TK Smoothies? No! Involuntary Sterilization? Yes!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I see Dan is peddling his apostate version of Mormonism again.

[MG 2.0]

I haven’t read this whole thread, admittedly, but I wonder if DCP may have countered and/or covered some of the concerns brought up in this thread (thread title says it all) over at this thread in which drumdude quotes him:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160275

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Scratch]

Ineffective analogies were proffered, such as this one:

I proffer an analogy: A concert is being offered, and its organizers announce that everybody who wishes to attend may do so. Moreover, if they inform the ticket office of their wish they will be seated with their family members and friends. Would it be just or fair for a critic to respond that this invitation constitutes cruel and vengeful punishment directed at people who don’t request being seated together? Is it reasonable to construe the invitation as a vicious abuse of invitees who choose not to attend the concert at all? Would it be a legitimate complaint against the concert organizer and host that people who rejected his invitation to the concert aren’t seated together at it? Would such objections make even the slightest sense?

For one thing, the Church teaches that *only* the elect will make it to the "concert": you have to be sealed and married in the temple. He's acting as if it's this easily accessible, egalitarian thing that's just a matter of showing up. But that directly contrasts with Church teachings that characterize mortal life as a "test." You have to make sacrifices within the Church in the form of tithing, service/volunteer work, etc., in order to claim your celestial reward. The Afore's own beloved colleague, Louis Midgley, frequently comments in this vein.

But a better analogy here would be a concert where everyone got in to the concert, but only those who made the sacrifices were allowed to keep their ears. Or, rather, everyone has actual ears, but those in the "lower kingdoms" are stricken with deafness. Midgley, Hamblin, Gee and the loyal Mopologists get to attend and listen to this Donnie and Marie Osmond concert, but Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and Ed Decker are afflicted with deafness by the concert organizer.

In the Afore's version of things, no one would even *expect* to ever go to *any* concerts in the afterlife, so the fact that there is an Osmond concert of any kind whatsoever should really be understood as a great, generous gift. Those who failed to pay up, attend the temple, and do the Church's bidding have failed to understand that they were actually being offered a gift of a concert, and so it's really *not* a punishment for them to lose their hearing.

Look: the bulk of the Latter-day Saints affirmed my take on this. It's settled LDS doctrine that people in the lower kingdoms will undergo a kind of involuntary sterilization. Dr. Shulem is right to question how this plays out: does it mean impotence? "Chemical castration"? Something else?

[MG 2.0]

Ineffective analogies were proffered, such as this one:

I proffer an analogy: A concert is being offered, and its organizers announce that everybody who wishes to attend may do so. Moreover, if they inform the ticket office of their wish they will be seated with their family members and friends. Would it be just or fair for a critic to respond that this invitation constitutes cruel and vengeful punishment directed at people who don’t request being seated together? Is it reasonable to construe the invitation as a vicious abuse of invitees who choose not to attend the concert at all? Would it be a legitimate complaint against the concert organizer and host that people who rejected his invitation to the concert aren’t seated together at it? Would such objections make even the slightest sense?

For one thing, the Church teaches that *only* the elect will make it to the "concert": you have to be sealed and married in the temple. He's acting as if it's this easily accessible, egalitarian thing that's just a matter of showing up. But that directly contrasts with Church teachings that characterize mortal life as a "test." You have to make sacrifices within the Church in the form of tithing, service/volunteer work, etc., in order to claim your celestial reward. The Afore's own beloved colleague, Louis Midgley, frequently comments in this vein.

But a better analogy here would be a concert where everyone got in to the concert, but only those who made the sacrifices were allowed to keep their ears. Or, rather, everyone has actual ears, but those in the "lower kingdoms" are stricken with deafness. Midgley, Hamblin, Gee and the loyal Mopologists get to attend and listen to this Donnie and Marie Osmond concert, but Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and Ed Decker are afflicted with deafness by the concert organizer.

In the Afore's version of things, no one would even *expect* to ever go to *any* concerts in the afterlife, so the fact that there is an Osmond concert of any kind whatsoever should really be understood as a great, generous gift. Those who failed to pay up, attend the temple, and do the Church's bidding have failed to understand that they were actually being offered a gift of a concert, and so it's really *not* a punishment for them to lose their hearing.

