Jump to content

Gay kiss in the buzz light year movie


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Obehave said:

I don't think so.  I think that would only be a mortal body with no life in it.  Scientists aren't claiming to be able to reproduce the spirit of God for a body now, are they?  A mortal body without a spirit in it is not alive.

Wasn't Adam (if you think he is a literal figure) created outside a womb?

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But isn't that just a current technological limitation? Say, in the future, we are capable of isolating and combining individual chromosomes then you could simply take 23 from each partner and randomize them to generate an authentic biological child.

Though, let's be honest, when bio-tech advances to that level we are totally going to be in Gattaca territory and people won't even be interested in having their own children any longer - they will all want custom designed super children instead.

 

Or a planet full of slaves, some to be hauled off to pleasure resorts for your amusement. Farming babies. 

 

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Wasn't Adam (if you think he is a literal figure) created outside a womb?

Brigham Young taught that he and Eve were born on another world and brought here. According to him, there is no other way for life to be created. So, they did indeed have belly buttons. :) 

He believed Adam was a literal figure. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rongo said:

Brigham Young taught that he and Eve were born on another world and brought here. According to him, there is no other way for life to be created. So, they did indeed have belly buttons. :) 

He believed Adam was a literal figure. 

Which seems to be contradicted by the biblical account of how Adam was created.

BY also had the Adam God teaching included in the temple so he does not have a great track record when it comes to Adam.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Which seems to be contradicted by the biblical account of how Adam was created.

BY also had the Adam God teaching included in the temple so he does not have a great track record when it comes to Adam.

It's a function of language. I don't think they were able to comprehend that 6000 years ago, without turning Adam into a god. See Mark Bukowski.

Edited by rodheadlee
Clarification
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It's a function of language. I don't think they were able to comprehend that 6000 years ago, without turning Adam into a god. See Mike Bukowski.

Mark.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

I agree --- the march towards "Brave New World" is antithetical to the plan. 

Depending on one's beliefs about how the pre-existence affects mortality (or is intended to impact mortality), this sort of meddling with the "fountain" can be seen as an abomination. It tends towards trying to have the milk without buying the cow (bypassing marriage and procreation and the things children are "entitled" to, per the Proclamation). 

I find it hard to take the Proclamation’s stance that children are entitled to a father and mother seriously considering how often this doesn’t happen through no fault of the parties involved. If God so often denies it to children on grounds that to us seem random how much of an entitlement is it? Even in the Church the ideal nuclear family is a minority now.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Which seems to be contradicted by the biblical account of how Adam was created.

BY also had the Adam God teaching included in the temple so he does not have a great track record when it comes to Adam.

Ironic, because the portrayal of Adam in the temple was transmitted **directly** through Brigham Young. There is no Adam-God in the temple (yes, I know you're referring to the Lecture at the Veil, which was short-lived and wasn't as blatantly Adam-God as people represent). What is taught in the endowment, and which was transmitted to us directly through Brigham Young, is very orthodox about Adam and God.

Brigham Young was clear that the story about Adam and Eve being made from dust or a rib was allegorical. We are all made of "dust" in the sense that we are composed of elements that were forged in stars, but literally, we were made through procreation. Adam and Eve were similar, according to Young:

"When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth."[1]

"Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say . . . You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."[2]

"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."[3]

Brigham wasn't the only one. Erastus Snow, for example:

"Oh, says one, we are told that Adam was created, not born. This is something I am not disposed to dwell upon much at this time. You can think of this as you please, whether he was created or born, or whether a man, because he is born, is not created. I do not understand the term creation as meaning something suddenly made out of nothing. I believe man that is born is as much created as the thing which is made in a mould and turned out to dry, which we call an adobie. It matters not whether it takes a few minutes to make it, or a longer period—it is created or made. And the term create I understand to be synonymous with the verb to make, and what is made is created, and what is organized is formed. And when it is written that God formed man in his own image and likeness, it does not describe the time or manner, but simply the fact of having made or created man in his own image."[4]

[1] Brigham Young, October 23, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:6

[2] Brigham Young, October 9, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:285

[3] Brigham Young, April 20, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:319

[4] Erastus Snow, January 20, 1878. Journal of Discourses 19:323-324

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I find it hard to take the Proclamation’s stance that children are entitled to a father and mother seriously considering how often this doesn’t happen through no fault of the parties involved. 

They are entitled to it, but often fall short of that because of the wickedness and selfishness of others' choices and agency. They are still entitled to it, and I like that strong wording.

