Mormon and gay. Where are we going?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Where we differ is whether the Celestial resurrected bodies retain the full range of sexual/procreative functionality of adult mortal bodies--and here is where you left a portion of my previous post unaddressed: specifically , those aspects of the sexual/procreative functionality of adult mortals that involve blood. I would be interested to learn how you account for these things in resurrected being since, at least to my understanding, blood will not exist among the resurrected. 

I ask because, as two of us have pointed out, blood is key to the issue of mortal libido.

 

I thought I addressed that when I said that some sort of fluid will be coursing through our veins. Presumably that fluid would handle the functions that our blood handles. 

We know that resurrected beings can eat earthly food so the function of major body systems must be substantially the same. 

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It is not uncommon these days for people to attach pejorative labels (like "cult" and "weird") to opposing views as a cheap, and oft unreasonable rhetorical dismissal or marginalization. At times, it certainly avoids the challenges of mounting a rational response.

I trust, though, that isn't what has been happening in the last several posts on this thread. ;) 

Whether people are active in the church or not, I believe they are still guided by the "better angels" of their inner selves. At least that is how I currently see things--until proven otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank-you, Sir.

Agree!  i guess that's the rub, right?  Everyone trying to figure out whether the good or bad labels they've assigned to something are accurate or not.  Task enough to fill a lifetime, and maybe longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BJ64 said:

You say that you think that desires will remain. This is exactly what I am saying when I say that I believe that same gender desire might still be with those in the next life who have it in this life. 

In the beginning, yes, the earthly desires we have will remain with us in the next life. This is in part why those who have not lived the commandments of God will experience a gnashing of teeth. They will have earthly desires that they know they will not be able to act upon.

Those who were fornicators will still have this desire. They will still want to experience such, and will discover they are not able to. Eventually, which is what I believe @wenglund was mentioning these desires will be gone (how long this will take we don't know).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

In the beginning, yes, the earthly desires we have will remain with us in the next life. This is in part why those who have not lived the commandments of God will experience a gnashing of teeth. They will have earthly desires that they know they will not be able to act upon.

Those who were fornicators will still have this desire. They will still want to experience such, and will discover they are not able to. Eventually, which is what I believe @wenglund was mentioning these desires will be gone (how long this will take we don't know).

FWIW, I do not believe this to be the absolute de facto, no-ifs-ands-or-buts, the-way-it-will-be, truth. I believe our general tendency/characters will be influenced by our mortal habits...but I do not believe our mortal weaknesses follow us into post mortality. I believe our spiritual weaknesses do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this scripture sort of says that we are the same in our thinking, desires and weaknesses after this life as now. 

Alms 34:34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I think this scripture sort of says that we are the same in our thinking, desires and weaknesses after this life as now. 

Alms 34:34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

What about “thinking” patterns that are influenced by physiological anomalies (e.g. brain tumors), or chemical imbalances, or genetics/epigenetics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wenglund: I'm not sure myself how I am using sexuality, because none of it, as it pertains to the afterlife, is entirely clear to me. I know that something about gender (male vs. female) is eternal and goes with us into the next life. Males are still "male", females are still female, intersex and gender ambiguous are -- I don't know, transgender -- I don't know. We will still have physical bodies that look a lot like our existing mortal bodies but that are "perfected" (whatever that means).

As I have followed the conversation, and assertions that there will be no "biochemical sex drive" or libido or similar, I place over the sexual models that I am familiar with, and I end up with something that really begins to look asexual. All the parts are there and functional, but there is not drive or hunger or craving for sexual expression. Asexuals can engage in sexual behaviors (depending on level of aversion), and may even choose to "go along to get along" (maybe out of kindness or generosity depending on the exact dynamics of the relationship) if they are in a relationship with a sexual partner.

This line of thinking branched off into thoughts of St. Augustine -- who believed that sex before the fall was pure, without passion

Quote

In Paradise, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul sexual passion. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife's breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife's virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by sexual passionful cravings. -- St. Augustine City of God Book 14 chapter 26

Under this kind of model, there are naturally no homosexuals. There really aren't heterosexuals as we know them either. I don't understand why this model necessarily precludes homosexual pairings (other than some kind of circular there are no homosexuals in the CK).

