Mormon and gay. Where are we going?


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

If anyone hasn't read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis - i'd highly recommend it.  It talks about the afterlife a lot in a really interesting way.

But that aside, i think there is an common (not ubiquitous) perception that those in this community are people whose motivations, lives, efforts, desires, etc., are almost exclusively based on the 'homosexual lifestyle' - whatever that is supposed to mean.  There have been at least a couple references to this just in this thread. 

i mean, like what is the homosexual lifestyle?  Talking to people about your friends who've taken their own lives?  Marching in a parade maybe once a year - though most people don't even do this.  i wish most people realized that like 98% of everyone in this community is not trying to desegregate bathrooms, not trying to teach things of a sexual nature to elementary school kids.  But i guess it's irresistibly convenient to define a group by whoever claims to speak for the group with the loudest bullhorn.  Especially when generalizing in that way serves to reinforce your current world view.

It's really unfortunate, because i think a lot of division is nourished from the misconception that everyone in the LGBT community is someone whose entire lives revolves around that one aspect of themselves - and that when you realize it's not true, a person will often rethink their beliefs.  It's no coincidence that the vast majority of parents of Mormon (and even Christian in general) LGBT children support this aspect of their child - very often actively.  You can't caricature a child, or a very close friend nearly as easily as you can someone you don't know.

And really, it's worth mentioning that intersex and asexual people (widely considered part of the LGBT community) are in large part defined by the *absence* of the very stereotypes they are subsumed by - which is quite the irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, a lot depends on exactly what our sexuality will look like beyond the grave. Most Christians would say that we will become some form of asexual -- sexuality (hetero or homo) does not continue beyond the grave.

 

Are you using the word "sexuality" as referring to sexual attraction or what we now refer to as gender (male/female)? Either way, you agree with me at least about homosexuals, right?

Quote

I think most who say that homosexuality won't exist are assuming some kind of male + female is required to create spirit children. I have not seen anything (beyond speculation) of what that process actually looks like, so I don't find it difficult to dream up a process that doesn't require male + female.

People are at liberty to dream up whatever they wish. Dreams don't require any thethering to reality, spiritual or otherwise. But, I am not sure there is any meaningful or productive value in doing so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

In my thinking our desires will stay with us after death. Therefore if one has a same sex desire in this life I don’t see why that would change. 

I presume we will still love and desire our spouse after this life so why would it be different for a same sex couple. Except that same sex couples will not be married for eternity. 

To me, it depends upon what one includes within the notion of "desire." I have no doubt that male-to-male or female-to-female love and bonding and a desire for companionship will continue on after death. However, that will be the case regardless of one's "sexual orientation" during mortality. It is called brotherly or sisterly love. 

When I speak of homosexuality, I am speaking specifically about the drive to engage in sexual behavior (which I differentiate from sexual or other habits during mortality, like smoking). 

During mortality there are natural bio-chemical reactions that comprise that drive. With heterosexuals, that drive is aligned with their heterosexual bodies, whereas with homosexuals, it is at odds with their heterosexual bodies.

Granted, while the bio-chemical drive will be absent for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, we all will still have our heterosexual bodies. We will still be male and female.Thus, heterosexuality will still exist while homosexuality will not.

As for what may replace the bio-chemical drive in post mortal people, I suspect it may have much to do with exaltation of the man and woman, husband and wife.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Granted, while the bio-chemical drive will be absent for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, we all will still have our heterosexual bodies. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don’t think we can be certain that the bio chemical drive will be absent. Who says so? The scriptures say that not a hair of the head will be lost so I don’t see why a perfect body will lose its sex drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t think we can be certain that the bio chemical drive will be absent. Who says so? The scriptures say that not a hair of the head will be lost so I don’t see why a perfect body will lose its sex drive. 

Do you believe that deceased people will continue producing sperm and eggs? If not, and given the hormonal tie-in of libido to those mortal procreative conditions, it follows that there would be no bio-chemical sex drive.--not to mention that libido would be pointless for resurrected beings, and even more so for dis-embodied spirits awaiting the resurrection.

