Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[california boy]

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"?

 

Does it need to last more than a single generation on a desert island???  Is this any different than two straight men stranded on a desert island?  Or a couple that is not fertile?  

 

How can you guarantee that in nature it is not an "eternal" trait?  There are thousands of species that gay behavior has been observed.  It is not just a human thing.  I just don't get where you are going with this.

Edited December 22, 2014 by california boy

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

That is not what he said. He did not say they were just about reproduction, but to pretend like that is not a big part is ignoring the natural order and holy scripture. God commanded our first parents to multiply and replenish the earth. Yes, Adam was made to love Eve and Eve to love Adam. But a result of that love was and is supposed to be today offspring. Same sex couples CAN NEVER produce offspring.

 

Comparing infertile heterosexual couples to homosexual couples is a very weak argument and if you can't tell the difference, I don't think we are going to be anywhere near capable of having a conversation.

[pogi]

Comparing infertile heterosexual couples to homosexual couples is a very weak argument and if you can't tell the difference, I don't think we are going to be anywhere near capable of having a conversation.

 

Infertility is a defect.  If he wants to make the comparison, let him. 

It is a defect that I have that will be corrected in the next life.

Edited December 22, 2014 by pogi

[intra]

  There are thousands of species that gay behavior has been observed.  It is not just a human thing.  I just don't get where you are going with this.

it's true that a young dog in heat will hump another male dog. 

he'll also hump a chair, a log, or any other animal. 

if you want to call that behavior "natural" i think you have to accept that it's "omnisexuality" -- willing to copulate with anything -- not "homosexuality" that's being observed. 

do you think Paul was speaking falsely when he talked of this as "exchanging the natural for that which is against nature" ? 

 

Edited December 22, 2014 by intra

[Kenngo1969]

 

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? 

 

 

You wouldn't purposely be ignoring the verses after verse 24, would you?  Noooo ... you would never do that ...

[Guest]

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...

The issue lies in all of recorded "scriptural text", marriage has only been viewed one way through the Prophetical lens. If this is a manmade church, as with all doctrines men can overcome them by a simple majority vote. Even marriage outside the "one man, one woman" has always been one of opposite sex. If this is the Church of The Lamb of God, those boundaries have already been set. If the Church (our Church especially) throws out this doctrine with the water it must act alone. Once this is done and now there are no boundaries, the polygamy will be on the front burner...then what of polygamy evil twin, polyandry. Of the three legs, that make up our stool,; certainly one of the three legs is defining marriage per God,s word. It is his law, his first institution and it's first institution. In short we have no right to make changes in Marriage, for when we do we lose the aid of heaven. I know it seems harsh and hearted, but God done have laws and these are the laws that be obeyed or, amen to our faith.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

You made the same point I did, Fly.  Sorry; wasn't trying to steal your thunder, and I doff my hat to you, sir.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Flyonthewall]

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.

I wouldn't say the burden of homosexuality is about reproduction - that would be more about evolution... and by the way, evolutionary wise, infertile heterosexuals would would be in the same boat as they would not pass their genes along either.

For all I know, sex will not be an issue in the afterlife. Perhaps in a perfected body there will be no libido at all. Perhaps libido was just for mortality for us to be fruitful and multiply.

But for some reason, the scriptures have placed an importance on a man and a woman being together. The Proclamation reinforces that.

IF, and I say "if" because I don't know what the actual cause is, homosexuality is based on a chemical imbalance or some other "defect", then I would expect it to be fixed or removed in a perfected body, just like any other physical ailment would be.

If homosexuality is an acceptable alternative in the Lord, it seems like it would have been included somewhere, somehow...

[california boy]

it's true that a young dog in heat will hump another male dog. 

he'll also hump a chair, a log, or any other animal. 

if you want to call that behavior "natural" i think you have to accept that it's "omnisexuality" -- willing to copulate with anything -- not "homosexuality" that's being observed. 

do you think Paul was speaking falsely when he talked of this as "exchanging the natural for that which is against nature" ? 