With that response, anything you (or others) would care to clarify?

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@wenglund: I'm not sure myself how I am using sexuality, because none of it, as it pertains to the afterlife, is entirely clear to me. I know that something about gender (male vs. female) is eternal and goes with us into the next life. Males are still "male", females are still female, intersex and gender ambiguous are -- I don't know, transgender -- I don't know. We will still have physical bodies that look a lot like our existing mortal bodies but that are "perfected" (whatever that means).

As I have followed the conversation, and assertions that there will be no "biochemical sex drive" or libido or similar, I place over the sexual models that I am familiar with, and I end up with something that really begins to look asexual. All the parts are there and functional, but there is not drive or hunger or craving for sexual expression. Asexuals can engage in sexual behaviors (depending on level of aversion), and may even choose to "go along to get along" (maybe out of kindness or generosity depending on the exact dynamics of the relationship) if they are in a relationship with a sexual partner.

This line of thinking branched off into thoughts of St. Augustine -- who believed that sex before the fall was pure, without passion

(taken from: http://thebodyissacred.org/origin/augustine.asp ).

Under this kind of model, there are naturally no homosexuals. There really aren't heterosexuals as we know them either. I don't understand why this model necessarily precludes homosexual pairings (other than some kind of circular there are no homosexuals in the CK).

With that response, anything you (or others) would care to clarify?

Please forgive the seeming pedantry to follow,. There is a method in my madness.

First, part of the confusion these days stems from culturally viewing sex more, if not exclusively, according to its distant secondary or tertiary purpose (evolutionary speaking, if not also in terms of the gospel) as an expression of romantic love rather than according to its primary purpose to reproduce. 

Biologically, there are two forms of reproduction--i.e. sexual (male and female--i.e heterosexual) and asexual (single organism reproduction) More specifically, for mortals there is only one form of natural reproduction--i.e. sexual (heterosexual).  The same is presumably true for exalted resurrected beings. 

In either case there is no homosexual form of reproduction.

Second, confusion these days also stems from the failure to adequately consider the various aspects of human reproduction. In general terms there are four key elements: A) reproductive body parts ; B) the functionality of those reproductive body parts ; C) stimulating the functionality of the reproductive body parts; and D) reproductive attraction.; all of which are decidedly heterosexual

Again, there is no homosexual form of reproduction.  However, while homosexuals have heterosexual body parts, and those body parts function heterosexually (lesbians produce eggs and gay men produce sperm, and the body parts of both respond heterosexually to sexual stimuli, but for whatever reason they are sexually attracted to the same sex. Their homosexual attraction conflicts with their otherwise heterosexual nature.

Third, and here is where I start to more directly address your post above, logically, where there is an absence of reproductive stimuli,  there is no reproductive functionality or reproductive/sexual attraction. I am speaking here not just in terms of libido and arousal, but also in terms of continued development of reproductive body parts, production of sperm and eggs, endrometrial regrowth, ovulation, menstruation, etc.

In mortals, the reproductive stimuli primarily comes in the form of hormones. Hence, the ongoing discussion about the existence or not of hormones beyond the grave. If reproductive hormones do exist universally for mankind beyond the grave, then there is yet the possibility of homosexual attraction (assuming the aberration of homosexual sexual attraction that is at odds with the rest of one's heterosexual being is even possible among the resurrected); whereas, if the hormones occur only among the Celestial resurrected, or don't occur at all, but are replaced with an alternative form of reproductive stimuli only among the Celestial resurrected, then homosexual attraction will not exist beyond the grave.

As you may tell, I am arguing the latter. Stay tuned. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I thought I addressed that when I said that some sort of fluid will be coursing through our veins. Presumably that fluid would handle the functions that our blood handles. 

We know that resurrected beings can eat earthly food so the function of major body systems must be substantially the same. 

Yes, I read you response to Anddenex after I posted my reply.  Sorry I missed it, though I will address it now

Quote

Yes, something other than blood will course through our veins but our heart will still be pumping something. 

Sex drive is driven by hormones. I see no reason why hormones would not still flow through our veins. 

I believe an immortal body functions essential the same as an immortal body. We know that immortal beings can eat food. Adam and Eve ate in the garden if Eden. They were also commanded to multiply so reproduction must have been possible as well. 

