Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[Coreyb]

    I really don't have any doubt that in the future the LDS church will change its policy regarding same sex marriage. I am sure that will be disputed by many, and thats fine, just start a new thread on it. If I, and others, are right about this,I think allowing Gay couples to fully participate in the Sunday experience will be relatively easy to do. The real question becomes, is there ANY WAY to fit homosexual marriage into a traditional(ish) Mormon exaltation theology, or will it have to be discarded to accommodate, should this prediction come true?  I am a strong believer in exaltation, but I also am fairly convinced that for many individuals, there is no way they will be happy or whole with a spouse of the opposite gender. Your serious thoughts on this are appreciated...

[Robert F. Smith]

    I really don't have any doubt that in the future the LDS church will change its policy regarding same sex marriage. I am sure that will be disputed by many, and thats fine, just start a new thread on it. If I, and others, are right about this,I think allowing Gay couples to fully participate in the Sunday experience will be relatively easy to do. The real question becomes, is there ANY WAY to fit homosexual marriage into a traditional(ish) Mormon exaltation theology, or will it have to be discarded to accommodate, should this prediction come true?  I am a strong believer in exaltation, but I also am fairly convinced that for many individuals, there is no way they will be happy or whole with a spouse of the opposite gender. Your serious thoughts on this are appreciated...

I'm pretty much a universalist, and believe that nearly everybody (including gays) makes it back to some kingdom of glory.  Not sure of the level to which we eventually attain, given all the additional chances afforded through the preaching of the Gospel to the dead and proxy ordinances.  Nor is it clear to me at all that all our human proclivities rise with us in the Resurrection.  So this is indeed a thought  experiment (or a speculation experiment).

 

However, the complementary function of the two genders seems fundamental in some way in an exalted state, just as it is here on Earth, with respect to reproduction.  Here we produce biological offspring.  There we will produce spiritual offspring.  What are the mechanisms for doing this?  I don't know.  Would make an interesting sci-fi story though.

 

Therefore, even if some people legitimately have strong SSAttraction here, does that mean they will have the same desires in the Resurrection?  St Paul says that we will be changed, in an instant (I Cor 15:50-54), leaving behind anything which does not abide in Heaven, and freed from our earthly lusts (Romans 1:24-27).

[rodheadlee]

Gosh I don't know. How many sexual deviations do you think God will make adjustments for? I'm attracted to women who are attracted to women. Will exaltation encompass my deviation? Come to think of it I'm attracted to all women, so many women, so little time. Just think, I'll have all eternity to marry them.

Edited December 21, 2014 by rodheadlee

[JLHPROF]

I don't believe exaltation will be an option for homosexuals as it is sin. The Church accepting homosexuality won't change that. I also believe the blessings of exaltation (specifically eternal increase) require a man and a woman - I am convinced as Brigham was that creating children, physical or spiritual is a act of heterosexual relations and that is the only way life is created.

The optimist in me remains hopeful that once our fallen natures are removed any physical attractions not in keeping with eternal law will no longer be an issue.

So yes, I believe it would require a rework of exaltation doctrine, and I believe that rework would be false.

[Brian 2.0]

The optimist in me remains hopeful that once our fallen natures are removed any physical attractions not in keeping with eternal law will no longer be an issue.

IF the church ever accepted it I think it would be under this understanding. They would not be sealed in the temple together but they would be allowed to be married and have a homosexual relationship and enjoy that companionship and participate fully and openly within the church, but it would always be with the understanding that in the next life they would not have homosexual attractions and would have opportunity there to find a spouse of the opposite gender and continue on into exaltation.

[pogi]

Coreyb, I don't see the church turning its back on the Proclamation ever, but if it does, it would take a couple hundred years  before any prophet would dare undo what has been done.  To make such a strong proclamation to the WORLD about the family and then change our minds a couple generations later would be near suicide for the church - prophetic trust would drop to almost nothing.  Our critics would never shut up about it.  It took 148 years for their minds to change on blacks and the priesthood, and that was WITHOUT a strong proclamation to the world regarding the issue.  I don't see it happening. 

[CV75]

is there ANY WAY

ANY THING can happen in a thought experiment.

[Deborah]

I do not see the church ever condoning same sex marriages. Exaltation is contingent on a "continuation of the lives" and that requires here and there a union of a man and a woman to be complete.

