfortable' or 'un-Orthodox'--as compared to most mainstream Christian churches that rely only on the Bible--due to the advancement of the internet, which have exposed the more... controversial/unconventional... aspects of early Mormonism).

What you feel should "remain mysteries"--topics like these--strike at the core of that which is most dear and beautiful, to me.  If God truly exists, as many Latter-day Saints insist he does, then either the assumptions most make about Celestial procreation are wrong, OR I've been given a faulty 'personal revelation' receptor... It is difficult for me to believe that God would allow me to experience the depth and breadth and beauty and fulfillment of the relationship that I enjoy and am blessed to share with my husband, after having tried for so long to live according to the ill-founded, but well-intentioned counsel from bishops that tried to tell me that if I chose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, I would find it fulfilling and 'true.'  If what I have experienced with my husband is truly Satanic or even self-deception, that I have no words as to what that means about God.  As trite as it may seem, a paraphrase of the popular song comes to mind: if loving him is wrong, then I don't want to be right. 

What I mean by the above is this: what you blithely dismiss as "all this to justify sin," is something I experience entirely differently.  I honestly, truthfully, genuinely, and with the best-of-intentions don't believe--I can't believe--that what I share with him is 'sin.'  I can see no way that same-sex relationships are wrong/damaging to others.  I DO see that it would be wrong for heterosexual men (those who 'lie with womankind') to lay with men (as they should/would with women)---because that commandment--that abomination--contradicts the measure of their creation as heterosexual men.  However, in a similar fashion, for me, a homosexual man, it was wrong for me to lie with a WOMAN as I should/would with a man; because I was being false and untrue to the measure of MY creation as a homosexual man.  I realize you may likely reject the notion that I was created AS a homosexual man, and that I've deluded myself (or succumbed to Satanic forces) into believing what you insist is a lie about my being created as a homosexual man, and accepting my current relationship as 'the measure of my creation.' 

All I can say is: you don't HAVE to accept my word for it; I alone am responsible for my thoughts, feelings, choices, behaviors, and actions; and I am ENTIRELY at peace with God/nature/the universe/the divine within and outside of me, insofar as I have embraced by sexual orientation and the loving relationship I share with my husband as integral, vital, wholesome, divinely-worthy, and worthwhile.  My thoughts and explorations and ruminations and attempts to find my place in this universe, through conversations like these, are similar to the types of conversations we ALL experience; who am I?  Why am I here?  What is my purpose?  The answers the LDS church has offered rang hollow, and bore no fruit that resonated with my inner being, and so, like any creation left to ponder his place in the universe, I ask questions beyond the bounds that seem 'normal' and resonate as truthful to you.  In such explorations, my intent is no less pure or well-intentioned than anyone else's; my level of selfishness is no greater nor unhealthy than anyone else seeking authentic answers that resonate as 'true.'  I search for further light and knowledge, to learn line upon line, precept upon precept, to be lifted higher and closer to 'truth.'  I am FULLY prepared to stand before ANY deity capable of knowing the intent of my heart and allowing Him/Her/It to see that I have had the best and most honest and willing and purest of intentions, should there ever be a bar of judgment.  And I earnestly believe that such a divine being can see that it was not and has never been 'all just to justify sin,' but to magnify the most expansive love I have known, to be appreciative and to not deny the divine gift I have been given, and to fulfill the measure of my creation within the sphere in which I was created.

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The scope of this thread is to discuss what is known and what is unknown about the procreation of spirit children, and whether or not there could be any possible means by which same-sex parents could procreate in the eternities.

If that is the simple case, what is known of the doctrine is that marriage between the two genders is the only way families are exalted (noting that individuals cannot be exalted), and that this kind of marriage is what engenders the continuation of the seeds (D&C 132) which entails the procreation of spirit children. Do the physical mechanics of a realm we cannot currently relate to without at the very least being being quickened really matter?

[Daniel2]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

what is known of the doctrine is that marriage between the two genders is the only way families are exalted

I haven't seen scriptural support for this.  Where, specifically, does LDS doctrine/cannon say that marriage "between the two genders" is "the ONLY way families are exalted"?

I think that's an assumption on your part (an assumption I believe most straight Latter-day Saints share, as well as many gay Latter-day Saints who accept the church's current approach to their homosexual orientation), but I don't believe that's stated anywhere in scripture/revelation.  But I'm interested in seeing where you feel it states as much....

Additionally, the following portion isn't entirely clear, either, at least, insofar as it's interpreted as meaning that "Marriage between two genders is THE ONLY way that engenders the continuation of seeds which entails the procreation of spirit children....":

that [marriage between two genders] is what engenders the continuation of the seeds...which entails the procreation of spirit children

Edited September 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I haven't seen scriptural support for this.  Where, specifically, does LDS doctrine/cannon say that marriage "between the two genders" is "the ONLY way families are exalted"?