You say that you think that desires will remain. This is exactly what I am saying when I say that I believe that same gender desire might still be with those in the next life who have it in this life. 

On the surface, this makes a lot of sense. However, when one considers that the relationship between blood and hormones are complicated beyond the mode of transmission, and when one considers that complexity of hormonal interactions with each other and as prompted by certain body parts and functions, it becomes a bit more problematic.

To keep things somewhat manageable, let me ask whether you believe that some or all of resurrected women will menstruate?  I bring this up not just for reasons of the blood in case of mortals, since that may be explained away with the "something other" you mentioned above. Rather, I have in mind the "issue" (as the Bible terms it) and more particularly the discarding or death of the egg, which strikes me as implausible within an eternal realm. Keep in mind that the mortal menstrual cycle is prompted and regulated by hormones.

If you answer no, then this suggests that not all hormones found in mortals are present or operate the same in resurrected beings, and even leaves open the prospect that they don't exist at all, and there may be "something other" to activate reproductive functionality.

If you answer yes, then how do you account for the "issue" and dead eggs?

Also, on a related note, there are activating and inhibiting reproductive hormones that not only regulate sperm production and ovulation and the like, but which also influence libido and sexual arousal and thus sexual/reproductive functionality.  Even if one assumes that hormones exist beyond the grave, who is to say that for non-Celestial resurrected beings, the inhibitor hormones will predominate, assuming that the hormones are initially activated at all--I have in mind my analogy comparing non-Celestial resurrected beings to pre-pubescent mortal children (they have the reproductive body parts, but not the reproductive functionality, stimulation, or libido.) 

For my part, I am of the opinion that reproductive hormones do not exist beyond the grave, but are replaced with "something other," and this only among Celestial resurrected beings. Meaning, not only that homosexuality doesn't exist beyond the grave, but that sexually and reproduction, aside from the mere presence of reproductive body parts,  doesn't exist for non-Celestial beings. They are as little children.

I can accept, though, that you and others may view it differently, and I value the learning and growing experience I have gained from reasonably engaging in our differences. {thumbs up] 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

First, part of the confusion these days stems from culturally viewing sex more, if not exclusively, according to its distant secondary or tertiary purpose (evolutionary speaking, if not also in terms of the gospel) as an expression of romantic love rather than according to its primary purpose to reproduce. 

While the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, the primary use of sex is pleasure. I would say that practically speaking pleasure between husband and wife is the primary purpose of sex. I think it was intended to be that way. There’s only a relatively short period of time where reproduction is desirable or possible.  While my wife and I have used it to reproduce four times, we’ve used it for pleasure more than four thousand times. Those who think that sex is a necessary evil in order to reproduce are missing out on what I feel is primary usefulness of sex. 

I don’t think that will change for exalted couples. 

The primary purpose of sex being to produce posterity in this life and the next is why homosexual relations are against God’s plan for us. 

Someone has said that homosexual desires will be gone after this life. I asked many pages back how you would know this to be the case? It seems like a pretty complicated issue to me. To make a difinitive statement on this issue you would either have to be able to find it in scripture or be a prophet speaking while moved upon by the spirit. I haven’t been able to find either of these as of yet. 

The primary purpose of eating is to stay alive but I suspect most people eat because they enjoy food and crave it. 

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Yes, I read you response to Anddenex after I posted my reply.  Sorry I missed it, though I will address it now

On the surface, this makes a lot of sense. However, when one considers that the relationship between blood and hormones are complicated beyond the mode of transmission, and when one considers that complexity of hormonal interactions with each other and as prompted by certain body parts and functions, it becomes a bit more problematic.

To keep things somewhat manageable, let me ask whether you believe that some or all of resurrected women will menstruate?  I bring this up not just for reasons of the blood in case of mortals, since that may be explained away with the "something other" you mentioned above. Rather, I have in mind the "issue" (as the Bible terms it) and more particularly the discarding or death of the egg, which strikes me as implausible within an eternal realm. Keep in mind that the mortal menstrual cycle is prompted and regulated by hormones.

If you answer no, then this suggests that not all hormones found in mortals are present or operate the same in resurrected beings, and even leaves open the prospect that they don't exist at all, and there may be "something other" to activate reproductive functionality.

If you answer yes, then how do you account for the "issue" and dead eggs?

