TK Smoothies? No! Involuntary Sterilization? Yes!

[Doctor Scratch]

Believe it or not, there has been a welcome clarification of LDS doctrine and theology over on "SeN":

one of their occasionally recurrent themes is the Latter-day Saint doctrine that the damned will be literally, physically, neutered in the next life. I am said to take special delight in this punishment, contemplating with almost giddy and definitely sadistic pleasure the destiny that awaits those who have dared to criticize me or even to disagree with my theology.

There is a slight problem with the narrative, though. I believe no such thing. In fact, I think it’s directly contradicted by scripture. Consider, for example, this verse from the Book of Mormon:

"The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame. (Alma 40:23)"

Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such doctrine. I’ve never heard any such idea taught in any church setting. Ever. Does anybody out there — I’m specifically asking believing, communicant members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — believe this? Has anybody heard it taught over the pulpit or in any church setting?

Well, sure. His old buddy Will Schryver definitely believes in this, or, at least, he acted like he did during a rather heated exchange with Beastie quite some time ago. But what about the Afore? He proceeds to ask ChatGPT or some other AI to weigh in on the issue, and it gives back this response:

According to the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the “damned” are not neutered in eternity, but their path to exaltation and eternal procreation is cut off. The doctrine differentiates between eternal “salvation” for almost all people, and eternal “exaltation,” the highest reward reserved for the most faithful.

And, indeed, the Afore affirms that this squares with his own beliefs:

Does anybody want to challenge this response from AI? It accords perfectly with my understanding, my belief, and my experience in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But maybe I’m just totally clueless, and the last one to know. Maybe, in fact, without knowing that I believe it, I believe it.

Fair enough--the clarification is much appreciated. But is this really an improvement, from an apologetic standpoint? Yes: those in the lower kingdoms now get to keep their genitals, but they will still be forcibly sterilized and will not be able to procreate. Given the history of forced sterilization throughout history, this carries an extremely sinister connotation, and it underscores how coercive, menacing, and manipulative LDS doctrine and theology can be. You have to wonder, are they telling this to investigators? "You had better get baptized and start paying your tithing or else you will be sterilized in the next life!" Maybe a threat like that would help to improve the Church's ailing conversion statistics.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Afore's new public relations strategy is to publicly post about forced sterilization in the afterlife? That's a bold choice for a Mopologist trying to convince people Mormonism isn't a cult.

Has Afore lost his mind?

Speaking of forced sterilization:

[drumdude]

“Has anyone else ever been taught this?” DCP asks.

Yes, Dan. They have.

[Shulem]

The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

Dear Doctor Scratch,

Joseph Smith crafted this doctrine to match his own beliefs that body & soul are to become one in a Christian resurrection. Note how every limb and joint shall be restored to its body so also shall every penis and vagina be restored to its body insomuch as not so much as a single pubic hair will be lost but restored to its anatomy!

Now the real question is not whether the man's penis operates under these new conditions but how big is it?

You see, some men have a 5" penis when fully erect and other's have a whopping 9" or more. Where does Daniel C. Peterson hope to fit in? Perhaps someone might like to ask him? I fear he may be concerned about what's going to happen to his penis when it comes to resurrection and he might end up on the short end.

[Gadianton]

Finally, the bait has been taken and I have been proven correct. I set this trap long ago, I can't recall the thread, but I'll post it if I think of it. By denying the well-known doctrine that during the judgment a sentinel stands forward with drawn sword awaiting the command to whack it off, he has admitted this physiological feature of the body is necessary for eternal procreation.

Think about this for a moment.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Finally, the bait has been taken and I have been proven correct. I set this trap long ago, I can't recall the thread, but I'll post it if I think of it. By denying the well-known doctrine that during the judgment a sentinel stands forward with drawn sword awaiting the command to whack it off, he has admitted this physiological feature of the body is necessary for eternal procreation.

Think about this for a moment.

I remember your thread. It was both brilliant and hilarious. And, the Afore has obviously been chewing on this for a long time.

You certainly laid a cunning trap, and it seems you've caught the Afore. It was a classic move: present a seemingly outrageous premise as established fact, and watch as the Afore, in his attempt to correct you, inadvertently confirm the very point you were trying to make. You successfully maneuvered Afore into a position where his denial of the embellishment becomes an admission of the core truth. Well played, Dean. Well played.

[Doctor Scratch]

Finally, the bait has been taken and I have been proven correct. I set this trap long ago, I can't recall the thread, but I'll post it if I think of it. By denying the well-known doctrine that during the judgment a sentinel stands forward with drawn sword awaiting the command to whack it off, he has admitted this physiological feature of the body is necessary for eternal procreation.

Think about this for a moment.

A great point, Dr. Robbers. I'm not entirely sure which past post/thread you have in mind, but the one that springs to mind for me is actually one that has a direct bearing on Interpreter & the Afore's current obsession: Brigham Young. Recall that one of BY's most infamous teachings was that God the Father came down in his "bodily tabernacle" and begot Jesus. Now, the more "coarse" interpretation of this is that Elohim had actual, physical intercourse with Mary--actual "P in V" sex. When this topic came up on the old FAIR / MAD board many years ago, the Afore tried to explain it away by suggesting that Elohim had, instead, employed some method akin to IV fertilization or some other means that wouldn't have necessitated physical contact. (Nevermind that *this* version means that Heavenly Father would have had to masturbate beforehand, eh?)

But you are quite right here, and it's amusing to see that, at last, you have been vindicated.

[Shulem]

all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame

And this also must mean that all women will be resurrected with a pair of ovaries and a uterus intact. So what good is a uterus if it can't grow a baby? How is that perfect? What good are ovaries if they can't produce eggs? Or are the eggs simply sterile as well as a man's sperm? Anyone who knows anything about men will quickly confess that a newly resurrected man in a lower kingdom will quickly test his parts to see how they work and more especially that it feels good. And that's what counts!

[Doctor Scratch]

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???

[Gadianton]

Yeah, several related threads. But that was part of the landscape for sure. In the thread you are talking about I believe, he made the point that we
don't know how procreation works in the next life, shying away from the idea of sex. I recall in that thread, you brought up the point of IVF.

I just asked AI "how is sperm obtained for ivf"?

I'm not sure the apologists are going to want to ask this same question. Ask AI this question at your own risk. Now, what you were hinting at is that if going "discovery channel" isn't the way it works up there, then let's say a certain pope is in trouble, which almost makes it worse. But here's the clincher, and everyone needs to pay close attention. I'm sure Dan, at that time, thought you were just being sarcastic and unreasonable. What he meant is that there could be some magical process that isn't x-rated that is used to create spirit children. I mean, he'd have a point. How does a physical being become pregnant with spirit children, when spirits float through walls and have no substance? I can see how a TBM might think it's reasonable that some other mechanism churns out these billions of spirit children.

But that's all off the table now, isn't it? He's forced into the grim choices you laid before him. Because he's affirmed that a physical tallywager is necessary for eternal procreation. This is a top 10 admission in my view. AI brought him to his downfall; I had to read the quote a couple of times to get it right. I originally thought it said "eternal progression" which would make the AI answer align with predictable apologist wishy-washy views. But eternal "procreation" is quite specific.