r/LatterDayTheology

I come with this question in good faith…

Could an argument be made that life begins at ejaculation?

Hear me out…

The Bible seems to refer to masturbation multiple times. First, in Genesis, when Onan was caught by the Lord “spilling his seed” instead of impregnating his brother’s widow, so the Lord put him to death. One could interpret this as he was punished for not following the Lord‘s instructions, or that he was punished for masturbating. Then, in Leviticus, ejaculation is referenced as making a man unclean. I am not a biblical scholar, but these are noteworthy references, and other similar references are also made throughout the text. I realize that these are up to loose interpretation, but no more than the way we interpret the texts on abortion to determine when fetal life begins.

Scientifically, sperm have an olfactory senses, meaning that they, themselves, have a sense of smell, meaning that they, themselves, are living things. I realize that sperm cannot exist alone without merging with an ovum and they are only a part of a human genetic code, but a fetus cannot exist outside of a uterus until a certain stage of viability.

I am not trying to start a morality debate. This isn’t about pro-life/pro-choice. This is more of a philosophical question and one that I have been noodling around with in my head for a while. How would you respond if someone were to suggest that life began at ejaculation?

Así como en la primera venida de Jesús la mayoría de los sacerdotes, escribas y líderes religiosos del Sanedrín no lo reconocieron a pesar de tener las Escrituras, se plantea que en el cumplimiento de los tiempos la jerarquía eclesiástica (pastores y curas) vuelve a pasar por alto su cumplimiento por estar esperando manifestaciones distintas o terrenales.

God can't create a rock so big he can't lift it, can't create a married bachelor, can't draw a square circle. God is constrained by logic. For decades, I have seen people take issue with something being "more powerful" than God. I have not shared the concern.

Where do the logical constraints come from? I suggest it is a side-effect (of sorts) of the existence of matter.

1. Unlike trad Christianity, we assert that all matter is eternal--it "cannot be created or made." This means all matter in existence has always existed, and had no beginning. Matter's existence is independent of God's power.
2. Physical existence requires properties: perhaps a color, a shape, a relationship to something else, a charge, a behavior--something. Something physical without any properties cannot exist-- a physical thing with no properties is identical to nothing at all.
3. A property is definable. "1 inch tall" must have an objective meaning, or it would be indistinguishable from no property at all.
4. A definition distinguishes something from something that it is not. "1 inch tall" necessarily restricts something from being a height different from 1 inch. If a definition failed to distinguish in any way, it would be indistinguishable from no definition at all. Distinguishing is dictating rules. A proton cannot simultaneously objectively be an electron, unless the properties/definitions of both particles were identical.
5. Logical constraints, then, are baked into existence itself. Things have defined properties that distinguish, and they always have. If there were no logical constraints, there would be no existence.
6. This is true of God as well: if nothing can exist without logical constraint, God cannot exist without logical constraint. Some trad Christian theology tries to resolve this by claiming God is not physical and exists outside of reality itself. This is defining God as existing outside of existence. I might as well tell you a square circle is possible because it exists outside of reality itself. Okay, but... existing outside of reality means it does not exist, by definition. If something can exist outside of reality, then "existence" no longer has any coherent meaning.
7. God is constrained, then, by existence--He is constrained by the set of all properties of all matter that has always existed. Remember, fundamental matter cannot be created or destroyed, so fundamental logic cannot be created or destroyed.

So... why don't you worship existence? Why don't you bow down or pray to the set of all properties of matter that dictate "logic?" May I suggest two reasons?

1. Logic is not more powerful than God. Logic has no independent will, self-awareness, or ability to modify itself or anything else. It is a static concept. God, however, has independent will, the ability to independently act, self-awareness, and can leverage the possibilities logic affords to your benefit.

2. God is omnipotent (i.e., maximally powerful) amongst all that actually exists. Logic is not something that exists independent of physical things--it is a property of each existent thing. All power that is possible to have in existence, God has it. His only constraint isn't some entity called "logic" that combines all of reality together and waves a scepter--it is the self-existent property of a single particle. A single particle could defy God, saying "You can't destroy me!"--and the particle would be correct. But that reality doesn't stop God from being omnipotent.