However, if you do believe that sperm and eggs will continue to be produced after death, then you have a lot to account for, such as menstrual cycles, varied levels of hormones based on age, the capability of conceiving mortal children, etc. And, given that most, if not all of these things are critically linked to blood, as is also sexual functionality (at least for mortals), you would have to account for that as well. Good luck with that, particularly given the connection between blood and death.

While I can't be certain , reason strongly suggests to me that the bio-chemical drive will be absent. But, people are free to think otherwise.

Furthermore, even if one believes that libido is still present among the resurrected, there is the presumption that the resurrected bodies will grow to perfection. In other words, people with missing body parts at death, and/or physical and mental disabilities, dysfunctions, etc. will be made whole. Since homosexual attraction is at odds with the heterosexual body (as well as the heterosexual functionality of the heterosexual body), that dysfunction will be corrected as the body grows to perfection. In that sense then, homosexuality will cease to exist at some point beyond the grave.

So, any way you look at it, my assertion stands to reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t think we can be certain that the bio chemical drive will be absent. Who says so? The scriptures say that not a hair of the head will be lost so I don’t see why a perfect body will lose its sex drive. 

When considering the resurrection and this verse there are aspects of doctrine that is known that we have to consider:

1) The difference between flesh and blood, and flesh and bone

2) Blood is the organic component that gives life to our human flesh. Without blood we have no life in mortality

3) The resurrected soul is quickened by the Spirit, not by blood. Blood does not give life to the resurrected soul.

I, personally, do not believe we will have a "sex drive" that is chemically driven, as we are quickened by the Spirit, not by blood. We will be driven more by our desires, and I do not believe this is an accurate use of the scripture that says not a hair of the head will be lost, because if so, then where is the "blood" of a resurrected body that is quickened by the Spirit. Blood is symbolic of death, or a species that can die and will die. So, although our bodies will be perfect, and we know not a hair of our head will be lost, we also know that other items will not be with us although we have a perfect body.

If our sex drive is influenced by our chemical biology (blood), then it appears our sex drive will not be as we describe it now; although, for many, it will be their desire that remains, not their sex drive, which appears to be influenced by blood through mortality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

If our sex drive is influenced by our chemical biology (blood), then it appears our sex drive will not be as we describe it now; although, for many, it will be their desire that remains, not their sex drive, which appears to be influenced by blood through mortality.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
6 hours ago, wenglund said:

Do you believe that deceased people will continue producing sperm and eggs? If not, and given the hormonal tie-in of libido to those mortal procreative conditions, it follows that there would be no bio-chemical sex drive.--not to mention that libido would be pointless for resurrected beings, and even more so for dis-embodied spirits awaiting the resurrection.

However, if you do believe that sperm and eggs will continue to be produced after death, then you have a lot to account for, such as menstrual cycles, varied levels of hormones based on age, the capability of conceiving mortal children, etc. And, given that most, if not all of these things are critically linked to blood, as is also sexual functionality (at least for mortals), you would have to account for that as well. Good luck with that, particularly given the connection between blood and death.

Furthermore, even if one believes that libido is still present among the resurrected, there is the presumption that the resurrected bodies will grow to perfection. In other words, people with missing body parts at death, and/or physical and mental disabilities, dysfunctions, etc. will be made whole. 

 

 

I said before that I believe that immortal beings can reproduce so therefore eggs and sperm would need to be present. That’s how I believe Adam and Eve were created. Adam and Eve were immortal when they were created and so were their parents. 

I don’t believe a disembodied spirit would have a libido because that is  a function of the body. A spirit would still have desires though. 

If a resurrected being is perfect then it would have perfect hormone levels which wouldn’t vary with age. 

Immortal beings would not produce mortal children. Mortality would come later as in the case of Adam and Eve. 

If all body parts are restored to their proper frame and function  then so would genitals. Why would a person be resurrected with non functioning body parts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zil said:

So the scriptures lie?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.23?lang=eng#p22

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.11?lang=eng#p10

Both make it clear they couldn't have children until after the fall.