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If God so often denies it to children on grounds that to us seem random how much of an entitlement is it?

Why do you claim that it is God who is denying it to children?

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Even in the Church the ideal nuclear family is a minority now.

CFR that the ideal nuclear family is now a minority in the Church. We're certainly heading in that direction, but I don't think we're there yet. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ironic, because the portrayal of Adam in the temple was transmitted **directly** through Brigham Young. There is no Adam-God in the temple (yes, I know you're referring to the Lecture at the Veil, which was short-lived and wasn't as blatantly Adam-God as people represent). What is taught in the endowment, and which was transmitted to us directly through Brigham Young, is very orthodox about Adam and God.

Brigham Young was clear that the story about Adam and Eve being made from dust or a rib was allegorical. We are all made of "dust" in the sense that we are composed of elements that were forged in stars, but literally, we were made through procreation. Adam and Eve were similar, according to Young:

"When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth."[1]

"Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say . . . You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."[2]

"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."[3]

Brigham wasn't the only one. Erastus Snow, for example:

"Oh, says one, we are told that Adam was created, not born. This is something I am not disposed to dwell upon much at this time. You can think of this as you please, whether he was created or born, or whether a man, because he is born, is not created. I do not understand the term creation as meaning something suddenly made out of nothing. I believe man that is born is as much created as the thing which is made in a mould and turned out to dry, which we call an adobie. It matters not whether it takes a few minutes to make it, or a longer period—it is created or made. And the term create I understand to be synonymous with the verb to make, and what is made is created, and what is organized is formed. And when it is written that God formed man in his own image and likeness, it does not describe the time or manner, but simply the fact of having made or created man in his own image."[4]

[1] Brigham Young, October 23, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:6

[2] Brigham Young, October 9, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:285

[3] Brigham Young, April 20, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:319

[4] Erastus Snow, January 20, 1878. Journal of Discourses 19:323-324

And this is currently officially taught where within the church?

 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

And this is currently officially taught where within the church?

Neither side of this (and many other questions) is officially taught anywhere in the Church today. The Church's official stance on most things is that there is no official teaching (gospel topics essays are exhibit A of this). 

Which leaves members free to think, believe, speculate, and even teach that Adam was literally created out of dust, or that he wasn't. The Church isn't going to touch this (and many other things) with a ten foot pole. 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

They are entitled to it, but often fall short of that because of the wickedness and selfishness of others' choices and agency. They are still entitled to it, and I like that strong wording.

Why do you claim that it is God who is denying it to children?

Mom dies in childbirth. What wickedness and/or selfishness led to this turn of events?

If they are entitled to it why did God let her die doing what she was *checks notes* supposed to do? And if it is an entitlement why did God deny this child what they were entitled to?

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Ironic, because the portrayal of Adam in the temple was transmitted **directly** through Brigham Young. There is no Adam-God in the temple (yes, I know you're referring to the Lecture at the Veil, which was short-lived and wasn't as blatantly Adam-God as people represent). What is taught in the endowment, and which was transmitted to us directly through Brigham Young, is very orthodox about Adam and God.

Brigham Young was clear that the story about Adam and Eve being made from dust or a rib was allegorical. We are all made of "dust" in the sense that we are composed of elements that were forged in stars, but literally, we were made through procreation. Adam and Eve were similar, according to Young:

"When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth."[1]

"Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say . . . You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."[2]

"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."[3]

Brigham wasn't the only one. Erastus Snow, for example:

"Oh, says one, we are told that Adam was created, not born. This is something I am not disposed to dwell upon much at this time. You can think of this as you please, whether he was created or born, or whether a man, because he is born, is not created. I do not understand the term creation as meaning something suddenly made out of nothing. I believe man that is born is as much created as the thing which is made in a mould and turned out to dry, which we call an adobie. It matters not whether it takes a few minutes to make it, or a longer period—it is created or made. And the term create I understand to be synonymous with the verb to make, and what is made is created, and what is organized is formed. And when it is written that God formed man in his own image and likeness, it does not describe the time or manner, but simply the fact of having made or created man in his own image."[4]

[1] Brigham Young, October 23, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:6

[2] Brigham Young, October 9, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:285

[3] Brigham Young, April 20, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:319

[4] Erastus Snow, January 20, 1878. Journal of Discourses 19:323-324

The thing I find most thought provoking within ‘the embodied Adam being born of a woman’ vs ‘the body of Adam first being formed like Pinocchio and then animated’ debate is that the resurrection, whether it be the resurrection of a Lazarus or the bodily resurrection into immortality, clearly demonstrates that God can indeed take a pile of dirt, mold it inwardly and outwardly into the form of a man, and then animate it with a spirit. Of course, the mystery and apparent inconsistency here can easily be explained when one realizes that before a resurrection can take place there must first be the natural creation of a body with the infusion of a genetic ‘fingerprint’ (DNA) from both a father and a mother. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We have cloned animals and they are alive.