[Coreyb]

I understand the argument that those attractions may not rise in the resurrection, but to us heterosexuals on here, do you see all of your sexual desires to be base, carnal and only a product of your fallen state? I agree with rodheadlee, certainly some of mine are, but I was always taught in church to be chaste not because sex was evil, wicked and gross, but because it was sacred, holy and powerful, and should therefore be done in accordance with Gods laws. Somehow saying that it all may be some temporary test, or thorn of the flesh, even for homosexuals, doesn't seem very Mormon. Also, for those who are married, is sexual desire the only thing binding you and your spouse together (heaven forbid)? Isn't there some large element of pure charity and long suffering that has been nurtured through years of living together, and don't you suppose two men could live together for years, committed to each other and produce that same type of pure love? Aren't we then saying that those relationships will be of no real value in heaven?

Edited December 21, 2014 by Coreyb

[Traela]

I can't imagine the God that I worship allowing any of His spirit grandchildren (so to speak) to be deprived of either a mother or a father.

[california boy]

God doesn't seem to be willing to change homosexual desires on this earth no matter how much repentance, fasting, prayer and sincere desire to change occurs in this life, why would He "magically" do it in the next life.  This idea of magically changing goes completely against the words of Joseph Smith who clearly taught that when we die, we are the same person.  Our thoughts and habits do not magically change.  There is only one reason to hold the belief that gays won't be in the Celestial Kingdom. Straight members are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals in the Celestial Kingdom.  They want everyone to be exactly like them, and all attracted to the opposite sex.  

 

There is nothing in the revealed understanding of the Celestial Kingdom that has indicated how spirit children are created.  I highly doubt there will be eternal pregnancies for all females that are exalted.  We do know that through the priesthood, male gods together created this planet.  The concept of two males working together in taking part in the creation fits completely into what has been revealed.  How spirit children are created is pure speculation.  

 

There is no revelation that precludes the idea of gays in the Celestial Kingdom.  There are only unclear scriptures on the abomination of gay sex outside of marriage since there was no gay marriage when the Bible was written.  The law of chastity has always been, no sex outside of marriage.  It is only recently that some have decided that homosexual sex inside of marriage is wrong in the site of God.  There certainly has been no revelation on how God feels about homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage.

 

The Proclamation on the Family was not a revelation from God.  It has never been presented as such. btw.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't even know how Heavenly Father is going to accommodate us heterosexual long-term bachelors/singles, let alone how he might do so for a homosexual who is faithful in this life.  While some of the brethren have said that the attraction of homosexuals will change in the Resurrection, I don't know that there has been an official pronouncement to that effect on the issue.  How are heterosexuals without a mate going to be paired up in the next life?  Is the whole process going to amount to nothing more than one looooong stake singles dance where a few of us get lucky, and the rest of us end up desperate?  If so, count me out.  The only things I'm sure of are (1) God loves me, long-term bachelorhood notwithstanding; and (2) However He accommodates the various circumstances of His children in the next life, I don't believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient God is going to have to tell anyone, "Geez, I know you were hoping for something more/better/different, but ... [sigh!] ... this is the best I could do.  Sorry."

 

For more of my thoughts on the matter, see here: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/on-being-single-male-and-lds/

Edited December 21, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[intra]

Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries:

gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.
(Isaiah 8:9-10) 

by whose command are the heavens ordered? 
the word of men? or the Word of the Almighty? 

 

 

Coreyb, I don't see the church turning its back on the Proclamation ever, but if it does, it would take a couple hundred years  before any prophet would dare undo what has been done.

how long between writing the Book of Mormon, where polygamy is called "abomination" (Jacob 2:24, 3:5, etc) and D&C 132, where polygamy is called "righteousness" ? (vv. 37-39) 

about 50 years? 


 

Edited December 21, 2014 by intra

[strappinglad]

Some people are born blind and yet we are told that " magically " they will be able to see with perfect eyes in the resurrection. Some are born with a parasitic twin growing out of their body. Will they rise in the resurrection with that body still attached? If SSA is as inborn a trait as claimed ,then one must decide if it is an eternal trait or not. If it is, then there is a way for their relationships to continue. If it isn't , then such desire will " magically " disappear in the resurrection. From my readings, sexual expression will take a back seat in the eternities for all but the exalted.

[DragonLancer]

I have often done a thought experiment in discussions with others that I do not agree with in my feelings, because it is revolting to me.  However, I cannot deny the logic.

 

Mormons are literally going back to catholic doctrine to officially espouse celibacy for the first time in its history as the only faithful option for a segment of its population.

 

A better option, theoretically, is to allow legal, time-only marriage for gays, for them to have a companion in life, with the promise that their eternal companion will be provided for them in eternity.  The only thing lacking in making this "chaste" is for the authorities of the Church to say it is chaste, using their keys to allow for it.  They are using their keys to allow for faithful, Church-sanctioned celibacy among a segment of its population for the first time in history, and calling that chaste.