Who set the rules of logic? Who defined the reality all in existence operates within? It is that molecule of air you just breathed in. It is the photon that just hit your eye. It is the eyelash that fell into the sink. It is me. It is you. These constrainers on God are not more powerful than God, nor are they omnipotent. But God is omnipotent, and leverages logic for our benefit.

> No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; > > By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— > > Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

I have heard and read this a hundred times.

I always thought it meant, in a soft feel-good kind of way, that persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned--all those are good things.

Sure, it does mean that, but recently I read the first line, again, for the 101th time, and my jaw dropped.

> No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood

Do you see it?

It's a bit unorthodox, so it's hard to see.

The virtue of the priesthood should not be used to maintain power or influence. The priesthood alone cannot maintain power and influence--it's not possible.

Maybe I'm just a bit slow to see the obvious, but if so I might be excused because we do not follow this teaching.

Members ignore it when they appeal to authority, or when they pull out their favorite quote to settle debates; their quotes don't have as much power and influence as they think.

Or, I'm sure more than once a general authority has made a quick drive-by visit to a stake, and maybe given a rebuke, and then they drive off into the sunset.... He's a general authority after all, the virtue of his priesthood and position enables him to do this. No? He too may find that he doesn't have the power and influence he imagined.

Even during a general authority visit that is 100% positive, a lot of reverence will be given to them simply because of the virtue of their priesthood and position.

Is there any teaching in our scriptures that is more ignored?

How can we better follow these teachings?

I just ran across this great list in a BYU Studies issue.

Open Questions
https://byustudies.byu.edu/topic/open-questions

For some time, I have been pondering the beginning and its implications. Not the beginning referred to in Genesis, but the beginning of the plan of salvation.

The worst portion of our eternal existence ended the moment God created us as his spirit children. I have no idea what the spiritual creation entailed, but it wrapped us in spiritual matter in the image of God's spirit and it drew us into his family and his presence.

And most important: it gave us hope.

Without hope, the scripture reads, we were in despair, an eternal despair. It's difficult to comprehend an intelligence being stagnant for an eternity without hope of deliverance, but the words "eternal, conscious, torment" seem apt. Since the Devil and his angels slipped back into that damned condition by failing to choose the plan of salvation, we have some sense of the nature of this eternal despair: misery, fire, torment are words the scriptures use to describe this state.

(BTW, I have come to see the donning the temple garment (the spirit body), receiving a new name (drawn into God's family), anointing and blessings (the promises of eternal progression) in the initiatory temple ordinances represent the glorious moment of deliverance when God created our spirits; from which we proceed to the pre-mortal counsel and the creation as depicted in the endowment.)

It seems to me that this observation about the eternal despair from which the Father redeemed us provides an answer to many theological questions:

• Why did the Father do anything at all? Because his goodness compelled him to take actions to deliver us from that state of despair.
• Why is there suffering? Suffering is the base state of our souls because we are eternal and unable to progress on our own. Also, as agents, we are able to harm each other.
• What's the Father's role in suffering? At every juncture, his actions are designed to minimize and deliver us from suffering.
  • The Pre-Mortal Existence involved less suffering than the prior eternal despair;
  • Our Mortal Existence involves less suffering than the Pre-Mortal Existence;
  • The Third Estate will likewise be a more joyous existence than this one.
• Why hasn't the Father eliminated suffering? Because some sorts of suffering cannot be externally removed; deliverance must be chosen and/or learned.
• Thus God
  • Seeks;
  • Invites (such as with the great counsel in heaven);
  • Teaches; and
  • Heals the harms we cause while we learn.

In this, then, the Father, The Father, THE FATHER, should be viewed as the Great Savior, the one to whom we all owe everything good. We sometimes think of Christ as not needing a savior. But in this model, Christ also needed deliverance. He is the First Begotten. The plan of salvation began with Christ's redemption from that prior eternal despair.

You can see why Christ recoiled when he was equated with the Father as "Good Master".

This perspective gives content and meaning to our worship of the Father. He is Great Savior, the Great Deliverer, the one who first loved us and drew from eternal despair to hope and joy.