Look: the bulk of the Latter-day Saints affirmed my take on this. It's settled LDS doctrine that people in the lower kingdoms will undergo a kind of involuntary sterilization. Dr. Shulem is right to question how this plays out: does it mean impotence? "Chemical castration"? Something else?

Analogies are fun, yet they are also imperfect in some instances, would you agree? I’m not saying that either you or DCP are lining up in every respect regarding to how things ‘might be’ in the afterlife. It does make sense, however, that the Creator would not go all ‘willy nilly’ and let anyone and everyone be given the RESPONSIBILITY to have eternal increase. How screwed up would that be? You seem to be saying that it’s all about some kind of eternal orgasm and nothing else essentially. Again, THAT doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t GO ANYWHERE. It’s not about sex. It’s about eternal increase and who can be trusted with these powers in the afterlife without screwing up God’s eternal plan for the progression of His children and those that come ‘after’ (what ever that means) Him.

I’m hearing this discussed in a very ‘temporal’ fashion. And yes, I know, Brigham Young has his own what might be considered ‘off the wall’ ideas about how this all might pan out and work. The truth is, if there is the opportunity for eternal increase I think it would HAVE to be limited to those that God has proved and those who have demonstrated great faith/loyalty/allegiance to Him and His eternal plan.

Of course, the million dollar question is is there a creator God and does this God have an eternal plan. Compared with all the other possibilities I think it’s worth looking at and not casting it off as a ‘non starter’. I don’t get too wrapped up in ANY earth based analogy. These analogies are fun and they are interesting…but they may not fit beyond a three dimensional reality.

Gadianton likes to play around in this sandbox also. And it’s fun to read his stuff. But at the end of the day he is also locked into trying to bring multi-dimensions into three. I’m not sure that I’m willing to place my faith in that.

All this ‘smoothie’ stuff. It is so…earthly. Eternity and multi-dimensions, whatever they might be, are much bigger than that. Wouldn’t you think?

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Look: the bulk of the Latter-day Saints affirmed my take on this. It's settled LDS doctrine that people in the lower kingdoms will undergo a kind of involuntary sterilization. Dr. Shulem is right to question how this plays out: does it mean impotence? "Chemical castration"? Something else?

Please refer to the male reproductive system provided by the Mayo Foundation for a medical perspective which begs the question about resurrected men in the lower kingdoms receiving a new set of epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles when resurrected. What purpose would these vital components have if not used to provide semen on demand? It seems to me that Alma's description requires the reproduction system to be reproduced perfectly because all things shall be restored. The testicles are the heart of every man's reproductive system and these other components associated with them are absolutely vital.

[Shulem]

The truth is, if there is the opportunity for eternal increase I think it would HAVE to be limited to those that God has proved and those who have demonstrated great faith/loyalty/allegiance to Him and His eternal plan.

You worship a god that I utterly detest. Jehovah is a murderous cut-throat fiend who required one of his most valiant followers (Abraham) to murder his own child in order to prove loyalty. So sick!

Jehovah reminds me of a cruel bully who enjoys pulling legs off a spider just for fun.

[Shulem]

It’s not about sex. It’s about eternal increase and who can be trusted with these powers....

Of course it's all about sex and babies are the natural result of having UNPROTECTED sex.

So, does everyone get to have sex in the resurrection?

[ ] yes
[ ] no

[drumdude]

It’s not about sex. It’s about eternal increase and who can be trusted with these powers....

Of course it's all about sex and babies are the natural result of having UNPROTECTED sex.

So, does everyone get to have sex in the resurrection?

[ ] yes
[ ] no

You know that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean where the zombies are trying to drink?

[Shulem]

I don’t get too wrapped up in ANY earth based analogy. These analogies are fun and they are interesting…but they may not fit beyond a three dimensional reality.

With all due respect, as a believing Mormon, where do you fit in? Analogies are fun!

(rhetorical question)

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.

[Moksha]

The Saints need some nuttiness in their doctrine, or else they will cease to be Saints