That is a good point, Shulem, and it actually complicates matters even more for the Mopologists. If people in the lower kingdoms get to have functioning genitalia—but no procreative abilities—then they can still have “guilt free” sex without the burden of having to worry about pregnancy.
Seriously, did the Afore bother to think this through before he typed out that blog post???
What do lower-kingdom women do with their breasts? What purpose do breasts serve if they can't entice another for sexual delight let alone feed a hungry baby? How is that perfect according to Alma's formula for a perfect resurrection? I have serious questions for Daniel Peterson when it comes to breasts and vaginas in the lower kingdoms. Imagine women in the lower kingdoms not have pleasure with their breasts because they have to be tucked behind a robe 24/7.
It would seem that this topic has roused quite a few of the stalwart Latter-day Saints on this fine sabbath day over at SeN. There appears to be a consensus: yes—there will be forced sterilization of people in the lower kingdoms. All of the believers—the Afore included—believe that this is settled LDS doctrine.
But there is disagreement on how this will happen. The Afore keeps mentioning “mutilation,” though no one here has ever said or suggested that idea. (It’s not *our* job to explain these oddball beliefs.) But the question remains: How will this work? Will those in the lower kingdoms have non-functioning genitals? The poster called Tangata Neneva has speculated that something akin to “chemical castration” might be used, where people are deprived of their desire somehow.
What seems clear, in any case, is that this is meant as a *punishment.* That, in essence, was my point some years ago when I noted that the Afore seemed to be gleefully delighting in the fact that (e.g.) Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and others will be “impotent” or “sterile” in the next life.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
What seems clear, in any case, is that this is meant as a *punishment.*
Bingo! That is is the essence of Mormonism: Blessings vs. punishments.
Mormonism is all about how we will be punished and reduced in value if we refuse Mormonism in this life. It's always been about threats and punishment which is central to the theme of the Doctrine & Covenants. Mormonism is just another system of religion designed to terrorize people here on earth. The D&C threatens us with death, terror, and everlasting punishment if we refuse to submit. But I am not afraid of the Mormons or their threats. I've stood up to them in this life and will do so in the next if need be.
Hymn #19 - We Thank Thee O God For A Prophet wrote:We thank thee, O God, for a prophet
To guide us in these latter days.
... The wicked who fight against Zion
Will surely be smitten at last.
...
Thus on to eternal perfection The honest and faithful will go,
While they who reject this glad message
Shall never such happiness know.
For me, this encapsulates the divide between the "wicked" critics and the "honest & faithful" defenders, as seen from the defenders' PoV.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
An utterly recalcitrant, boot-licker, scripture-heavy post to wrap up the sabbath. What a joke. “Weak sauce” indeed. Lol!
Perhaps he should stick to begging us to critique his food posts? Like, are we supposed to tell him that his predilection for deracinated, strip-mall “Thai” food, drenched in coconut milk and seasoned with jarred curry paste, is “okay”?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
A couple of things to note. The doctrine seems to be all about the outcome of sex (offspring) rather then process of having sex. It’s basically suggesting that sex in the Celestial Kingdom will result in offspring, sex everywhere else, won’t. There’s no doctrine that suggests a man and a woman in the lesser kingdoms won’t be able to have sex. In fact, if gender is eternal, the doctrine supports the notion that there will be. So member the man fires blanks except in the CK etc.
The problem with the doctrine is the message it sends to those member couples who, for whatever reason, are not physically able to have kids. The doctrine is telling them they are “less than”. That they are already marked as TL/TK dwellers. It’s a damaging rhetoric for those people. Saying “I’m sure God will sort it out in the end” isn’t a good enough response.
What this doctrine is really saying is that in the next life only Mormons will be having babies. Mormons will be the only religious sect to grow in number. Everyone else will stay at the number of souls they had when…well…when the earthly hamster wheel stops and everyone is dead and in the next life. Hang on…if everyone dies then who does the temple work? (Mormons will say temple work will be done in the next life, but not hear the other show dropping and wonder why then it is so essential to do it now, in this life...). And if not everyone is dead before the second coming and the next life…what’s the deal with death? And…so on and so on and so on.
Like many Mormon doctrines, when you start to look for consistency across the whole, it soon falls apart. But the more you look, the more you recognise that all Mormon doctrine is male in nature. That should come as no surprise. Men wrote/write it, for the benefit of men who think like they do.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
A couple of things to note. The doctrine seems to be all about the outcome of sex (offspring) rather then process of having sex. It’s basically suggesting that sex in the Celestial Kingdom will result in offspring, sex everywhere else, won’t. There’s no doctrine that suggests a man and a woman in the lesser kingdoms won’t be able to have sex. In fact, if gender is eternal, the doctrine supports the notion that there will be. So member the man fires blanks except in the CK etc.