Some time ago I mentioned an article I had read that traced the history of thoughts on what intelligence is in latter day thought, especially among the priesthood leaders of the church. A few people asked me for the article, but I couldn't remember where it was. I subsequently found the article, but forgot to post it until this morning:

https://rsc.byu.edu/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/history-intelligence-latter-day-saint-thought

Here's a thought-experiment:

>B, a benevolent billionaire, develops the technology to broadcast information into the minds of other people. He uses the technology to secretly broadcast useful bits of information, such as remember to bring an umbrella today; today is election day; road construction on HWY 10 today, you might take an alternative route; and so forth.

>C receives the broadcasts and, although each broadcast appears within the mind as an impression or thought, C identifies each broadcast impression/thought as something unique, i.e., different from his normal thoughts, something that seems like it comes from an external intelligence.

>C nevertheless believes these impressions are epiphanies, sudden, sometimes surprising, useful insights generated by his own mind.

>He reaches this conclusion because God has not been scientifically demonstrated as a possible source and, being unaware of the new technology, believes there is no other possible explanation for the source of the thoughts within his mind.

>When some of the impressions seem beyond his ken, C believes that his subconscious mind has learned the information and the impression is bringing that information to the fore as an epiphany. At times, he wonders if he might be a little crazy, but since the impressions are benign and socially constructive, he believes they are epiphanies.

It should be obvious that C's epistemological approach to B's broadcasts is a fair representation of the approach many of our critics (particularly the recently and vociferously deconverted who are so active on social media) take to the promptings of the spirit.

C has reached the wrong conclusion. Worse, the wrong conclusion was produced by the epistemology that C adopted: i.e., foreclosing certain beliefs b/c they had not been "scientifically demonstrated".

The knock out blow:

>If C's epistemology produces incorrect beliefs in this simple, yet plausible, thought experiment, it cannot be used to criticize a person who believes the "promptings of the spirit" have an external source.

The core question—

Is ignorance bliss, or captivity? Does all knowledge lead to pain — and if so, is that pain the price of freedom?
A whale born in captivity has no concept of the ocean. Telling it about the ocean gives it knowledge it can’t use without paying a huge price — for the most part it can’t leave, and even if it could, it couldn’t survive out in an open ocean. It also means leaving the other whales in the pool it has know its whole life. Is the whale better off ignorant, or better off knowing about a world it likely cost everything to reach?

I keep coming back to this idea: people who never question the frameworks they were handed — by family, by faith, by culture — may be more at peace than people who do. But is that peace the same thing as freedom? If ignorance really is bliss, then knowledge really must cost something substantial. So why pursue it at all? I think the answer to that question is that knowledge is pain, but it’s also power. The real question isn’t comfort vs. pain. It’s comfort without agency vs. freedom with pain you didn’t have before.
What the Seaworld whale analogy means for me:

I was raised in— and still belong to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have come to a point where I have decided that I don’t believe in certain truth claims produced by Joseph Smiths revelations. And subsequent prophets, apostles, seers, and revelators. I could get into the semantics of each and every claim, but for the sake of clarity I want to focus specifically in on one aspect of the Restoration and “the plan of salvation.” Not believing in the dogma completely or not saying that it’s completely true, costs me something very real and painful. Distance from almost everyone I’ve ever been close to and love. Not because my life looks different from theirs — I try to live the gospel of Jesus Christ to the best of my ability. But by not accepting the doctrine at face value, means I’ll always be seen as deceived or fallen away by the people closest to me.
I don’t want to save anyone from the Church. I think it’s a net positive for most people in it. I just want the people who know me to look at what I actually do and believe, and respect that it’s mine to decide — including that a temple marriage and other temple ordinances are a dealbreaker for me. The 11th article of faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints states as follows; “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Sometimes I wish members of the church would take this article more seriously— but it unfortunately is a direct contradiction to being a part of this community. Because fundamentally— not subscribing to the dogma perfectly means questioning Prophets and their authority on revelation.