I think that's an assumption on your part (an assumption I believe most straight Latter-day Saints share, as well as many gay Latter-day Saints who accept the church's current approach to their homosexual orientation), but I don't believe that's stated anywhere in scripture/revelation.  But I'm interested in seeing where you feel it states as much....

Additionally, the following portion isn't entirely clear, either, at least, insofar as it's interpreted as meaning that "Marriage between two genders is THE ONLY way that engenders the continuation of seeds which entails the procreation of spirit children...."

D&C 132 speaks of marriage in terms of men and women; couples sealed by him who is anointed to perform it, and subsequently having a continuation of the seeds, or bearing the souls of men in the eternal world.

[Daniel2]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

D&C 132 speaks of marriage in terms of men and women; couples sealed by him who is anointed to perform it, and subsequently having a continuation of the seeds, or bearing the souls of men in the eternal world.

Yes, it does, regarding polygamous marriages.  And that makes sense that D&C doesn't contemplate marriage between individuals of the same gender, because that wasn't an issue before the saints, at that day.  But LDS doctrine accommodates the belief that God isn't restricted only to what past prophets have revealed.

Of course, we also know that the family proclamation speaks of marriage between a man and a woman being ordained of God.

But neither D&C 132 nor the family proclamation exclude the possibility that God could reveal and ordain other forms of marriage, as yet unmentioned.

Unless you can point to such exclusionary language including the words "ONLY marriages between a man and woman/women"....?

 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, it does, regarding polygamous marriages.  And that makes sense that D&C doesn't contemplate marriage between individuals of the same gender, because that wasn't an issue before the saints, at that day.  But LDS doctrine accommodates the belief that God isn't restricted only to what past prophets have revealed.

Of course, we also know that the family proclamation speaks of marriage between a man and a woman being ordained of God.

But neither D&C 132 nor the family proclamation exclude the possibility that God could reveal and ordain other forms of marriage, as yet unmentioned.

Unless you can point to such exclusionary language including the words "ONLY marriages between a man and woman/women"....?

 

So much wresting of the scripture makes my head hurt.
Not to mention the childish "well, you never said I COULDN'T do XYZ bad thing so it must be ok" reasoning.
Doesn't work when my kid does it either.

The only reason marriage even exists at all is because from the very beginning, even premortally, God put male and female together in marriage.  Never once in any scripture, record, revelation, or example of marriage did God even allow for the possibility of SSM.  It's 100% an invention of fallen man.
A lack of prohibition does not give permission.

• Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
  5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
  6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I don't see our Lord and Savior allowing for any other version in his description of marriage.

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, it does, regarding polygamous marriages.  And that makes sense that D&C doesn't contemplate marriage between individuals of the same gender, because that wasn't an issue before the saints, at that day.  But LDS doctrine accommodates the belief that God isn't restricted only to what past prophets have revealed.

Of course, we also know that the family proclamation speaks of marriage between a man and a woman being ordained of God.

But neither D&C 132 nor the family proclamation exclude the possibility that God could reveal and ordain other forms of marriage, as yet unmentioned.

Unless you can point to such exclusionary language including the words "ONLY marriages between a man and woman/women"....?

 

Here's another easy way to put it: "hot drinks" means tea and coffee; "marriage" means man and woman.

What kind of probability you're using to determine whether extant LDS scripture excludes the possibly that God could reveal something to the contrary? Reproductive science doesn't prove anything to the contrary; does math and logic?

Look how many times, and how the word "all" is used in D&C 132. While perfectly inclusive, it is also about "all those who receive and abide in my law" -- so those who don't receive and abide His law exclude themselves. The conditions of the law are found in verse 7. These conditions exist for every covenant.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

They sure are!  As well as those demonstrated in mfbukowski's subsequent posts.

So these are the "common assumptions" you have been talking about, and there are no other views among Mormons -- including mine?

Quote

CV75 said:

That is well and good, but there are no alternate ways of becoming exalted, which is what drives the capacity to procreate by whatever means. So, yes, dual genders are necessary to form the embryos through any means. We learn to become exalted beings by practicing in this life, in the order, time and place best suited for that purpose.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The scope of this thread is to discuss what is known and what is unknown about the procreation of spirit children, and whether or not there could be any possible means by which same-sex parents could procreate in the eternities.

It appears you feel that such contemplative discussion (and admitted speculation, given the limited official word on the topic so far as scriptural cannon is concerned) is, to use your words, 'ridiculous,' and 'an abomination.'

