"on Resurrection Morning You Will Rise With Normal Attractions For The Opposite Sex."

[CV75]

OK you have two glorified beings male and female with physical bodies made of flesh and bone, somehow creating spirit children. It's obvious to me that  spirit children are not going to be created the same as they are on earth. The women are not going to be eternally pregnant in the same way they are here. How could sperm from a solid being unite with an egg from a solid being and make a spirit being having no solid parts?

There has to be some other process we are not yet aware of for creating spirit children that requires both parents be involved. 

Apparently we were all intelligences first before being made into spirit children.

 

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D&C 93:29)

 

 Spencer W. Kimball wrote, "Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father" (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, Salt Lake City, 1969).

 

Marion G. Romney, of the First Presidency, speaking of people's divine origin as children of God, stated, "Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit beings" (Ensign 8 [Nov. 1978]:14).

 

Intelligences "Organized" into spirit beings sounds a lot different from being eternally pregnant.

Just surmising here… Our physical bodies generate human radiation waves, such as brain waves, electromagnetic waves, etc. So it would seem an inseparably connected body of spirit and element could conceivably do the same (Jesus is a light, and we are commanded to be lights as well). If so, light-generating, glorified, exalted gods could produce gametes that are not “element” (D&C 93:33) but some purer matter (D&C 131:7). Two gametes comprised of such spirit and/or intelligence could become inseparably connected through the parents’ reproductive process much as we see here on Earth, only resulting in a spirit being. It could also be possible that two gametes of element, once they come into contact or become inseparably connected, generate finer matter (spirit, intelligence). We see a type for this in natural men and a women becoming parents to perfectly innocent infants.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is not the lifestyle that we are discussing here (what ever that means)  it is the orientation.  I assume you have been attracted to the opposite sex your whole life.  How excited would you be if the prophet told you that in the next life, you would only be attracted to males? 

I've already said I can understand why some people with SSA feel the way do with regard to Church's teachings.

 

Could you easily give up your attraction you have had your whole life towards women? 

 

In the case of SSA, there won't be any homosexual attraction to give up. It simply won't be there in the next life.

 

Could you picture yourself through the eternities, not with your wife, but with some random guy that you are matched up with in the next life? 

 

A more comparable scenario would be if my wife should somehow prove unworthy of exaltation (I don't expect that will happen, but assuming, for the sake of argument that it did). I would expect to be given another who was worthy of exaltation. An exalted being would be infinitely more beautiful and desirable than anyone currently living on earth (or, as Brigham Young put it, more beautiful than the angels that surround the throne of God). I don't see how I could help but be happy with such a match-up. If God is perfect in all respects, I would expect Him to be a perfect matchmaker along with all His other perfect attributes.

 

 

Would you be willing to be celibate and live alone, not being able to partake of perhaps the most treasured experience while here on earth in order for this promise of some guy given to you in the next life?

 

It would be extremely difficult, and I shudder to think of it, but yes, believing as I do, if I were beset with SSA, that would probably be my course of action and hope (changing out the word "guy" for "woman,' of course).

 

 

It was the apostle Paul himself (you know the same one that condemned homosexuality) that taught we should all be celibate except for those that are weak.  Yet I don't know ANY Mormon leader that have taken him up on THAT teaching.  I wonder why?  Since it is the current teaching of the church to require that of gay members.

 

I don't bind myself to your particular take on or interpretation of what the apostle Paul taught.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm comfortable and confident that my sexual orientation is unchangeable, and no amount of motivation of God changing me in any hereafter would even make me want to change. Even if God exists and extended the offer, I'd decline. Of course, I'm also comfortable and confident in my disbelief in God or an afterlife.

 

So we're back to what I said before. Your serenity with your sexual orientation is influenced, if not driven, by your conclusion that said orientation is unchangeable. Or, to state it more accurately, your conclusion that there will be no afterlife at all, much less one in which sexual orientation plays a part.

 

 

When one views homosexuality as a temporary condition that's able to be cured, as an undesirable affliction almost like a cold or a missing limb, your ruminations may make sense.

 

It's the only way my ruminations do make sense. That's why I'm so confident that SSA is not forever.

 

 

Thst is the essence of using a term like "SSA."

 

That's a fairly common term. And there's nothing ostensibly controversial about it. It simply means "same-sex attraction." A very cut-and-dried, ideologically free, denotation.

 

What would you have me say instead?

 

In tour perspective, it is something that exists independent and separate from the core of what defines a person.

 

Correct.

 

I hold a different worldview, one in which your question simply makes no sense.