Also, on a related note, there are activating and inhibiting reproductive hormones that not only regulate sperm production and ovulation and the like, but which also influence libido and sexual arousal and thus sexual/reproductive functionality.  Even if one assumes that hormones exist beyond the grave, who is to say that for non-Celestial resurrected beings, the inhibitor hormones will predominate, assuming that the hormones are initially activated at all--I have in mind my analogy comparing non-Celestial resurrected beings to pre-pubescent mortal children (they have the reproductive body parts, but not the reproductive functionality, stimulation, or libido.) 

For my part, I am of the opinion that reproductive hormones do not exist beyond the grave, but are replaced with "something other," and this only among Celestial resurrected beings. Meaning, not only that homosexuality doesn't exist beyond the grave, but that sexually and reproduction, aside from the mere presence of reproductive body parts,  doesn't exist for non-Celestial beings. They are as little children.

I can accept, though, that you and others may view it differently, and I value the learning and growing experience I have gained from reasonably engaging in our differences. {thumbs up] 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no opinion on menstrstion in the eternities nor of the sexuality of non exalted individuals. 

To complicate things, what about the promise that those righteous people who do not have the opportunity to marry and have children in this life will have it in the next life? 

What about the fact that Christ was immortal/mortal. He had blood but could only die by choosing to do so?

Presumably he had hormones as well as a wife and children.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@wenglund: I'm not sure myself how I am using sexuality, because none of it, as it pertains to the afterlife, is entirely clear to me. I know that something about gender (male vs. female) is eternal and goes with us into the next life. Males are still "male", females are still female, intersex and gender ambiguous are -- I don't know, transgender -- I don't know. We will still have physical bodies that look a lot like our existing mortal bodies but that are "perfected" (whatever that means).

As I have followed the conversation, and assertions that there will be no "biochemical sex drive" or libido or similar, I place over the sexual models that I am familiar with, and I end up with something that really begins to look asexual. All the parts are there and functional, but there is not drive or hunger or craving for sexual expression. Asexuals can engage in sexual behaviors (depending on level of aversion), and may even choose to "go along to get along" (maybe out of kindness or generosity depending on the exact dynamics of the relationship) if they are in a relationship with a sexual partner.

This line of thinking branched off into thoughts of St. Augustine -- who believed that sex before the fall was pure, without passion

Under this kind of model, there are naturally no homosexuals. There really aren't heterosexuals as we know them either. I don't understand why this model necessarily precludes homosexual pairings (other than some kind of circular there are no homosexuals in the CK).

With that response, anything you (or others) would care to clarify?

Without commenting directly on what he said I’ll give my opinion on St Augustine. He lived in the dark ages when Jesus Christ’s Church was not upon the earth. Since there are only two churches, the church of Jesus Christ and the church of the devil, his teachings were from the latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BJ64 said:

While the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, the primary use of sex is pleasure. I would say that practically speaking pleasure between husband and wife is the primary purpose of sex. I think it was intended to be that way. There’s only a relatively short period of time where reproduction is desirable or possible.  While my wife and I have used it to reproduce four times, we’ve used it for pleasure more than four thousand times. Those who think that sex is a necessary evil in order to reproduce are missing out on what I feel is primary usefulness of sex. 

I don’t think that will change for exalted couples. 

The primary purpose of sex being to produce posterity in this life and the next is why homosexual relations are against God’s plan for us. 

Someone has said that homosexual desires will be gone after this life. I asked many pages back how you would know this to be the case? It seems like a pretty complicated issue to me. To make a difinitive statement on this issue you would either have to be able to find it in scripture or be a prophet speaking while moved upon by the spirit. I haven’t been able to find either of these as of yet. 

The primary purpose of eating is to stay alive but I suspect most people eat because they enjoy food and crave it. 

I believe that from an evolutionary perspective,  you have it exactly backwards. The pleasure of sex is built into mankind so that they will take on the daunting task of bearing and raising children,  and remain together as a couple so as to increase the chances of success for those children. The pleasure of sex is primarily to enhance viable reproduction, and not for the shared indulgence of couples, though that is certainly a side benefit.