 

 

 

We are not talking about dogs humping chairs.  Here is the research from Wikipedia

 

 

 

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Further information: Homosexual behavior in animals

 

Roy and Silo, two Central Park Zoo male chinstrap penguinssimilar to those pictured, became internationally known when they successfully hatched and cared for an egg.^[1]

 

Couple of two male mallard ducks in a nature reserve in Germany

For these animals, there is documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo.^[2][3]Bagemihl devotes three chapters; Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities.^[4] Petter Bøckman, academic adviser for the Against Nature? exhibit stated "[M]any researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles". Homosexual behavior is found amongst socialbirds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.^[3]

Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same speciesand the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarilysex, has been observed as of 1999 in about 1500 species, ranging from primates togut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.^[5][6] Homosexuality in animalsis seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality.^[7][8] Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. The correct usage of the termhomosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, however this article conforms to the usage by modern research^{[9][10][11][12]} applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex.

 

Contents  [hide] 

• 1 Selected images
• 2 Mammals
• 3 Birds
• 4 Fish
• 5 Reptiles
• 6 Amphibians
• 7 Insects
• 8 Other invertebrates
• 9 See also
• 10 Bibliography
• 11 References

 

This is an incomplete list that may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help byexpanding it with entries that are reliably sourced.

Selected images[edit]

 

Three species ofCnemidophorus.

The all-female Whiptail lizard species Cnemidophorus neomexicanus (center), which reproduces via parthenogenesis, is shown flanked by two sexual species having males, C. inornatus (left) and C. tigris (right). Research has shown that simulated mating behavior increases fertility for Cnemidophorus neomexicanus. One female lies on top of another, playing the role of the male, the lizard that was on bottom has larger eggs. The lizards switch off this role each mating season.^[13]

 

The head of a darner dragonfly(Basiaeschna janata).

Male homosexuality has been inferred in several species of dragonflies. A survey of damsel and dragonflies reveals characteristic cloacalpincher mating damage in 20–80 percent of the males, indicating a fairly high occurrence of sexual coupling between males.^[14][15]

 

Mammals[edit]

Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior

Selected mammals from the full list:

• Bison^[16]
• Brown bear^[17]
• Brown rat^[18]
• Cavy^[18]
• Caribou^[19]
• Cat (domestic)^[20]
• Cattle (domestic)^[21]
• Chimpanzee^{[22][23][24][25]}
• Common dolphin^[26]
• Common marmoset^[27]
• Dog^[28]
• Elephant^[29]
• Fox^[30]
• Giraffe^[3][31][32]
• Goat^[16]
• Horse (domestic)^[33]
• Human^[34][35][36]
• Koala^[37]
• Lion^[34]
• Orca^[26]
• Raccoon^[38]

Birds[edit]

Main article: List of birds displaying homosexual behavior

Selected birds from the full list:

• Barn owl^[39]
• Chicken^[40]
• Common gull^[41]
• Emu^[42]
• King penguin^[43]
• Mallard^[44]
• Raven^[45]
• Seagull^[46]

Fish[edit]

 

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) leaping for a fly fisherman's bait. Research going back to the 1950s has shown both male and female graylings exhibit homosexual behavior.^[47]

• Amazon molly^[48]
• Bennett
• Blackstripe topminnow^[49]
• Bluegill sunfish^[49]
• Char^[47]
• Grayling^[47]
• European bitterling^[50]
• Green swordtail^[50]
• Guiana leaffish^[51]
• Houting whitefish^[47]
• Jewel fish^[52]
• Least darter (Microperca punctulata)^[50]
• Mouthbreeding fish sp.^[49]
• Salmon spp.^[53]
• Southern platyfish^[50]
• Ten-spined stickleback^[50]
• Three-spined stickleback^[50]

 

Reptiles[edit]

• Anole sp.^[54]
• Bearded dragon^[55]
• Broad-headed skink^[50]
• Checkered whiptail lizard^[55]
• Chihuahuan spotted whiptail lizard^[55]
• Common ameiva^[55]
• Common garter snake^[50]
• Cuban green anole^[54]
• Desert grassland whiptail lizard^[55]
• Desert tortoise^[56]
• Fence lizard^{[disambiguation needed][55]}
• Five-lined skink^[50]
• Gopher (pine) snake^[49]
• Green anole^[54]
• Inagua curlytail lizard^[55]
• Jamaican giant anole^[54]
• Laredo striped whiptail lizard^[55]
• Largehead anole^[54]
• Mourning gecko^[57]
• Plateau striped whiptail lizard^[55]
• Red diamond rattlesnake^[50]
• Red-tailed skink^[50]
• Side-blotched lizard^[55]
• Speckled rattlesnake^[50]
• Water moccasin^[50]
• Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)^[50]
• Western banded gecko^[57]
• Whiptail lizard spp.^[55]
• Wood turtle^[54]

Amphibians[edit]