 

I've already acknowledged your different worldview. It seems we're repeating ourselves here.

 

I would submit, however, that, coming from one who rejects the very concept of an afterlife altogether, the assertion that SSA will continue to exist in the afterlife is not very meaningful.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why? Do you find pregnancy itself repulsive? Assuming eternity, one could be pregnant once every hundred years and still produce the needed amount.

I don't believe spirit children will be given bodies in the same way mortals do it, for one we know that even Eve would have been capable of doing it differently, with much less hardship. With no pain, with perfect bodies that could deliver with no pain and no needed recovery time...perhaps a much shorter gestation period as well due to our bodies being very effective in use of energy and resources...what would be so terrible about it?

Indeed.

 

The clear inference to be drawn from the Genesis account -- and from related accounts in Moses and Abraham -- is that the pain and discomfort associated with childbirth are conditions that pertain to mortality only.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I wonder if you could explain your views mesh with statement by Joseph Smith posted by teddyaware on the thread on The Proclaimation. Is sexual orientation only going to change if you are gay?

 

 

I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking here. How would my views not "mesh" with that statement?

 

Afterthought: Are you saying that Joseph Smith had homosexuality in mind when he made that statement? That strikes me as extremely far-fetched.

 

There will be no illicit sexual relations of any kind in the resurrection.

[california boy]

Then no matter what you end up doing through eternity--since there's nothing else to do but to do things (whatever they may be) billions of times over and over--would seem like hell to you?

I think for the first time in my life, I am hoping that there is no God and we just die at death.  If every hour of ever day, without even sleep we are performing the same task over and over again, I gotta know.  Is it possible to commit suiside in heaven?  Because after the first 100 years, I would be looking for a way out of that kind of torchure.  

 

I guess you can tell, I don't do well with repetitive tasks.  It bores me to tears.  It is why I never even considered working on some assembly line.  I chose a career that every day is different with new challenges and new adventures.  I was kinda hoping heaven would be more like that.  Spending eternity pumping out spirit children EVERY DAY in order to make the billions required is not my idea of heaven.  

[theplains]

Come on, you don't seriously believe that billions of spirit children were created in a similar way that children are brought into this earth life do you?

 

In case you do not know, I am not a Latter-day Saint so I do not believe Heavenly Father

is married.

 

If God and his wife (or wives as some believe) chose that method of procreation, would

there be anything wrong with it, given that it is taught he has a resurrected body of flesh

and bones ... and given that he set up that method for mortal people to procreate?  I'm

assuming 'being made in the image of God' means having similar body parts right?

 

But if you are LDS, how do you believe you are 'literally' the child of heavenly parents

if Heavenly Father and Mother did not procreate in a similar way than do mortal

parents?  Maybe we have to redefine what it means to be someone's literal child instead

of someone's creation. Maybe God just said 'Be' and you emerged from the body of

Heavenly Mother in a spirit form. Or maybe Heavenly Mother and Father held hands and

presto ... a new spirit baby appeared.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[CV75]

I think for the first time in my life, I am hoping that there is no God and we just die at death.  If every hour of ever day, without even sleep we are performing the same task over and over again, I gotta know.  Is it possible to commit suiside in heaven?  Because after the first 100 years, I would be looking for a way out of that kind of torchure.  

 

I guess you can tell, I don't do well with repetitive tasks.  It bores me to tears.  It is why I never even considered working on some assembly line.  I chose a career that every day is different with new challenges and new adventures.  I was kinda hoping heaven would be more like that.  Spending eternity pumping out spirit children EVERY DAY in order to make the billions required is not my idea of heaven.  

Do you really consider all the varied  the dynamics and expressions of interpersonal relationships as repetitive tasks? Whatever they are for you, are they really that tortuous to engage in them?

 

What makes you think making a mere billion spirit children can't be done over millions of trillions of years, and is all that God does?

[california boy]

Do you really consider all the varied  the dynamics and expressions of interpersonal relationships as repetitive tasks? Whatever they are for you, are they really that tortuous to engage in them?

 

What makes you think making a mere billion spirit children can't be done over millions of trillions of years, and is all that God does?

Look, we are all speculating on how spirit children are created. You seem to be comfortable with giving birth or at least having your wife give birth to billions of spirit children in a similar gestation process that occurs here on earth.  I personally am not and have no desire to embark on such a process.  Maybe that is the reason I am gay.  Who knows.  

 

In case you do not know, I am not a Latter-day Saint so I do not believe Heavenly Father

is married.