Evidence for this, beyond common sense (evolution is geared primarily towards the survival of the species, and not the mutual pleasure of adults) is born out in the dynamics of sex-related hormones (some of which are also related to human happiness and success)., and can best be understood by controlling for certain variables--i.e. removing children and committed partners from the equation. 

The dynamic is a bit too complicated to get into in this kind of discussion, but suffice it to say that the  hormones (dopamine and endorphines in particular) are designed to provide a natural check and balance needed to avoid addiction, while encouraging human and familial progress (stimulated by dopamine) and bonding (stimulated by endorphines). For a more detailed explanation of this see Your Brain on Porn.

I also believe that from a gospel perspective, and in terms of mortality, you have it exactly backwards. This is implied by the law of chastity and also the command to be fruitful and multiply, but also stated explicitly in various church publications. For example:, in the Eternal Family, teachers manual, the Introduction states: 

Quote

God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona,Nov. 2010, 129). For all of God’s children, living the law of chastity requires us to be virtuous in our actions as well as our thoughts. Intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred, and it is ordained of God for procreation and for expressing love.

I see the last clause as expressing an order of priority. This is further affirmed by a number of statements from the church, not the least of wish is this news report in connection with the proclamation on the family:

Quote

From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,”[3] and they brought forth children, forming the first family. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.

 I could go on, but hopefully this will suffice.

As for exalted resurrected being, I don't know that sexual pleasure is needed, particularly since it pales in comparison to the bonding and joys of godly love.

Certainly, the bearing and rearing of spiritual children isn't presumably anywhere near as daunting in the resource abundant and joy-filled heavens as it is upon the resource scarce and lone and dreary world of earth.

All of this, from a gospel perspective, was expressed most beautifully by Elder Packer, in his April 2015 GC talk on: The Plan of Happiness.

But, as always, people are free to see it otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I have no opinion on menstrstion in the eternities nor of the sexuality of non exalted individuals. 

Actually, this discussion began with you disagree with my claim that homosexuality wont exist beyond the grave. So, at least you do have some opinion about un-exalted sexuality--that is, unless you are proposing that homosexuality may be a form of exalted sexuality. 

Quote

To complicate things, what about the promise that those righteous people who do not have the opportunity to marry and have children in this life will have it in the next life? 

I am not sure what is complicated about that? We both agree that procreation can occur with celestial resurrected beings. All that is ultimately at issue is whether the procreation involves hormones or "something other."

Quote

What about the fact that Christ was immortal/mortal. He had blood but could only die by choosing to do so?

Presumably he had hormones as well as a wife and children.  

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between an immortal/mortal and a resurrected being? The fact that Christ needed to undergo a transfiguration as an immortal/mortal, so as to, among several things,  bear the presence of his Father, which wasn't the case following his resurrection, ought to suggest to the mind that there are some significant differences.

Besides, we both agree that for resurrected beings there is "something other" that flows through the veins than the blood of mortality (immortal or otherwise). So, there is that significant difference.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 11:40 AM, Fether said:

Whenever the church has interactions with the LGBTQ+ community, it stirs a series of thoughts and questions.

What is the ultimate vision? Obviously it is rooted in charity and acceptance but not quite reaching into adoption of standards. Do we see some day in the future where homosexual couples are freely marrying each other outside of the church yet attending church faithfully? Even holding “minor” callings like a Sunday school teacher? 

Will the LGBTQ community ever stop seeing the church as a religion of bigotry if We never change our view of marriage, but still put as much efforts into strengthening our ties with them?

Does anyone believe that one day the church will allow homosexuals to receive temple recommends?? I definitely don’t.

 

I personally am a Messianic Gentile who feels called into politics and I

was so glad to read what near death experiencer ...... and good friend of Mrs. Betty  EAdie, author of

Embraced By The Light wrote about this question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Eadie

Quote

 

Eadie, who is part Native American, was born in Valentine, Nebraska and raised on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota. When she was four, Betty's parents separated and she was placed in St. Francis Indian School, one of the American Indian boarding schools at the time, along with six of her siblings. While in high school, she dropped out to care for a younger sister. She later returned to receive her diploma, eventually pursuing a college degree. She converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), in which she says she was largely inactive until her NDE, after which she became active and served church callings in her ward in Seattle.[1]

After her NDE, Betty began volunteering her time at a cancer research center comforting dying patients and their families. She then studied hypnotherapy, graduating at the top of her class, and later opened her own clinic. After "Embraced" was published, Betty gave up her hypnotherapy practice and began traveling extensively throughout the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Ireland, speaking on death and the afterlife. Today, after more than 37 years of NDE studies, Betty J. Eadie continues to collect and evaluate near-death accounts, as well as giving speeches and lectures.