• Appalachian woodland salamander^[58]
• Black-spotted frog^[59]
• Mountain dusky salamander^[58]
• Tengger desert toad^[54]

Insects[edit]

 

Male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in same-sex coupling to practice mating and to rid themselves of "old, less effective" sperm.^[60]

• Alfalfa weevil^[61]
• Australian parasitic wasp sp.^[61]
• Bean weevil sp.^[61]
• Bedbug and other bug spp.^[62][63]
• Blister beetle spp.^[64]
• Blowfly^[64]
• Broadwinged damselfly sp.^[65]
• Cabbage (small) white (butterfly)^[66]
• Checkerspot butterfly^[66]
• Club-tailed dragonfly spp.^[67]
• Cockroach spp.^[68]
• Common skimmer dragonfly spp.^[67]
• Creeping water bug sp.^[69]
• Cutworm^[70]
• Digger bee^[71]
• Dragonfly spp.^[67]
• Eastern giant ichneumon wasp^[61]
• Eucalyptus longhorned borer^[69]
• Field cricket sp.^[72]
• Flour beetle^[60]
• Fruit fly spp.^[73]
• Glasswing butterfly^[66]
• Grape berry moth^[74]
• Grape borer^[69]
• Green lacewing^[75]
• Hen flea^[75]
• House fly^[76]
• Ichneumon wasp sp.^[61]
• Japanese scarab beetle^[77]
• Larch bud moth^[74]
• Large milkweed bug^[63]
• Large white^[63]
• Long-legged fly spp.^[78]
• Mazarine blue^[63]
• Mexican white (butterfly)^[63]
• Midge sp.^[78]
• Migratory locust^[79]
• Monarch butterfly^[66]
• Narrow-winged damselfly spp.^[65]
• Parsnip leaf miner^[78]
• Pomace fly^[78]
• Queen butterfly^[66]
• Red ant sp.^[78]
• Red flour beetle^[63]
• Reindeer warble fly (Hypoderma tarandi)^[78]
• Rose chafer^{[disambiguation needed][78]}
• Rove beetle spp.^[63]
• Scarab beetle (melolonthine)^[80]
• Screwworm fly^[78]
• Silkworm moth^[74]
• Southeastern blueberry bee^[71]
• Southern green stink bug^[63]
• Southern masked chafer^[78]
• Southern one-year canegrub^[78]
• Spreadwinged damselfly spp.^[65]
• Spruce budworm moth^[74]
• Stable fly sp.^[78]
• Stag beetle spp.^[63]
• Tsetse fly^[78]
• Water boatman bug^[63]
• Water strider spp.^[63]

Other invertebrates[edit]

• Blood-fluke^[81]
• Box crab^[82]
• Harvest spider sp.^[83]
• Hawaiian orb-weaver (spider)^[83]
• Incirrate octopus spp.^[82]
• Jumping spider and some select yeast sp.^[83]
• Mite sp.^[78]

 

 

 

[california boy]

That is not what he said. He did not say they were just about reproduction, but to pretend like that is not a big part is ignoring the natural order and holy scripture. God commanded our first parents to multiply and replenish the earth. Yes, Adam was made to love Eve and Eve to love Adam. But a result of that love was and is supposed to be today offspring. Same sex couples CAN NEVER produce offspring.

 

Comparing infertile heterosexual couples to homosexual couples is a very weak argument and if you can't tell the difference, I don't think we are going to be anywhere near capable of having a conversation.

 

Nor have I ever said that God did not command Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Reproduction is indeed a part of the plan of salvation but that does not mean any relationship that does not include reproduction is not allowed to marry in the temple or can not qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.  And that is what we are talking about here.

[Coreyb]

And why wouldn't there be libido in heaven? Will there be genitals in heaven? The scripture says that not a hair of the head shall be lost, and that's a lot more than just hair. I have grown sick of the spiritualizing of mormonism, as if we would like to go back to Neoplatonism. Yes it certainly is in the scriptures that the eternal marriage covenant involves literal "seed". In Abraham The Lord blesses him with an eternal posterity of the literal seed of his body. This covenant is renewed with Isaac and Jacob. When a couple is sealed they are blessed with all the same blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you are unfamiliar with the ceremony you can find it in The Seer page 31 (JLHPROF can back me up on this). So yes it is scriptural

Edited December 22, 2014 by Coreyb

[mfbukowski]

Nor have I ever said that God did not command Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Reproduction is indeed a part of the plan of salvation but that does not mean any relationship that does not include reproduction is not allowed to marry in the temple or can not qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.  And that is what we are talking about here.

