A Scenario for our Male Apologists to Consider...

[_just me]

All those poor poor women without a mayun to guide them and direct them, to hug them and lie with them.

Since most women are fluid they can all hook up with each other. Or masturbate.

Marriage is much more than just sex.

And, fully aware of everything I've ever been taught about eternal marriage while growing up in the LDS Church, nonetheless I'm not fully convinced sex even needs to be part of an eternal marriage. One of the great things about the LDS Church is the phenomenon of extremely harmonious, extremely efficient, men-women teams. Sex as part of the equation is just gravy.

Near I can tell, sex is what makes lovers different from friends.

Sooo, what are all these amazing things that marriage is about other than sex that one cannot do with a good friend?

[_KevinSim]

We are not gods, and are not gods in training.

Jesus is God.

Madeliene, I agree with you. Jesus is God.

Why do you think we are not gods in training?

[_madeleine]

I think you need to be careful when judging sexual behaviour. Coerced polygamy is damaging. But polyamourous relationships do exist and they can be healthy amongst consensual adults.

H.

Speaking from experience?

I can't say that I could ever share your view.

[Guest]

And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

Very interested to know why Jesus Christ (who you claim is God) could justify killing a man for touching a box.

My favorite is 1 Samuel 15:3. At least Uzzah died for doing something; the infants and sucklings mentioned in 1 Samuel 15 died for being born to the wrong race! How does one reconcile that to what Jesus taught in the New Testament?

[_madeleine]

We are not gods, and are not gods in training.

Jesus is God.

Madeliene, I agree with you. Jesus is God.

Why do you think we are not gods in training?

I think you think you agree, but I know that if we dig deep enough, you don't.

Creator and created are two very different beings. You can't go from created to Creator, not anymore than a cat can become a dog.

[_KevinSim]

God gives us life and can take it away.

If God can give us life and can also take it away, why in the world can't God give us a spouse, and take a spouse away?

Why is it that God can kill people at will, and therefore in appearance go against his "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, and yet for some reason monogamy is sacred? That's what is comes down to, doesn't it? Life is nice, but God can do what He wants with it, but monogamy is sacred, and God doesn't dare mess with it at all. Why is monogamy more sacred than life itself?

[_madeleine]

God gives us life and can take it away.

If God can give us life and can also take it away, why in the world can't God give us a spouse, and take a spouse away?

You lost me.

Why is it that God can kill people at will, and therefore in appearance go against his "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, and yet for some reason monogamy is sacred?

Still lost me.

That's what is comes down to, doesn't it? Life is nice, but God can do what He wants with it, but monogamy is sacred, and God doesn't dare mess with it at all. Why is monogamy more sacred than life itself?

And....still lost me.

I'm not trying to evade. Just, a comparison of death to monogamy is not something I'm getting.

Perhaps it is the view I have, that while death is sad, and sometimes very violent. It is not the end.

You can't exist without the will of God, at all. Theologically speaking, there is not anything, at all, without God holding it in existence. I don't hold a belief that existence ends at death. I don't hold a belief that monogamy is such a terrible tragic thing that is so incredibly difficult to follow. To put it more clearly, perhaps, death is the beginning of what we hope (in terms of judgement) is our life in the presence of God.

Hope, having a name, Jesus Christ.

Hope that helps.

[_Spektical]

Also, to KevinSim's point about "the alternative", in the eternal scheme of things, why are you so uncertain that the male-female ratio is bound to be uneven?

Liz3564, can you think of a way God could guarantee a more balanced ratio without trampling on individual free agency?

Maybe you're right; maybe God with his foreknowledge has some way of knowing beforehand that in the end there will be exactly as many men in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom as there will be women. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that miracle to happen.

KevinSim: prepare for disappointment. You may have to share your wife with several thousand other Asian male babies in the CK. Damn that auto-exaltation doctrine for the kiddos...

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/i ... ics-again/

So let’s just look at the numbers. For the purposes of this analysis I’m going to just look at the populations from about 400BC to 1950 where we have some data. So these estimates will provide a conservatively low estimate (lots of people lived before 400 BC). I do this just because I don’t have data before this time and the human population wasn’t that large so it won’t be that bad of an assumption, I suspect if we had the data, it wouldn’t take back any of the shocking news.

There have been about 38 Billion who have lived during that time period.

Here is the money shot: There are going to be a minimum of about between 2 to 4 billion more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom based on infant mortality differences between the sexes.

[_beastie]

If you're just talking about the next life, you're way off base. You are ignoring the fact that infant males have always died at a higher ratio than infant females. Over thousands of years, that adds up to a significant surplus of males in the CK. Chances are that men are the one who are going to have to accept brother-husbands, anyway.

It'd be interesting to hear of someone doing a study that would provide some hard numbers of how many active men and how many active women there would actually be in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. I admit that you might be right; I might be wrong; but still I'd like to see at least some ballpark figures based on solid research.

You can't seriously think that the excess numbers of LDS females could even begin to approach the astronomical numbers of infant mortalities over the entire existence of the human race. You just want to find a way to deny the obvious, which is that you're not only wrong, but you're off by a country mile. Prepare to share your wife in the CK.

[_beastie]

KevinSim: prepare for disappointment. You may have to share your wife with several thousand other Asian male babies in the CK. Damn that auto-exaltation doctrine for the kiddos...

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/i ... ics-again/

So let’s just look at the numbers. For the purposes of this analysis I’m going to just look at the populations from about 400BC to 1950 where we have some data. So these estimates will provide a conservatively low estimate (lots of people lived before 400 BC). I do this just because I don’t have data before this time and the human population wasn’t that large so it won’t be that bad of an assumption, I suspect if we had the data, it wouldn’t take back any of the shocking news.

There have been about 38 Billion who have lived during that time period.

Here is the money shot: There are going to be a minimum of about between 2 to 4 billion more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom based on infant mortality differences between the sexes.

I hadn't read your post by the time I posted. Thanks for doing the legwork. Years ago, I had also tried to do this kind of rough estimate and came up with similar numbers.