Remember the pigs (swine) that had demonic spirits in them, after Jesus cast them out of a man?  Apparently demonic spirits can dwell in whatever body they can get into.

 

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it is true that animals have spirits as well what is the difference?

What type of spirits they are OR How they get into bodies, maybe?  Who knows, maybe God would allow some of his sons or daughters to go into a body created by a scientist in a lab using cells from only one person's body, male OR female.

I'd just prefer the old fashioned way, if I can have my druthers, so that I could have both a mother AND a father and an official birth certificate to inform me of who (and what) my parents are.  

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Mom dies in childbirth. What wickedness and/or selfishness led to this turn of events?

If they are entitled to it why did God let her die doing what she was *checks notes* supposed to do? And if it is an entitlement why did God deny this child what they were entitled to?

 

I've never read the word "entitlement" in the proclamation the way that it sounds like you are reading it.  I read it as a "right" but not a guarantee.  

What that means to me is that we all have a responsibility to do what we can to enable those rights to be realized and we will be accountable for our choices that deny that entitlement from another person. 

In a fallen world though, we can't do anything to guarantee every child gets the entitlement they are due.  Agency and mortality will always intervene with some. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

If bodies for spirits can be made in vitro, why not cloning?  Not much difference than having an identical twin genetically speaking.  And then it gets implanted like in vitro?

In vitro fertilization involves both a man and a woman, just as the old fashioned way does except for how the man fertilizes the woman's egg(s).

Cloning, as I understand it, involves duplicating the cells of only one sex, male OR female.  If I'm wrong and cloning involves both a man and a woman then I can see how that could work.     

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've never read the word "entitlement" in the proclamation the way that it sounds like you are reading it.  I read it as a "right" but not a guarantee.  

What that means to me is that we all have a responsibility to do what we can to enable those rights to be realized and we will be accountable for our choices that deny that entitlement from another person. 

In a fallen world though, we can't do anything to guarantee every child gets the entitlement they are due.  Agency and mortality will always intervene with some. 

It just seems an odd thing to say someone is entitled to something but they only get it when circumstances do not deny it to them. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Are people entitled to not be sexually assaulted? 

Why does God deny them this when it happens?

Not comparable. Every (or almost every) sexual assault comes about through human choice. People grow up without one or both parents all the time with no one sinning to make it happen. I gave an example already. Women die in childbirth. Either parent could die to disease or injury.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Or a planet full of slaves, some to be hauled off to pleasure resorts for your amusement. Farming babies. 

 

If clones or designer babies can be cheaply created, then it may cause a minor change in our society imo, but at this point in our civilization, it is plenty cheap enough to find slave labour produced the way it has been for eons.  I can see problems arising though if designer babies get patented or cloning and the babies are seen as owned by companies, products that are then sold and repossessed if the adoptive parents fall short of payment or growing clones for spare body parts just as there are now transplant tourism for transplants, etc. now.  The implication as far as those issues is not that dramatic of a change in my view.  We have the ethical debates now of whether it is right for someone to pay another to ‘donate’ a needed organ, for example and again, the whole human trafficking issue.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not comparable. Every (or almost every) sexual assault comes about through human choice. People grow up without one or both parents all the time with no one sinning to make it happen. I gave an example already. Women die in childbirth. Either parent could die to disease or injury.

Your example proves your rule. Women dying in childbirth is an astronomically tiny reason for one parent families,compared to divorce or extra-marital sex. Those are almost always the reason why there is only one parent.

As others have pointed out,tragic death also happens in this fallen world,but where the breakup of the ideal family comes about through agency (and not tragedy), then there is culpability. Somewhere,if not with both parties.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Your example proves your rule. Women dying in childbirth is an astronomically tiny reason for one parent families,compared to divorce or extra-marital sex. Those are almost always the reason why there is only one parent.

As others have pointed out,tragic death also happens in this fallen world,but where the breakup of the ideal family comes about through agency (and not tragedy), then there is culpability. Somewhere,if not with both parties.

Not really. Plus it is the child that is entitled. Why should the child lose the entitlement if their parent or parents screw up?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...