What precisely would justify it then? Where are the scriptures?

Clearly the theological basis for exaltation is the family, and carrying it on, and "natural law". And then there is the proclamation on the family specifically condemning homosexuality

I cannot for the life of me figure out a theological basis for gay folks to even WANT temple marriage. If I was gay, and had a testimony that I was justified before God - I would be out of the church so fast it would make your head spin. It makes no sense.

We do not believe in transubstantiation. If I did, I would be Catholic. We do not believe in gay marriage.

Maybe we should adopt the doctrine of transubstantiation? It has as much basis in Mormonism as gay marriage. I just do not understand it.

[mfbukowski]

And why wouldn't there be libido in heaven? Will there be genitals in heaven? The scripture says that not a hair of the head shall be lost, and that's a lot more than just hair. I have grown sick of the spiritualizing of mormonism, as if we would like to go back to Neoplatonism. Yes it certainly is in the scriptures that the eternal marriage covenant involves literal "seed". In Abraham The Lord blesses him with an eternal posterity of the literal seed of his body. This covenant is renewed with Isaac and Jacob. When a couple is sealed they are blessed with all the same blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you are unfamiliar with the ceremony you can find it in The Seer page 31 (JHLPROF can back me up on this). So yes it is scriptural

Absolutely!

Maybe Mormonism should become Buddhist. That's an interesting idea. Maybe I will start lobbying for that.

[mfbukowski]

 

We are not talking about dogs humping chairs.  Here is the research from Wikipedia

 

 

 

Seriously?

 

I thought we were here to overcome the natural man by adhering to the commandments.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Do you take into account preaching to the dead, spirit prison, and proxy work?  Suppose, for example, that someone is homosexual through no fault of their own.  Does that doom them to the Telestial Kingdom, or is repentance after this life an option, with the appropriate proxy ordinances?

[3DOP]

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. 

 

Ecclesiastical suicide. You have the big picture, pogi. Our churches can't just do theological backflips and moral somersaults and remain credible. The reasons for my positions always have to do with what can be believed, while still having a credible church. But I must concede, there are a lot of people who would happily go to a church that was wrong for most of its history, if they thought it had changed for the better today. I am uninterested in such an institution and would stay at home rather than give my money or even buy fuel for my car to go to such a "church".

[Robert F. Smith]

Nor have I ever said that God did not command Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Reproduction is indeed a part of the plan of salvation but that does not mean any relationship that does not include reproduction is not allowed to marry in the temple or can not qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.  And that is what we are talking about here.

I understand what you are saying, california, but the question is really what is the eternal plan as far as SSA is concerned, and we typically find that godhood is always a male-female combination in Mormon theology.  A man simply cannot be exalted without the woman.  Indeed, his priesthood cannot be realized in that eternal sense without the woman.

And St Paul says that (I Cor 11:)

 

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 

All of us are ignorant of the details of exaltation, even though we think we understand some of the broader concepts.  Perhaps our ignorance extends over this subject as well.  However, it is an interesting thought experiment.

[JLHPROF]

 

We are not talking about dogs humping chairs.  Here is the research from Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

Homosexual behaviour in animals does not connect to Celestial beings, especially the sons of God.  If homosexuality is fallen behavior, finding it in lesser creatures just adds credence to that belief.  Celestial beings are better than that.

 

Exaltation is about living the same kind of life God lives.  We can pretend that nothing definitive has been revealed, but in every age of the gospel father/mother(s)/children has been the pattern revealed from heaven.  There isn't even a name or defined relationship in all of scripture or revelation for a homosexual relationship.  We know about husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister.  God has never mentioned any other option.

Its sinful nature is alluded to however.

 

Using animals of a lower order of life to justify behaving in a fallen manner doesn't add up.

[carbon dioxide]

    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...

Beyond the doctrinal problems that would exist by accepting same sex marriage, one has to simply look at what has and is happening to other churches regarding the issue.  Churches are being torn apart on the issue.  The same thing would happen in the Church.  It would be a far bigger split than what happened after Joseph Smith died.   I would be shocked if less than 2/3 of the membership was to remain if it was accepted.  I can speak for myself and my family both immediate and extended.  Pretty much all of us would leave and side with the splinter group that keeps the same views as the Church has today.  I just can't see any reason the Church would change its views on it and risk blowing up the church in the process.  The only good thing that I can see for the Church accepting gay marriage would be the possibility of the Church desinning some of my favorite sins.  THere are a few sins I have a hard time struggling with.  It would be nice to not have to struggle with them anymore if the Church would just accept them and let me practice them in peace.