 

If God and his wife (or wives as some believe) chose that method of procreation, would

there be anything wrong with it, given that it is taught he has a resurrected body of flesh

and bones ... and given that he set up that method for mortal people to procreate?  I'm

assuming 'being made in the image of God' means having similar body parts right?

 

But if you are LDS, how do you believe you are 'literally' the child of heavenly parents

if Heavenly Father and Mother did not procreate in a similar way than do mortal

parents?  Maybe we have to redefine what it means to be someone's literal child instead

of someone's creation. Maybe God just said 'Be' and you emerged from the body of

Heavenly Mother in a spirit form. Or maybe Heavenly Mother and Father held hands and

presto ... a new spirit baby appeared.

 

I thing that heaven will be vastly different than earth life.  How things are created will be vastly different.  I don't think we will be farming in order to sustain our physical bodies.  I don't think we will have 9 month pregnancies in order to create billions of children.  There is more to this mortal life than constantly giving birth.  There will be more to heaven than constantly giving birth.  How it happens I don't know.  I am just a bit more logical in thinking that eternal pregnancy is not part of my future.  Just my guess, thrown in with yours and everyone elses.

[nebula]

Does that include anything/everything that comes with having an attraction for the same sex?

This reminded me instantly of a scene from a film, an adaptation of Dante's Inferno. Virgil is giving Dante a tour of hell, and they come to a place where couples are forever engaged in sexual intercourse. Dante jokes "This is punishment?" and Virgil replies, "I don't think you quite grasp the concept of ETERNITY."

[nebula]

Then no matter what you end up doing through eternity--since there's nothing else to do but to do things (whatever they may be) billions of times over and over--would seem like hell to you?

This is a great question, one I've asked myself many times while trying to conceptualize paradise. After all, anything done too often begins to grow tedious. Imagine eating nothing but your favorite food at every meal for the rest of your life, let alone for all eternity! Our concept of time, though, is limited. As mortals, we have no choice but to view time as linear, one moment following another-- but there is compelling evidence to suggest that time doesn't actually work that way. For an eternal being, past and future might exist simultaneously as a plane extending in every direction. The sensation of the passage of time might feel very different to us in that state.

[nebula]

From an engaging research paper on the subject of time:

The upshot is that, on the microscopic level, there just plain is no direction to time -- and this is even more spectacularly true in quantum physics than in classical physics. In the microscopic domain, everything just exists in a kind of nebulous, atemporal continuum. Then, every once in a while, something becomes observable, and enters the one-dimensional time continuum. The arrow of time does not exist in the universe as a whole. It only exists in individual subjective views of the universe!

Finally, when one moves beyond fundamental physics to the domain of cosmology -- the question of the birth of the universe -- things become even slipperier. For a while cosmologists thought about the Big Bang as the moment at which time began. There was no time, and then -- BANG! -- time came into existence. But now a subtly different interpretation has emerged (Hawking, 1993; Smith, 1997). Perhaps there was no time, not only at the moment of the Big Bang, but in the very early universe, for a "little while" after the Big Bang (it is not clear what a "while" means in this context!). Perhaps time came to emerge only gradually, as the universe got larger and larger, and cooler and cooler. After all, at the microscopic level, time still doesn't exist! An elementary particle today is still "at one" with the particles that existed at the very beginning of the universe, bound together by quantum nonlocality.

The details of temporal structure vary from one branch of physics to another. The key point I want to make, however, holds true whether one is talking quantum theory, thermodynamics or cosmology: it is the extent to which the model of time as an arrow pointing in one direction has been abandoned by modern physical theory. The one direction of time is now viewed as an approximation to the true nature of the universe -- an approximation induced by the perceptual limitations of particular observers like us. If we could see the way things really are, says modern physics, we would see time running two directions at once!

Full text here: http://www.goertzel.org/papers/timepap.html

I particularly like the phrase "an approximation to the true nature of the universe -- an approximation induced by the perceptual limitations of particular observers like us." This is how I view nearly everything, and I don't find misery in that. On the contrary, it thrills me. The true nature of the universe is an enigma only God could understand, but the approximations we make are beautiful and draw us incrementally closer to Him.

[3DOP]

This is a great question, one I've asked myself many times while trying to conceptualize paradise. After all, anything done too often begins to grow tedious. Imagine eating nothing but your favorite food at every meal for the rest of your life, let alone for all eternity! Our concept of time, though, is limited. As mortals, we have no choice but to view time as linear, one moment following another-- but there is compelling evidence to suggest that time doesn't actually work that way. For an eternal being, past and future might exist simultaneously as a plane extending in every direction. The sensation of the passage of time might feel very different to us in that state.