Yep, today's Mormons can't deny this or add new doctrine because that would require a revelation and that pretty much dried up when Smith died and and the practice of having fresh revelation and translating new scripture went to his grave. Prophets today are inferior in every way compared to Joseph. So the members are left to speculate and guess what they think might be doctrine.
Now, something you neglected to mention above in your post when talking about lesser kingdoms. You see, the Celestial kingdom is one of three kingdoms but it consists of three degrees and in order for a man to be exalted he must go to the highest level in the Celestial kingdom where an exalted penis-Man is rewarded with an eternal increase by spreading his seed in the gardens of love in the midst of the women he was sealed to in the temple. I believe Brigham Young and others taught that you must enter into polygamy in order to get to the highest level so there will be lots of brethren in a lower Celestial order who are servants to those who make babies. They get to serve refreshments and play harps to the men who can (fertile) make babies.
It would seem that this topic has roused quite a few of the stalwart Latter-day Saints on this fine sabbath day over at SeN. There appears to be a consensus: yes—there will be forced sterilization of people in the lower kingdoms. All of the believers—the Afore included—believe that this is settled LDS doctrine.
A sterilization process only inhibits the ability for a woman to produce a fertile egg and a man to produce fertile sperm. It does not prevent sexual contact between consenting partners who are infertile! Think about that. Apologists are stuck with having to speculate on what happens in the afterlife with those who were not sealed by temple Mormonism.
But there is disagreement on how this will happen. The Afore keeps mentioning “mutilation,” though no one here has ever said or suggested that idea. (It’s not *our* job to explain these oddball beliefs.) But the question remains: How will this work? Will those in the lower kingdoms have non-functioning genitals? The poster called Tangata Neneva has speculated that something akin to “chemical castration” might be used, where people are deprived of their desire somehow.
What a tangled web they weave! Using the word castration when dealing with men's anatomy is a terrible way to define a glorified and perfected body. It's a bad word choice! And how is God or anyone in heaven going to stop people in the lower kingdoms from doing sexual things with their parts? What ever happened to free agency and the idea that one's body is one's body? The whole concept of Mormon resurrection and Mormon degrees of punishment and reward is utter nonsense. I don't give any credence to that crap any more than I do that there is a king's name in Facsimile No. 3.
Like many Mormon doctrines, when you start to look for consistency across the whole, it soon falls apart. But the more you look, the more you recognise that all Mormon doctrine is male in nature. That should come as no surprise. Men wrote/write it, for the benefit of men who think like they do.
You know, there are two sides to this coin that apologists may have a hard time coming to grips with (no pun intended). A penis is not just a penis but is an amazing instrument in which it operates in different states. There is the usual flaccid and then there is a state of erection. Hence, the penis is actually a two-in-one device that does not exist entirely in a single state all the time. It's either up or down, if you know what I mean.
To make a long explanation short (no pun intended) the apologists are left to wonder about the kind of penis resurrected men have who failed to achieve exaltation.
[ ] Flaccid only
[ ] Flaccid & erect
For Mormon men:
Prior to being resurrected, please check the box to indicate preferred erect size.
[ ] Less than 5"
[ ] 5"
[ ] 6"
[ ] 7"
[ ] 8"
[ ] More
[ ] Same as Heavenly Father
[ ] I don't care, please surprise me, God.
DCP wrote:The idea of those in lower kingdoms losing the ability to procreate has led to the occasional rumor or misunderstanding that they will be physically “neutered” in the next life. However, this is not an official church teaching.
Every man deserves to have a penis, held intact (pun intended). I'm glad you see the value in that. I remind you that not everyone in the Celestial kingdom will receive an eternal increase unless they are of the top heavenly tier within the celestial order.(D&C 131:1-3).
DCP wrote:The doctrine states that they will simply not have the power of “eternal increase” or the ability to have “spirit children”.
Now with that said, there is nothing in the doctrine to deny the practice of sexual relations between those who are not fully endowed in the highest degree of celestial glory. The doctrine does not limit the ability of resurrected beings to manipulate and use their sex organs for their own pleasure and purpose. As you say, it simplystates, they won't have the power to make babies. Nothing more.