 

I don't think there is any way to fit it into the exaltation theology anymore than marriage between man and his favorite dog can be be done.  The laws of heaven can't be bent to please us.  We are to sacrifice our desires and wishes to conform to the laws of heaven.

Edited December 22, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

That is not what he said. He did not say they were just about reproduction, but to pretend like that is not a big part is ignoring the natural order and holy scripture. God commanded our first parents to multiply and replenish the earth. Yes, Adam was made to love Eve and Eve to love Adam. But a result of that love was and is supposed to be today offspring. Same sex couples CAN NEVER produce offspring.

 

Comparing infertile heterosexual couples to homosexual couples is a very weak argument and if you can't tell the difference, I don't think we are going to be anywhere near capable of having a conversation.

Indeed this appears to be the entire issue.

 

There is no theological basis to any of this- none of it has been thought through for consistency, there is no reasoning behind it.  It is strictly "I want to do this so the church should let me".  There is the whole aspect of yin and yang- opposition in all things, the unity with the Other, the church being the Bride of Christ, the images of sky and earth- the Patriarchal Order, EVEN THE SYMBOLISM IN THE DIFFERENCE OF TEMPLE ROBES- the words spoken in the sealing ceremony- the Abrahamic covenant, even Patriarchal blessings and what "tribe" of Israel you are descended from- so much symbolism, so much tradition and all the argument amounts to is "Well I love this person so I should be able to be sealed to him".

 

It's not even about same sex marriage ultimately - THIS battle is about same sex SEALINGS, theologically, and what would have to happen doctrinally to make it happen and have it actually make sense.

 

It is not thought through at all theologically

Edited December 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Also not considered is the tremendous spiritual challenge of two beings of opposite and complimentary genders, who think differently about everything in very different ways- a human male and a human female- working out their significant differences in everything and maintaining a loving relationship for 40, 50, or more years.

 

If that does not make you Christlike, nothing will. 

 

Heck I could get along with a guy for that long, no problem.  We think the same way.

Edited December 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

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?

Mortal form of sexual desire may not be wicked, etc. but it still may be so far below our immortal, eternal perfection, that it might be unrecongizable and distasteful and inappropriate for such beings.  I would assume that any process which is to enhance a man and woman becoming one could be much more effective with spiritual communication and mental…to the point that physical may not even be a blip on the scenc.

[SamIam]

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.

 

 

I think that we have to remember that mortal redefinition of what marriage is will not change the fact that the Bible implies it is a male / female union.  Commanded to multiply, and couched in pleasant contemplations such as "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh, leaves a definitional standard that brooks any legislative effort to include two men as celestial partners.  It is a damned union (in the sense of unable to advance)for the very fact that it cannot fulfill the primary action of begetting children as part of a celestial potential. 

Edited December 22, 2014 by SamIam

[Avatar4321]

Wouldn't it simply be easier to obey the commandments of the Lord? Why put yourself through the impossible attempt to corrupt the message of the gospel rather than simply repent and do what the Lord has asked?

do you believe the atonement of Jesus Christ can change human nature? I believe it can cause He has changed my nature in the past.

the Lord can heal the blind. He can make the deaf hear. He can make the lame walk. The dead rise. Do you honestly think He cannot change our sinful natures?

[BrotherofJared]

I am not so concerned that the church will accept gay couples the same as they do married couples. I am one to believe that a "continuation of the seeds" requires a man and a woman. There is no reason to believe that God doesn't follow the rules he gives us. What concerns me most is the man or woman who has feelings of same sex attraction and cannot, in this life, bring themselves to have anything to do with the opposite gender. We are taught that ties of eternal marriage must be made in this life. So the man or woman who never marries, but observes all the commandments of god... cannot be exalted? And why is this so? Because God gave them their weakness?

 

I believe that God is able to save all of his children, but I do not understand how he can accomplish that. This situation, among others, brings to mind the rich man who asked Jesus what else he needed to do to obtain exaltation. He stated that he had kept all of the commandments since he was a child, but Jesus said he lacked one thing. To obtain exaltation he needed to sell all he had and give the money to the poor and then follow him. I believe gays and lesbians who choose remain members of the LDS faith have sold all that they have and follow him. What lack they yet? A husband? a wife? This confuses me.