Would alternative means of reproduction affect the Church?

[_Zoidberg]

So there is talk about the possibility of producing female sperm from stem cells, or replacing the nuclei of ova with male DNA which I'm sure many people have heard of. There has also been some research done on the artificial uterus. All the threads about victorian women and "angels of the hearth" etc. got me thinking: if/once those things become a viable option, what would the Church's rationale be for denying women the priesthood?

Now it's all centered around women's reproductive abilities and the argument that some women are sterile is dismissed through generalizations (such as "only women are capable of bearing children, hence all women should be mothers and have motherly roles"). Also, the ability to carry a fetus is somehow equated with the priesthood (we were granted this precious gift men do not have - the uterus! Praise the Lord!).

Of course, in XIXth-century understanding, it seemed more likely to revive a corpse than find alternative means to reproduce. Not now, though. As our understanding of reproduction and biological sex increases, it becomes obvious that it is not all that simple and that perhaps men and women do not need each other for exaltation (if you are assuming there even is such a thing). I am already confident that gay people will eventually be able to marry in the temple, but perhaps they will even have a promise of eternal increase with each other once it becomes possible/legal to create female sperm/male eggs and/or use an artificial uterus? How would such developments affect LDS theology and doctrine, in your opinion?

[_barrelomonkeys]

we were granted this precious gift men do not have - the uterus! Praise the Lord!).

No opinion. Just a tee hee at the above quote. ;)

[_asbestosman]

I never much cared for the idea that women don't need the priesthood because they can be mothers. Boys can hold the priesthood long before the church wants them to be fathers (come on, 12 year olds? They barely know what puberty is). I don't' think the reproductive argument is very convincing in the first place. I mean come on, women can be "ordained" to motherhood without having to interview the bishop, or even be a member at all. Motherhood is not lost or reinstated with excommunication / baptism.


Anyhow, as to reproductive technology, I read some interesting things in a book recommended by The Dude, Challenging Nature. It said that artificial eggs could be produced from male stem cells as could sperm. However, they were unable to produce sperm from female stem cells (but perhaps they'll figure it out later). It also talked about producing a uterus from stem cells. Also interesting was the idea of producing grandchildren without ever having the parents be anything more than a few stem cells in a dish which were turned into eggs and sperm to combine again and produce the grandchildren.

One interesting thing that may indeed come out of such technology would be a change in arguments agains the legality of homosexual marriage. However, I don't anticipate any direct consequences for the church's stance on it.