 

I do not say that it ought to be this way.  Nor do I say that this is my preferred option.  But the part of my brain that says that it must acknowledge the logic of a certain point of view does have to acknowledge this as a logical point of view.  I do not believe it as the best option necessarily, only theoretically or logically, because of my revulsion in my feelings.  I do not think I like how I feel about it.  It is logical though.

Edited December 21, 2014 by DragonLancer

[california boy]

Some people are born blind and yet we are told that " magically " they will be able to see with perfect eyes in the resurrection. Some are born with a parasitic twin growing out of their body. Will they rise in the resurrection with that body still attached? If SSA is as inborn a trait as claimed ,then one must decide if it is an eternal trait or not. If it is, then there is a way for their relationships to continue. If it isn't , then such desire will " magically " disappear in the resurrection. From my readings, sexual expression will take a back seat in the eternities for all but the exalted.

I guess if you feel your attraction to the opposite sex is the same kind of physical deformity as someone who is blind, then I can see your train of thought.  But I doubt that you view your opposite sex attraction as a physical defect any more than I view my same sex attraction as a physical defect.  

 

You are right, one must decide if SSA is an eternal trait or not.  So far the heavens have been silent on that issue.  Right now, is all we have is the opinions of men who have not even been able to come to some agreement on the subject.  To bar children of our Heavenly Father from the eternal covenants of marriage in the temple is pretty serious when based solely on the opinion of men.  The church barred another group from temple marriage for 150 years.  That didn't turn out so well. 

[rodheadlee]

 

Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries:

gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces.

Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.

(Isaiah 8:9-10) 

by whose command are the heavens ordered? 

the word of men? or the Word of the Almighty? 

 

 

how long between writing the Book of Mormon, where polygamy is called "abomination" (Jacob 2:24, 3:5, etc) and D&C 132, where polygamy is called "righteousness" ? (vv. 37-39) 

about 50 years? 

 

 

About 2500 years.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I am happy that I'm straight and don't have to worry about it. I just hope when I have children that I still won't have to worry about the issue.

[Brian 2.0]

I guess if you feel your attraction to the opposite sex is the same kind of physical deformity as someone who is blind, then I can see your train of thought. But I doubt that you view your opposite sex attraction as a physical defect any more than I view my same sex attraction as a physical defect.

This is the heart of the debate.

Someone who was born blind has a defective eye. someone who was born able to see does not have that defect. I think both sides would agree on that. And in the resurrection the blind will be able to see.

When someone is born with red hair you wouldn't say they have a defect. blonde hair isn't thought of as non-defective hair.

So is being born gay more equivalent to being born blind or being born with red hair? I think a lot of people answer that question differently

Edited December 21, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Flyonthewall]

...

how long between writing the Book of Mormon, where polygamy is called "abomination" (Jacob 2:24, 3:5, etc) and D&C 132, where polygamy is called "righteousness" ? (vv. 37-39) 

about 50 years? 

You need to read all the way thru verse 30 to get the full message.

I understand that was not your goal(to understand the full message) but it helps when you bring up the topic.

[mfbukowski]

This is the heart of the debate.

Someone who was born blind has a defective eye. someone who was born able to see does not have that defect. I think both sides would agree on that. And in the resurrection the blind will be able to see.

When someone is born with red hair you wouldn't say they have a defect. blonde hair isn't thought of as non-defective hair.

So is being born gay more equivalent to being born blind or being born with red hair? I think a lot of people answer that question differently

And it is odd that they should answer it differently.

If we were all born gay there would be no people.

This seems so obvious to me that even asking the kind of question you are asking seems absurd. There is no comparison here.

Clearly sexual reproduction evolved for...... wait for it..... reproduction. Big discovery, I guess. If some type of reproduction does not work to reproduce, then people will not reproduce.

Where did love come from? That is really the question- what is the "purpose" of love? Clearly love as an emotion evolved to cause a unity for purposes of reproduction. Human babies have huge brains, and needed to be reared by at least two people- one to tend the baby and one to provide food etc. This bond is called "love" and evolved for the survival of the human race. Reproduction.

This does not seem like rocket science to me.

So the question is whether or not it is politically correct to use the word "defective" in this context, and clearly it is NOT politically correct, so here we are talking in circles.

So call me homophobic if you like- I am no more afraid of homosexuals than I am of anything, but I have never seen anyone refute these points.

We all need to love and respect each other, and what people do in their bedrooms is nobody's business but theirs.

But homosexuality simply does not work as a method of reproduction. Blindness is not a good way to see things. I think the analogy is obvious.