However, LDS history is full of such contemplative attempts to try to understand the nature of divine procreation, including (but not limited to) the creation of spirits, as well as the procreation regarding Christ's virgin birth.

Early church leaders searched for many such answers regarding the nature of our existence, how we came to be, our relationship to the divine, the methods and purposes of the creation of our spirits and our mortal bodies... Besides many of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s writings on the topic of Celestial procreation, Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation  and Gospel Doctrine and Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine have all touched on it, and one of my favorites was Key to the Science of Theology, by Parley P. Pratt (in fact, I'd REALLY recommend this last one... it's fascinating).

I'm not sure why it appears you feel these are inappropriate topics to be contemplating... such are the mysteries that were being approached and explored as marvelous, restored truths of the Restoration of the Gospel.  The modern church seems to be distancing itself from many of these types of discussions (as your comments reflect), instead favoring an emphasis on mainstreaming itself as a branch of Christianity that isn't as obscure as it originally may appear to modern audiences.  In more recent years, there seems to me to be a renewed emphasis on obedience, faithfulness in the face of doubt, authority, tithing, etc. (the clear exceptions being the gospel topic essays that address 'uncomfortable' or 'un-Orthodox'--as compared to most mainstream Christian churches that rely only on the Bible--due to the advancement of the internet, which have exposed the more... controversial/unconventional... aspects of early Mormonism).

What you feel should "remain mysteries"--topics like these--strike at the core of that which is most dear and beautiful, to me.  If God truly exists, as many Latter-day Saints insist he does, then either the assumptions most make about Celestial procreation are wrong, OR I've been given a faulty 'personal revelation' receptor... It is difficult for me to believe that God would allow me to experience the depth and breadth and beauty and fulfillment of the relationship that I enjoy and am blessed to share with my husband, after having tried for so long to live according to the ill-founded, but well-intentioned counsel from bishops that tried to tell me that if I chose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, I would find it fulfilling and 'true.'  If what I have experienced with my husband is truly Satanic or even self-deception, that I have no words as to what that means about God.  As trite as it may seem, a paraphrase of the popular song comes to mind: if loving him is wrong, then I don't want to be right. 

What I mean by the above is this: what you blithely dismiss as "all this to justify sin," is something I experience entirely differently.  I honestly, truthfully, genuinely, and with the best-of-intentions don't believe--I can't believe--that what I share with him is 'sin.'  I can see no way that same-sex relationships are wrong/damaging to others.  I DO see that it would be wrong for heterosexual men (those who 'lie with womankind') to lay with men (as they should/would with women)---because that commandment--that abomination--contradicts the measure of their creation as heterosexual men.  However, in a similar fashion, for me, a homosexual man, it was wrong for me to lie with a WOMAN as I should/would with a man; because I was being false and untrue to the measure of MY creation as a homosexual man.  I realize you may likely reject the notion that I was created AS a homosexual man, and that I've deluded myself (or succumbed to Satanic forces) into believing what you insist is a lie about my being created as a homosexual man, and accepting my current relationship as 'the measure of my creation.' 

All I can say is: you don't HAVE to accept my word for it; I alone am responsible for my thoughts, feelings, choices, behaviors, and actions; and I am ENTIRELY at peace with God/nature/the universe/the divine within and outside of me, insofar as I have embraced by sexual orientation and the loving relationship I share with my husband as integral, vital, wholesome, divinely-worthy, and worthwhile.  My thoughts and explorations and ruminations and attempts to find my place in this universe, through conversations like these, are similar to the types of conversations we ALL experience; who am I?  Why am I here?  What is my purpose?  The answers the LDS church has offered rang hollow, and bore no fruit that resonated with my inner being, and so, like any creation left to ponder his place in the universe, I ask questions beyond the bounds that seem 'normal' and resonate as truthful to you.  In such explorations, my intent is no less pure or well-intentioned than anyone else's; my level of selfishness is no greater nor unhealthy than anyone else seeking authentic answers that resonate as 'true.'  I search for further light and knowledge, to learn line upon line, precept upon precept, to be lifted higher and closer to 'truth.'  I am FULLY prepared to stand before ANY deity capable of knowing the intent of my heart and allowing Him/Her/It to see that I have had the best and most honest and willing and purest of intentions, should there ever be a bar of judgment.  And I earnestly believe that such a divine being can see that it was not and has never been 'all just to justify sin,' but to magnify the most expansive love I have known, to be appreciative and to not deny the divine gift I have been given, and to fulfill the measure of my creation within the sphere in which I was created.

 

Nice post, thanks, it helps.