I interpret this to mean that in their innocent state they could not have children. Their innocence was that of young children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zil said:

So the scriptures lie?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.23?lang=eng#p22

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.11?lang=eng#p10

Both make it clear they couldn't have children until after the fall.

In his defense, the fact that they would not have had children, doesn't automatically indicate that they could not have children.  I'm not saying this is my personal position, but theoretically, they could have been physically capable of child bearing, yet being as children without knowledge of the reproductive process and not recognizing they were naked would prevent that technical possibility from ever occurring until they gained knowledge.  This type of perspective, in my mind, would not contradict those verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, person0 said:

In his defense, the fact that they would not have had children, doesn't automatically indicate that they could not have children.  I'm not saying this is my personal position, but theoretically, they could have been physically capable of child bearing, yet being as children without knowledge of the reproductive process and not recognizing they were naked would prevent that technical possibility from ever occurring until they gained knowledge.  This type of perspective, in my mind, would not contradict those verses.

Apparently you were never in the 6th grade (or younger, I hear).  Children figure out pretty quickly what goes where.  Were the animals equally ignorant?  Or did they all sneak off so Adam and Eve wouldn't catch on?

Sorry, seems pretty obvious to me.  On the other hand, meh.  It amazes me that this thread needs 10 pages of repeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

In his defense, the fact that they would not have had children, doesn't automatically indicate that they could not have children.  I'm not saying this is my personal position, but theoretically, they could have been physically capable of child bearing, yet being as children without knowledge of the reproductive process and not recognizing they were naked would prevent that technical possibility from ever occurring until they gained knowledge.  This type of perspective, in my mind, would not contradict those verses.

Yes, this is my thinking. 

In the garden they could technically have been able to sin as well but they did not because they had no knowledge of good and evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Apparently you were never in the 6th grade (or younger, I hear).  Children figure out pretty quickly what goes where.  Were the animals equally ignorant?  Or did they all sneak off so Adam and Eve wouldn't catch on  

Children on this earth learn good from evil by the time they are eight too. However apparently that was not the case with Adam and Eve. 

I don't believe the animals were yet reproducing either until after the fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zil said:

 It amazes me that this thread needs 10 pages of repeats.

You’re right. I thought I made my opinions clear the first time around. 

It also amazes me that so many people think there is no sex in the eternities. What’s the point of having an eternal gender identity and an eternal spouse if our gender rolls will cease to exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zil said:

Apparently you were never in the 6th grade (or younger, I hear).  Children figure out pretty quickly what goes where.  Were the animals equally ignorant?  Or did they all sneak off so Adam and Eve wouldn't catch on?

Sorry, seems pretty obvious to me.  On the other hand, meh.  It amazes me that this thread needs 10 pages of repeats.

I'm not sure about repeats, I just pop in every now and then so I haven't been paying much attention.  I just saw this one thing.  The scriptures do clearly indicate they had no idea that they were naked.  Every argument I have ever heard about Adam and Eve not reproducing in the Garden has been about their lack of understanding to know how;  I have never heard someone make they argument that they physically were incapable of it.  This is even how I taught people who asked this question on my mission, that because they did not even recognize they were naked, they would not have had sex and therefore no children until after knowledge was gained from partaking of the fruit.  I don't think the animals reproduced either, but at the moment I don't really have any source to support that claim.  I do know that plants produced fruit spontaneously, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To explain to anyone new to this topic, the reason we are discussing sex after resurrection is that if sexual relations are required to populate a planet then a homosexual couple could not become gods because they would not have the ability to populate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I said before that I believe that immortal beings can reproduce so therefore eggs and sperm would need to be present. That’s how I believe Adam and Eve were created. Adam and Eve were immortal when they were created and so were their parents. 

I don’t believe a disembodied spirit would have a libido because that is  a function of the body. A spirit would still have desires though. 

If a resurrected being is perfect then it would have perfect hormone levels which wouldn’t vary with age. 