To preface, I don’t take the stance that fully believing or not isn’t a binary of ignorance and knowledge — but I do believe that the Restored gospel and plan of salvation functions like a narrow canal between two open waters. Ordinances and priesthood keys that were inaccessible to nearly everyone throughout history are treated as the bottleneck for exaltation in my opinion. That doesn’t look like the design of an all-powerful God to me. It looks like a gate.
Here’s the specific problem: if someone lives the teachings of Christ as well as or better than someone who received every ordinance, and still doesn’t qualify for exaltation without these ordinances, or without someone else performing those ordinances on their behalf after death— then salvation isn’t actually “not by works.” To me it seems that this is the exact definition of “saved by works” it’s Just not always your own. I could get into the semantics about salvation vs exhalation— but in my mind that distinction does not matter. A heaven without constant companionship with Christ doesn’t seem like heaven at all to me. So I reject the premise that the distinction between the two matters —or even exists for that matter in my opinion.
I’m not claiming certainty here. I don’t know that I’m right. What I do know: God loves his children, and Christ’s sacrifice was real and sufficient. Past that, I think the thing I actually believe — that we’re saved by grace and not by our own performance. That to me fundamentally is the ocean. I allude to my analogy. I think temple ordinances, priesthood keys, and specific signs and tokens are the narrow canal that separates oceans. Or heaven and earth. My view is that it is all one big ocean— and that heaven and earth have no distance through faith in Jesus Christ— and that his sacrifice was sufficient for all who believe on his name.

I ask this question sincerely, as I am an active member and truly love the scriptures. I am not questioning the wisdom of this happening but seeking to know the necessity of it.

When LDS thinkers approach the problem of pain, a common answer goes something like this:

>The suffering we experience in this life serves a worthwhile purpose--e.g., we learn to use our agency both (1) avoid harming other people and (2) provide succor to others. Both of these are attributes of God that we must learn in order to become like him.

That's one component of our response, but I think most LDS people would agree with these propositions, or something quite close to them.

But what if there's another component, consist with the foregoing, but altogether different?

Namely:

>Our net condition in this life--our joys, our sorrows, our pleasures and our sufferings--is better than our condition in the premortal life.

(I am the source of both these quotes, having made them up in the process of writing the OP; I used the quote block for ease of reference.

Here a few reasons to believe this might be true:

• The line between this frame of our existence and the prior frame demarks progress.
  • All of us here are better people than we were before this life.
  • Although we have left God's presence (materially speaking), we are, all of us, closer to him than we were before this life because we are closer to being like him.
  • And, to be like him is inhabit a fulness of joy, so our condition is more joyous to that degree.
• We have a physical body; our scripture describes the lack of a body as a bondage, so whatever that bondage represents, God delivered us from it through our mortal birth.
• In the same vein, merely by entering this life entitles us to be eternally united with a physical body.

By simple analogy, when I left home for college, I was better off than had I chosen to stay stagnant in my parent's basement, even though I faced new challenges that my parent had hitherto sheltered me from. My contentment, my independence, my engagement, my satisfaction--every metric by which happiness is measured were greater. And I wouldn't have gone back, it was so good to be on my own.

The bottom line: at each step in our progression, God's actions deliver us from suffering, opening the door even more progress and growth.

Before and during Christ’s ministry, the Aaronic priesthood was active under the Jewish faith.

After the death of Christ and the start of Christ’s church, was the Aaronic priesthood stripped from the Jews?

Did the early church have the Aaronic priesthood? Or, like the Nephites, did they exist entirely under the Melchizidek priesthood?

Secondary question. When, and how, did the Jewish people lose the Aaronic priesthood?

The second commandment is like unto the first: loving our neighbor as ourselves. This commandment contains both an injunction to (1) love ourselves as we love God and (2) love our neighbor in the same way.

The example of this love given by Christ was alleviating/remitting undeserved suffering reads thus:

>And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Likewise, in his condemnation of those on his left hand, Christ says:

>Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Likewise, in D&C 104:

>Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

(Yes, I know D&C 104 is from the context of the United Firm)

King Benjamin

>And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

Honestly, I could go on and on and on, along this theme. I've quoted some of the most gripping of these passages, but only just scratched the surface.

Well, duh, you might be thinking. By culture or conversion, these concept is taken as a given among us.

But why is this the rule?

For example, building intergenerational family wealth could be the rule. Taking care of one's tribe/nation by dominating all others could be the rule.

I've been working on a theory, that goes something like this:

• Our default condition--i.e., before God got involved with us--is actually a state of suffering, of bondage, due our inability to progress on our own.
• All of God's work can be seen as delivering us from this bondage.
• Since our objective is to become a being like God, we must learn his work.

And when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.