I just cannot understand how on one hand "the answers of the LDS church rang hollow" while you still accept the idea of filling the measure of your creation.  It seems inconsistent that you are so concerned about the position of he LDS church on this matter while saying that its answers "ring hollow".  Were I in your position I would be actively engaged in a new church and never look back.

And I think your sometimes vigorous criticism of the church does not help you case in the above post in using LDS terminology out of context.

I think it is as futile to speculate on how God creates spirit children as it is to speculate on the chemical reactions required to create blood at the time of the fall or to eliminate the need for blood in the resurrection.

I suppose we could speculate on the physics of the atonement, and figure out how the death of Jesus somehow forgives sin in a scientific way,  but I don't see much future in that kind of discussion either.   I am mystified that such speculation is even possible for you.  I see these as poetic explanations for the spiritual truth that God is our Father, that we also have a Mother and that the underlying belief is of Opposition in all things- as other religions teach yin and yang etc.  The details are far beyond our understanding and will be inevitably be nothing close to "the way things really are".   If one studies the philosophy of science itself, it is highly debatable that the theories of science represent "the way things really are" as opposed to what our fail intelligence can piece together which fortunately works for practical purposes

Were you to be in another religion and try to describe the details of how your beliefs "fit" their conception of yin and yang, your case would be stronger I think, as long as they actually DID entail a productive discussion for the believers in such things.

 I have read the books you have referenced, but believe that the authors were coming from a flawed epistemological position which has largely been rejected in philosophical circles in the last hundred years.  To me, these writings are beautiful poetry, as are the scriptures, but not to be taken as a science text.  It is hard for me to understand the value of such speculation.  In short I think the philosophical presuppositions of all those authors show an inadequate understanding of the underlying issues as they are now understood.  

So again, thanks.  I think perhaps I understand your position better but still see major inconsistencies which are beyond my comprehension.   I wish you well and at no time have meant to make this personal

I just cannot see how SSM can possibly fit into LDS theology and I believe the attempt will be futile.  I hope someone can explain how SSM can fit into a consistent semblance of LDS theology but it seems impossible.  Through the entire history of the bible, homsexuality has been condemned.  

To now reverse thousands of years of theology to say "Oops- they got it all wrong" seems to be a fantasy.

Another version of Christianity- sure why not?  But the theology of the past will have to be totally thrown out and a new religion dreamed up.   I am open to ways to resolve this but cannot imagine how it could be done.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I just cannot see how SSM can possibly fit into LDS theology and I believe the attempt will be futile.

...and the theology was never about how spirits are created, but about how men and women become exalted through the construct of marriage (as defined in scripture) and by turning their hearts to fathers (as used in scripture) and children (as brought forth in marriage, whether by adoption or by conception, as presented in scripture).

[mfbukowski]

Just now, CV75 said:

...and the theology was never about how spirits are created, but about how men and women become exalted through the construct of marriage (as defined in scripture) and by turning their hearts to fathers (as used in scripture) and children (as brought forth in marriage, whether by adoption or by conception, as presented in scripture).

Exactly and that is why it will never work.  Mormonism IS, in effect, worship of the (heterosexual) family relationship and its elevation to godhood.  The nature of the Godhead itself is such a family.  Eve is called "the mother of all living"/

The fall itself is based on Adam remaining alone in the garden without Eve, therefore making it impossible for mankind to be brought forth.  The symbolism I think cannot be escaped.

This is not about "love" in general, it is about a love which unifies both halves of mankind, male and female

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly and that is why it will never work.  Mormonism IS, in effect, worship of the (heterosexual) family relationship and its elevation to godhood.  The nature of the Godhead itself is such a family.  Eve is called "the mother of all living"/

The fall itself is based on Adam remaining alone in the garden without Eve, therefore making it impossible for mankind to be brought forth.  The symbolism I think cannot be escaped.

This is not about "love" in general, it is about a love which unifies both halves of mankind, male and female

I’ve tried to drill this down to the expression of God’s covenant rather than the expression of human sexuality, since in company or societies where sexuality is unduly emphasized (usually for advertising/economic or propaganda/political purposes), it is too easy to get hung up on dividing people up by these fairly recent, artificial and rapidly evolving terms and forcing that lens onto the definition of anything else. Perverts! LOL (as in perverse generation)... But by focusing on the covenant (which was never described in terms of sexuality, but rather in terms of multiplying and replenishing the earth—a big difference in my view), we use the lens of covenant children of God, and that defines all else in more inclusive terms.

The indicator of its eternal nature is that the covenant never distinguished itself as exclusionary, or as hetero- over homo-, only by what it actually consists of, a man and a woman.

[thesometimesaint]

Would Heaven be Heaven without Tchaikovsky?