 

 

Here is the reply that Christian got when he asked about this:

Quote

 

11. What about sexually diverse people?
 
God loves gay people

If this world was to ever find out just a small amount of what sexually diverse (gay) people are here to do on this planet, there would never be one single wisecrack or hurtful remark made ever again. Instead there would be great respect! People who speak disrespectful things about people of this orientation ... enact judgment, and do so from a place of unenlightenment, insecurity, ego and socially induced prejudice. Some may use mistranslated scriptures taught to them, not by the Holy Spirit ... but by fear-filled human beings. Many will choose to sustain a Divinely unsupported satanic hate-based rage against these children of God, rather than using Love to bring understanding and healing between both peoples. Christ said, THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT IS THAT WE ARE TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER! When people sling condemnation, judgment and bitterness at others, they are not practicing the great commandment. They are allowing their Souls to fall into darkness." (Christian Andreason, near-death
.com)

 

 

Edited by DennisTate
grammar.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2018 at 5:59 PM, lostinwater said:

Thank-you, Sir.

Agree!  i guess that's the rub, right?  Everyone trying to figure out whether the good or bad labels they've assigned to something are accurate or not.  Task enough to fill a lifetime, and maybe longer.

On a somewhat humorous note.......

I have to admit that I have total empathy with nearly fifty percent of homosexuals...... lesbians?!

 

If....  The Ancient of Days the Father... .The Holy Spirit ... and Messiah Yeshua - Jesus had decided to send me to this planet as a woman....... I think I might be struggling with powerful lesbian tendencies???!

Edited by DennisTate
add little joke....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BJ64 said:

While the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, the primary use of sex is pleasure. I would say that practically speaking pleasure between husband and wife is the primary purpose of sex. I think it was intended to be that way. There’s only a relatively short period of time where reproduction is desirable or possible.  While my wife and I have used it to reproduce four times, we’ve used it for pleasure more than four thousand times. Those who think that sex is a necessary evil in order to reproduce are missing out on what I feel is primary usefulness of sex. 

Stating things perhaps more coherently than my previous response, I get what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just advise caution.

To wit, there is perceptual reality which may differ somewhat from evolutionary reality.  Perceptual reality is that, in terms of use and practically speaking,, more often than not sex is the means to the end of pleasure; whereas in terms of evolution, sexual pleasure is the means to the end of responsible procreation and survival of the species. 

By this I mean that over time, evolution, both biological and social, has selected for women who experience sexual desire and pleasure even during the more lengthy periods when they are less fertile, and this to increase the chances of their bonding with men so that the men will stick around and provide the necessary resources and potentially have multiple children. Otherwise, particularly during less civilized times, then men may be inclined to wander from woman to woman and irresponsibly spread their seed  wherever and when the soil is fertile. 

So, while men and women today may perceive that they are mostly using sex as a means for pleasure, evolution has designed them to have frequent non-procreative sexual pleasure precisely as a means of better assuring  responsible procreation and familial development, and thus survival of the species.

I mention this because of my concern that, culturally, there is a tendency for the practical use of pleasure in sex to conscientiously overshadow and perhaps even ignore the evolutionary (as well as Plan of Progression) purpose  of sex--i.e. the means may become an end in itself, which, as can be seen in the aftermath of the decline in societal morals, can be catastrophic, even to the point of threatening the survival of the species, if not more particularly spiritual progress unto becoming like Christ.

In short, while married men and women may rightly engage in sex for reasons of mutual pleasure, it is beneficial for them to keep in mind that this is ultimately about having children and growing successful families, both for on earth and as it is in heaven.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 12:19 PM, estradling75 said:

I think the over all vision is for the church members to treat the LGBTQ group just like any other group of sinners.  For example we are against Fornication and Adultery.  But we do not want them dead, scorned, casted out, denied basic civil services (like housing and food) etc.. and we do this while all the time holding our standard that it is wrong and subject to church discipline and restrictions.