[mfbukowski]

I guess if you feel your attraction to the opposite sex is the same kind of physical deformity as someone who is blind, then I can see your train of thought.  But I doubt that you view your opposite sex attraction as a physical defect any more than I view my same sex attraction as a physical defect.  

 

You are right, one must decide if SSA is an eternal trait or not.  So far the heavens have been silent on that issue.  Right now, is all we have is the opinions of men who have not even been able to come to some agreement on the subject.  To bar children of our Heavenly Father from the eternal covenants of marriage in the temple is pretty serious when based solely on the opinion of men.  The church barred another group from temple marriage for 150 years.  That didn't turn out so well.

I can guarantee that in nature it is not an "eternal" trait.

On a desert island, it would not last a single generation. Does that make it "defective"?

Edited December 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Flyonthewall]

I guess if you feel your attraction to the opposite sex is the same kind of physical deformity as someone who is blind, then I can see your train of thought.  But I doubt that you view your opposite sex attraction as a physical defect any more than I view my same sex attraction as a physical defect.  

 

You are right, one must decide if SSA is an eternal trait or not.  So far the heavens have been silent on that issue.  Right now, is all we have is the opinions of men who have not even been able to come to some agreement on the subject.  To bar children of our Heavenly Father from the eternal covenants of marriage in the temple is pretty serious when based solely on the opinion of men.  The church barred another group from temple marriage for 150 years.  That didn't turn out so well.

I agree with strapping lad... there are many things that affect our physical, mortal body. Someone born with sight is the "norm". Someone that is born blind is not the "norm". The chemical mixture that comes with our bodies can really do some egregious things to us. Downs syndrome, Fetal alcohol syndrome, Autism, etc all affect us while here on earth - I cannot imagine we will be burdened by those conditions in a perfected body.

I have family members that have mental and emotional issues, which make up who they are in this life. I am hoping beyond hope that our emotional and psychological baggage will be lost by the airline when we make that trip to the after life.

I envision it will be the same for those that have SSA in this life.

How those things can be removed from us and still be the same person we were here... I do not know. Some of us are hoping we won't be the same, but better - without our baggage.

[california boy]

And it is odd that they should answer it differently.

If we were all born gay there would be no people.

This seems so obvious to me that even asking the kind of question you are asking seems absurd. There is no comparison here.

Clearly sexual reproduction evolved for...... wait for it..... reproduction. Big discovery, I guess. If some type of reproduction does not work to reproduce, then people will not reproduce.

Where did love come from? That is really the question- what is the "purpose" of love? Clearly love as an emotion evolved to cause a unity for purposes of reproduction. Human babies have huge brains, and needed to be reared by at least two people- one to tend the baby and one to provide food etc. This bond is called "love" and evolved for the survival of the human race. Reproduction.

This does not seem like rocket science to me.

So the question is whether or not it is politically correct to use the word "defective" in this context, and clearly it is NOT politically correct, so here we are talking in circles.

So call me homophobic if you like- I am no more afraid of homosexuals than I am of anything, but I have never seen anyone refute these points.

We all need to love and respect each other, and what people do in their bedrooms is nobody's business but theirs.

But homosexuality simply does not work as a method of reproduction. Blindness is not a good way to see things. I think the analogy is obvious.

 

If relationships were just about reproduction, then you would be correct.  But they are not.  The human population is not on the verge of extinction.  Not ALL of us are designed or need to reproduce.  Yet all of God's children are of worth.  And all of God's children deserve the blessings of bonded relationships.  Whether one can have children or not is not a requirement to whether one is allowed a temple marriage.  By your rational, maybe it should be.

[california boy]

I agree with strapping lad... there are many things that affect our physical, mortal body. Someone born with sight is the "norm". Someone that is born blind is not the "norm". The chemical mixture that comes with our bodies can really do some egregious things to us. Downs syndrome, Fetal alcohol syndrome, Autism, etc all affect us while here on earth - I cannot imagine we will be burdened by those conditions in a perfected body.

I have family members that have mental and emotional issues, which make up who they are in this life. I am hoping beyond hope that our emotional and psychological baggage will be lost by the airline when we make that trip to the after life.

I envision it will be the same for those that have SSA in this life.

How those things can be removed from us and still be the same person we were here... I do not know. Some of us are hoping we won't be the same, but better - without our baggage.

 

What is it about homosexuality that will be a burden in this life or the next life?  My brother and his wife can not have children born to them.  They adopted two wonderful children.  I have never heard either one of them state that having to adopt has been a burden on them.  Many gay couples have followed the exact same route.

 

If the only burden of homosexuality is that reproduction is not possible, then it seems like it is not that big of deal.  I don't have to be like everyone else to be happy and live a fulfilling life.