 

Nebula hi. Nice to meet you. Welcome to the board from a fairly long time participant. I am not LDS though, just to let you know.

 

Your time theory is interesting. There certainly needs to be something to keep us from the tedium that some visions of eternity offer. May I suggest another vision that might make eternity less wearisome?

 

Catholics refer to heaven as the Beatific Vision. We see God as he really is, although we can never see all. God will ever reveal and always be hidden. Because He is infinite, we never grow weary of new discovery. But many of us have tried to pray and meditate upon God, and to be honest with ourselves, it becomes mechanical, an obligation which is temporarily boring before we can go do what pleases us. An eternity of that seems like as you suggest...hell.

 

So is the answer to have a Heaven that needs to be a waterslide and a concert and a restaurant and whatever else gives temporal satisfaction? But I think you have touched on the problem and a solution. The problem of boredom begins to be resolvable to the one who has seen, or at least believed, that even in this life, that perseverance in prayer is rewarded with many consolations, eventually overcomes dryness, and is ever progressive. In eternity, our growth in intimacy with God will be like being with the most attractive and skilful of lovers. I would not make such a provocative statement except our God uses the analogy of human love in the Canticle of Canticles. The joys and discoveries of the blessings of human love are wonderful types of a greater reality. If by God's grace we happily enter eternity in God's friendship, with all of our sins and frailties gone, we will recognize Him who we love and realize that our hearts are ravished. Nothing will hinder a mystical union with God that He promises will slake our thirst and satisfy our hunger for that which is above and beyond us. And that is why He calls it a Marriage Supper.

 

Regards,

 

3DOP

[nebula]

Hello! Nice to meet you, too. I am not LDS either, just LDS-curious.

I like your take on eternity. It does seem rather short-sighted to imagine that an eternity with God would feel boring. I'm picturing a jaded teenager being shown the inner workngs of the universe and responding with a shrug and a bored "whatever!"

[The Nehor]

This is a great question, one I've asked myself many times while trying to conceptualize paradise. After all, anything done too often begins to grow tedious. Imagine eating nothing but your favorite food at every meal for the rest of your life, let alone for all eternity! Our concept of time, though, is limited. As mortals, we have no choice but to view time as linear, one moment following another-- but there is compelling evidence to suggest that time doesn't actually work that way. For an eternal being, past and future might exist simultaneously as a plane extending in every direction. The sensation of the passage of time might feel very different to us in that state.

 

I would add that tediousness itself may be a mortal failing specifically designed to keep us discontented (for our own good) here.

[CV75]

This reminded me instantly of a scene from a film, an adaptation of Dante's Inferno. Virgil is giving Dante a tour of hell, and they come to a place where couples are forever engaged in sexual intercourse. Dante jokes "This is punishment?" and Virgil replies, "I don't think you quite grasp the concept of ETERNITY."

Ha-ha...! but that wouldn't be doing the same thing over and over, just the same thing that never ends to the exclusion of anything else! And without an end, there is no opposition to the beginning or the middle, and thus it would be as if nothing were being done at all!

[CV75]

This is a great question, one I've asked myself many times while trying to conceptualize paradise. After all, anything done too often begins to grow tedious. Imagine eating nothing but your favorite food at every meal for the rest of your life, let alone for all eternity! Our concept of time, though, is limited. As mortals, we have no choice but to view time as linear, one moment following another-- but there is compelling evidence to suggest that time doesn't actually work that way. For an eternal being, past and future might exist simultaneously as a plane extending in every direction. The sensation of the passage of time might feel very different to us in that state.

That's how i see it too. In addition, we can do the same thing over and over from innumerable perspectives. And doing one thing over and over doesn't prevent us from doing innumerable other things over and over, from innumerable perspectives as well, as the more eternal our experience becomes, the more we derive and expand from those experiences.

 

To demonstrate the point:

 

That's how i see it too. In addition, we can do the same thing over and over from innumerable perspectives. And doing one thing over and over doesn't prevent us from doing innumerable other things over and over, from innumerable perspectives as well, as the more eternal our experience becomes, the more we derive and expand from those experiences.

[CV75]

Because He is infinite, we never grow weary of new discovery.

I find this to be the spice of mortal life, too, as it reflects a wonderful aspect of our most cherished relationships, and fortunately we are all His children.

[The Nehor]

So does this mean all fetishes die in the grave?