Sadly there seems to be elements for polarization on both sides.  One group wanting them effectively destroyed, and the other wanting the lifestyle to be embraced and pronounced good by all

We must truly have Chrislike love or we have as much a problem as they do.    M. Russell Ballard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Stating things perhaps more coherently than my previous response, I get what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just advise caution.

To wit, there is perceptual reality which may differ somewhat from evolutionary reality.  Perceptual reality is that, in terms of use and practically speaking,, more often than not sex is the means to the end of pleasure; whereas in terms of evolution, sexual pleasure is the means to the end of responsible procreation and survival of the species. 

By this I mean that over time, evolution, both biological and social, has selected for women who experience sexual desire and pleasure even during the more lengthy periods when they are less fertile, and this to increase the chances of their bonding with men so that the men will stick around and provide the necessary resources and potentially have multiple children. Otherwise, particularly during less civilized times, then men may be inclined to wander from woman to woman and irresponsibly spread their seed  wherever and when the soil is fertile. 

So, while men and women today may perceive that they are mostly using sex as a means for pleasure, evolution has designed them to have frequent non-procreative sexual pleasure precisely as a means of better assuring  responsible procreation and familial development, and thus survival of the species.

I mention this because of my concern that, culturally, there is a tendency for the practical use of pleasure in sex to conscientiously overshadow and perhaps even ignore the evolutionary (as well as Plan of Progression) purpose  of sex--i.e. the means may become an end in itself, which, as can be seen in the aftermath of the decline in societal morals, can be catastrophic, even to the point of threatening the survival of the species, if not more particularly spiritual progress unto becoming like Christ.

In short, while married men and women may rightly engage in sex for reasons of mutual pleasure, it is beneficial for them to keep in mind that this is ultimately about having children and growing successful families, both for on earth and as it is in heaven.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I would agree and perhaps go a little deeper in saying that indulgence in pleasure for no other reason than pleasure is seldom - if ever - a path to happiness for anybody.  That to sustain joy one must be willing to be disciplined - even to the point of sacrifice of individual pleasures.  That some are so committed to dong good and beneficial for family, community and society that the sacrifice personal desire and pleasure is indeed an exemplary intelligent, spiritual and physical sacrifice - that we all should strive for, recognize and encourage.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DennisTate said:

 

I personally am a Messianic Gentile who feels called into politics and I

was so glad to read what near death experiencer ...... and good friend of Mrs. Betty  EAdie, author of

Embraced By The Light wrote about this question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Eadie

 

Here is the reply that Christian got when he asked about this:

 

The LDS view is that only heterosexual couples sealed in the temple will be exalted. I believe the husband and wife relationship is a necessary part of the creation of worlds. 

Practicing homosexual people will still inherit a kingdom of glory but by not obeying the commandment of entering the new and everlasting covenant of marriage with a member of the opposite sex they will forfeit the possibility of exaltation. 

Of course God loves everyone but His love isn’t going to exalt those who have not been obedient to His commandments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The LDS view is that only heterosexual couples sealed in the temple will be exalted. I believe the husband and wife relationship is a necessary part of the creation of worlds. 

Practicing homosexual people will still inherit a kingdom of glory but by not obeying the commandment of entering the new and everlasting covenant of marriage with a member of the opposite sex they will forfeit the possibility of exaltation. 

Of course God loves everyone but His love isn’t going to exalt those who have not been obedient to His commandments. 

I think that that is a good way of explaining this........

that many theologians in many denominations might well somewhat envy?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DennisTate said:

On a somewhat humorous note.......

I have to admit that I have total empathy with nearly fifty percent of homosexuals...... lesbians?!

 

If....  The Ancient of Days the Father... .The Holy Spirit ... and Messiah Yeshua - Jesus had decided to send me to this planet as a woman....... I think I might be struggling with powerful lesbian tendencies???!

It’s funny you should say that since it was just recently that I told my wife that if I was a woman I’d be a lesbian. 

I based that on the fact that if I was a woman I would not want to wear skirts, high heels, jewelry make up nor long hair or long fingernails. I’d be a very masculine woman. However that’s probably not a fair statement in regards to lesbians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rustedhart said:

This started with a very relevant, important question and has led to us having some kind of fluid other than blood that transfers celestial hormones through glorified flesh. Who has time for all of this?