Immortal beings would not produce mortal children. Mortality would come later as in the case of Adam and Eve. 

If all body parts are restored to their proper frame and function  then so would genitals. Why would a person be resurrected with non functioning body parts?

I agree with you that resurrected beings will have genitalia. And, I am even open to the plausibility that Celestial resurrected beings may have functioning genitalia--i.e. they are capable, like mortals, of producing spirit bodies or spiritual (Terrestrial) bodies,, or in other words they can have increase, (produce children), though I can also accept that procreation may occur in some other ways, such as "speaking the word" (commanding, and the elements obeying), as was the case with the terrestrial creation of the earth  

Whereas I am of the opinion that those in lower kingdoms will have non-functioning genitalia--i.e. they will be incapable of increase. They will be like pre-pubescent mortal children, not just in terms of innocence, but also in terms of sexual/procreative incapacity,  They will have sexual parts, but not sexual functionality (logically including libido).

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.

Even still, if one grants that Celestial resurrected libido occurs in spite of the absence of blood, then if we both agree that sexual/procreative functionality is reserved for Celestial beings--i.e. exalted husbands and wives, or in other words, it will occur only selectively as heterosexual desire, then my point is made about homosexuality ceasing beyond the grave.

In other words, no matter how the issue is sliced and diced, from an LDS perspective it appears that homosexuality is but a mortal aberration.

P.S. I am not suggesting that Celestial husbands and wives will have no sexual desire for each other. Quite the contrary. What I am suggesting is that the desire will be spiritually driven (not unlike the elevating desire to good continually) rather than the primal, bio-chemically driven libido of fallen man. After all, Celestial resurrection is, in part, the result of the flesh being subordinated to, or subsumed by, the spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Added P.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

In the past, I was always puzzled as to why so many non-members consider Mormons to be weird since quite a few of them seemed normal to me.

Now, after reading this thread I understand completely.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

In the past, I was always puzzled as to why so many non-members consider Mormons to be weird since quite a few of them seemed normal to me.

Now, after reading this thread I understand completely.

I, for one, appreciate the compliment. "Normal" can be quite uninteresting and stagnating at times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

In the past, I was always puzzled as to why so many non-members consider Mormons to be weird since quite a few of them seemed normal to me.

Now, after reading this thread I understand completely.

i remember when i was active in the Mormon church how i would respond to people saying i was in a cult with total, mostly polite incredulity.  While i think that statement is still inaccurate now for how most LDS practice their faith, i can definitely look at things a little more objectively now and say, "Yeah - that really is kind of weird/borderline disturbing".

And i write that knowing i penned a few of the rather weird posts in this thread!  And also, that people view my own beliefs through the same lens of quasi-disdainful skepticism that i view theirs through!  :) 

i really think it's accurate that our experiences shape our beliefs far more than our beliefs shape our experiences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i remember when i was active in the Mormon church how i would respond to people saying i was in a cult with total, mostly polite incredulity.  While i think that statement is still inaccurate now for how most LDS practice their faith, i can definitely look at things a little more objectively now and say, "Yeah - that really is kind of weird/borderline disturbing".

And i write that knowing i penned a few of the rather weird posts in this thread!  And also, that people view my own beliefs through the same lens of quasi-disdainful skepticism that i view theirs through!  :) 

i really think it's accurate that our experiences shape our beliefs far more than our beliefs shape our experiences.  

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-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Scott said:

In the past, I was always puzzled as to why so many non-members consider Mormons to be weird since quite a few of them seemed normal to me.

Now, after reading this thread I understand completely.

I said from the beginning that what I’ve said is not “doctrine” but my opinion based on teachings in the scriptures and things that prophets and apostles have said and I have provided quotes to show where my thinking comes from. However I think many members haven’t suficiently studied the gospel to have even thought about these sorts of things let alone formed opinions on them. 

It should be remembered that Joseph Smith was ridiculed for saying that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings and that they are in the form of men. That’s a very basic doctrine of the church yet that simple belief causes us to be called non Christian by many others. 

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