Question: How may criticism of the Church over LGBT issues become fiercer in the future and how can members respond?

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Introduction to Question

FAIR has compiled an exhaustive list of responses to concerns held by LGBT members of the Church and other critics regarding the Church’s position on homosexual sexual behavior. This compilation responds to all the common contemporary criticisms of the Church’s position, but there may be others that arise in the future.

One of them may go like this: the advent of reproductive technology is coming upon us quickly. One article from CNN reported that scientists are now able to reproduce a synthetic mouse embryo from mouse stem cells.^[1] An article from NBC News reports that scientists are marching towards being able to create sperm cells and egg cells from a person’s stem cells, thus potentially allowing same-sex couples the ability to create their own biological children by fusing the normal eggs of one the hypothetical lesbian partners with the stem-cell-created sperm of the other lesbian partner or the sperm of one of the hypothetical gay partners with the stem-cell-created egg cell of the other gay partner.^[2] Post fertilization, the zygote can be implanted in a female’s womb for incubation and birth.

Thus, if we are able to reproduce without male-female copulation, then why should we believe in the institution of marriage any more, much less the primacy of heterosexual relationships generally?

Another criticism may go like this: machine reproduction ensures that an infant is not born with any significant defects, and we can actually screen them genetically and edit their genome such that they’re much less susceptible to diseases,

So how can we respond when people say that the purpose of male-female unions has basically been supplanted by machines that allow us to do what males and females do but maybe even better?

Response to Criticisms

Criticism #1: Machines Can Do What Men and Women Do and Therefore the Church’s Stance is Unnecessary

The easiest response to this criticism is just to reassert that male-female copulation is an instrinsic good rather than an instrumental good.

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle considered all things to have a telos or purpose for which they were created/designed. He believed that things (including human beings) flourish when they adhere to their telos. Telic thinking (aka "teleology") became the foundation of Aristotle’s theory of morality (known as “virtue ethics”). According to Aristotle, human excellence consists of adhering to their telos to be virtuous.

The scriptures and other official pronouncements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a similar view of human sexuality. They teach that men and women are designed to be united with each other sexually after marriage. Scripture repeatedly affirms that men and women are meant to be united sexually—becoming "one flesh”.^[3] Becoming “one flesh” does not merely refer to physically joining the complementary reproductive sexual organs of a man and woman (and more particularly toward the end of procreation and family life: the all-encompassing, instrumental, and intrinsic good of male-female unions),^[4] but also to that man and woman becoming psychologically and spiritually unified through their sexual union. Individuals, communities, and nations flourish when men and women adhere strongly to this “telos”. Any act that takes men and women away from living in accordance with that design (or at least has a high probability of taking them away from it) is going to be viewed as sinful/immoral by the Church.^[5] Thus, sex between a married man and woman is an intrinsic good and not merely an instrumental good because marriage and procreation is the consummation of who and what we are as men and women. Technological reproduction will discourage men and women from understanding and trying to live in accordance with their telos and will thus be considered immoral and sinful.

Those that disagree with the Church's moral logic on this point will need to argue that we do not have this telos. If we do have this telos, then technological reproduction and homosexual sexual relationships are immoral. If we don't, then they're morally acceptable. Those that will argue that we don't have this telos may argue against the existence of God. If there is no person to design us with a particular end, then there is no inherent design and no telos. Thus Latter-day Saints will want to know arguments against God's existence and how to respond to them.

Criticism #2: Machines Can Make Same-Sex Couples Biological Children and Thus the Church’s Stance is Unnecessary

The answer to this criticism is virtually the same as the answer to criticism #1

Criticism #3 Machines Can Do What Men and Women Do and Prevent Disease and Disorder More and Therefore the Church’s Stance is Unjust

An answer to this criticism may be that it is immoral to screen children for diseases and disorders and genetically edit them since by so doing, you are communicating that there is something of greater value than just the person themselves with their presence in our lives. By editing them, you are communicating that you value a person for what they can produce for you or someone else rather than what you can learn about love by having them, with all of their imperfection, present in your life and dependent on you.