Obviously people a lot farther along the path to salvation than me . . . 

Well it seems many people don’t even “have the time” for daily scripture study let alone the study of church doctrine, the study of the writings of prophets, the study of church history or the time to ponder pray and receive personal revelation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2018 at 11:11 AM, MrShorty said:

@wenglund: I'm not sure myself how I am using sexuality, because none of it, as it pertains to the afterlife, is entirely clear to me. I know that something about gender (male vs. female) is eternal and goes with us into the next life. Males are still "male", females are still female, intersex and gender ambiguous are -- I don't know, transgender -- I don't know. We will still have physical bodies that look a lot like our existing mortal bodies but that are "perfected" (whatever that means).

As I have followed the conversation, and assertions that there will be no "biochemical sex drive" or libido or similar, I place over the sexual models that I am familiar with, and I end up with something that really begins to look asexual. All the parts are there and functional, but there is not drive or hunger or craving for sexual expression. Asexuals can engage in sexual behaviors (depending on level of aversion), and may even choose to "go along to get along" (maybe out of kindness or generosity depending on the exact dynamics of the relationship) if they are in a relationship with a sexual partner.

This line of thinking branched off into thoughts of St. Augustine -- who believed that sex before the fall was pure, without passion

Under this kind of model, there are naturally no homosexuals. There really aren't heterosexuals as we know them either. I don't understand why this model necessarily precludes homosexual pairings (other than some kind of circular there are no homosexuals in the CK).

With that response, anything you (or others) would care to clarify?

First Paragraph

I believe our political volatility, and hypothetical (subjective) empirical science has created an atmosphere and climate that is bringing our society closer to the notion of "all things are a compound in one." In this climate, there is no right, there is no wrong. There is no gender. There is no sex. As a result, things that should be very clear are now becoming blurred.

God, our Heavenly Father is male. God, our Heavenly Mother is female. One spirit (male or female -- like Heavenly parents) inhabits a mortal tabernacle of flesh and blood. A person that is experiencing some confusion as to their spirit is still inhabited by one spirit that is either male or female. They will resurrect either male or female. Intersex are still inhabited by one spirit that is either male or female. That is the eternal nature of who we are, who we have always been, and who we will be eternally.

Second Paragraph

What does it mean to be a "master" of oneself, which God is? The scriptures specify that we are to bridle our passions, not that we are void of passion. Heavenly Father/Mother are not void of passion. They are masters of their passion, their cravings, and anything else that would be considered within the realm of "emotions." Heavenly Father/Mother still have desires, pure and virtuous desires, that are mastered -- and are not controlled nor tempted by the natural man/woman. They are fully in control of their lives -- nothing asexual. If "charity" is the greatest of all principles, there will never be a time from people who are masters of themselves that they will "go along to get along."

This statement here, "All the parts are there and functional, but there is not drive or hunger or craving for sexual expression," is more inline with the natural man/woman. It is the worldly assumption that in order to have a healthy sexual relation their must be hunger, their must be craving, their must be passion, etc... Let me quote a young man when I was young who once said, "I never want to be in a position where when I see my wife naked that I don't immediately get an erection." (Sorry mods if that is TMI)  This is also the natural man, and worldly assumption.

I would testify that when a person has complete control, they are masters of themselves, none of these "drives" will be there and the relationship (even sexual) will be all the better. We will have desire. It is God's work and glory (his desire) to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his offspring -- his heirs.

St. Augustine Paragraph

He would be incorrect with one aspect - passion. I find the scripture very enlightening regarding the command to bridle our passions. The Lord does not condemn the passion, he condemns a lack of mastery of our passion, which means God still has passion. His passions are mastered. He is in control. He is fully in control.

I would agree that intimacy was pure, and undiluted by the the natural man tendencies (which is what homosexuality (the act) is, a passion unbridled by the natural man/woman). No different than the man who is constantly tempted and passionate for other women besides his wife.

There are no individuals who "actively participated" in any sexual relation outside the bounds the Lord has set that will be in the Celestial Kingdom. Thus there will be no active homosexuals, there will be no active adulterers, there will be no active fornicators, etc... in the Celestial Kingdom.

Active being -- unrepentant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share