Conclusions

Those who make this argument do so shortsightedly of real ethical debates and objections regarding genetic editing and stem-cell technology.

Notes

↑ Madeline Holcombe, “A synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg, could lead to infertility treatments,” CNN, September 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/world/synthetic-embryos-stem-cells-scn/index.html.
↑ Julie Compton, “Could same-sex couples soon conceive a child with both their DNA?” NBC News, January 12, 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/could-same-sex-couples-soon-conceive-child-both-their-dna-n836876.
↑ Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Romans 1:20–28; Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17; Moses 3:21–24; Abraham 5:14–18; The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See this page for more info. For a solid exegesis of the Romans passage, see Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct]," FAIR Papers, 2004, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. Another way to argue for this telos is to cite Jacob 2:21 which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses. Scripture consistently associates keeping commandments with happiness and flourishing. See, for example, Mosiah 2:41.
↑ That the joining of the complementary reproductive sexual organs of men and women is the referent “one flesh” is confirmed in scripture and in nature. Scripturally, Eve is the “missing rib” of Adam. God takes Adam’s rib and forms Eve. Scripture then gives us a “therefore” to indicate that for this reason—the reason of Eve being the complementary opposite of Adam and being his missing rib—should they again unite and become “one flesh”. Furthermore, Adam and Eve are commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28; Moses 2:28; Abraham 4:28). That can only happen, in the creation scenario, in the procreative relationship of man and woman. In nature, it's obviously the case that only the organic sexual union of a human male and female can create children.
↑ This is almost certainly why Church leaders have been verbally, openly, and strongly skeptical of birth control and oral sex or otherwise issued strong restrictions on them that were later softened. Leaders' past skepticism and rhetoric is often mocked and maligned today, but here with the understanding of the sexual telos of men and women, it becomes much more sensible as to why they were skeptical and harsh: those things can very easily further separate the children of God from understanding their sexual telos and achieving their fullest flourishing found in the procreative relationship of a man and woman. The further one gets from understanding their sexual telos as the procreative union of a man and woman, the more uncomfortable a Latter-day Saint Christian should get.

[1] Madeline Holcombe, “A synthetic embryo, made without sperm or egg, could lead to infertility treatments,” CNN, September 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/world/synthetic-embryos-stem-cells-scn/index.html.

[2] Julie Compton, “Could same-sex couples soon conceive a child with both their DNA?” NBC News, January 12, 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/could-same-sex-couples-soon-conceive-child-both-their-dna-n836876.

[3] Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Romans 1:20–28; Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17; Moses 3:21–24; Abraham 5:14–18; The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See this page for more info. For a solid exegesis of the Romans passage, see Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct]," FAIR Papers, 2004, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. Another way to argue for this telos is to cite Jacob 2:21 which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses. Scripture consistently associates keeping commandments with happiness and flourishing. See, for example, Mosiah 2:41.

[4] That the joining of the complementary reproductive sexual organs of men and women is the referent “one flesh” is confirmed in scripture and in nature. Scripturally, Eve is the “missing rib” of Adam. God takes Adam’s rib and forms Eve. Scripture then gives us a “therefore” to indicate that for this reason—the reason of Eve being the complementary opposite of Adam and being his missing rib—should they again unite and become “one flesh”. Furthermore, Adam and Eve are commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28; Moses 2:28; Abraham 4:28). That can only happen, in the creation scenario, in the procreative relationship of man and woman. In nature, it's obviously the case that only the organic sexual union of a human male and female can create children.

[5] This is almost certainly why Church leaders have been verbally, openly, and strongly skeptical of birth control and oral sex or otherwise issued strong restrictions on them that were later softened. Leaders' past skepticism and rhetoric is often mocked and maligned today, but here with the understanding of the sexual telos of men and women, it becomes much more sensible as to why they were skeptical and harsh: those things can very easily further separate the children of God from understanding their sexual telos and achieving their fullest flourishing found in the procreative relationship of a man and woman. The further one gets from understanding their sexual telos as the procreative union of a man and woman, the more uncomfortable a Latter-day Saint Christian should get.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Question: How may criticism of the Church over LGBT issues become fiercer in the future and how can members respond?