Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[Calm]

"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?"

 

We are taught that those who through no fault of their own are deprived of blessings in this life will not be limited in the next life.  I don't believe that those with SSA who have chosen in the end to live a chaste life within the gospel and those who have lived up to the gospel with the best desires with the law and light of the Gospel that they know will not be able to partake of eternal marriage any more than my great aunt who died a single woman, never married and serving the Lord and his children all of her life who was promised if faithful the Lord's gifts were fully hers.

[BrotherofJared]

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?

I do not understand that argument. That our bodies change from corruptible to incorruptible, it is true, but only in the sense that we cannot die, get ill or be in need of food. Nothing in the scriptures describes a body that has no passions or attractions. Anything we discard would be a self-willed decision to discard and not something brought upon us because of the resurrection. I'm pretty sure the reason we are here is to determine how we'll deal with those passions, not sex only, but also the other more serious passions like anger, jealousy, hatred, charity, love and courage. If we take our knowledge with us, then we also take our feelings associated with that knowledge with us. That is my belief. I know of no scripture that would void it.

 

As for the feelings of "love" between same sex couples matching or being on the same order as heterosexual couples, that would be a hard one to define or resolve. There is no way the connection can be matched between these couples because they do not have similar roles. How can same sex couples know the trials of getting pregnant or the feeling associated with bringing a child into the world that is of their own loins? It is not possible. Or even the frustration of knowing they "could" have children, but physiological differences prevent it. After birth, they (same-sex couples) can simulate almost every other part of the relationship, but they cannot create the situation and at best, they can only simulate couples who couldn't bear or didn't bear their own children. Can we say that couples who don't bring children into the world love each other any less than couples that do? No. We can't. All I'm saying is the love in a heterosexual relationship is different than in a same-sex relationship. Their arguments are different. Their problems are different. Like, do heterosexual couples argue about who is going to be the wife? Do same-sex male couples have to deal with PMS, menopause or post-partum blues? I cannot cover all of the issues and I know I'm leaving a LOT of situations out that might offend some groups. I'm just saying that the love is different. Yet that love can still exist in heaven. But to obtain any degree of glory, one must abide the laws of that glory or he cannot obtain it.

[BrotherofJared]

We are taught that those who through no fault of their own are deprived of blessings in this life will not be limited in the next life.  I don't believe that those with SSA who have chosen in the end to live a chaste life within the gospel and those who have lived up to the gospel with the best desires with the law and light of the Gospel that they know will not be able to partake of eternal marriage any more than my great aunt who died a single woman, never married and serving the Lord and his children all of her life who was promised if faithful the Lord's gifts were fully hers.

That definition use to only be applied to women who could not find a husband. It as since grown to include men who could not find a wife and now you apply it to SSA. As I said, I believe God has a plan that can save all of his children. I just don't know what it is and I can't see how that particular solution would apply to SSA (mostly because that's not an answer for people who truly are attracted to their own gender).

[Buckeye]

    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...

 

Here are some ways our theology could evolve to accept SS unions within exaltation.

 

1. Acknowledge that we don't have any strong information on how spirit children are created. Are spirits truly co-eternal, as Joseph suggests in the KFD? Or is sexual union required? The reality is that scripture says nothing about sex being a necessity. It says marriage/sealing is needed to have a continuation, and most all members have assumed that's because sex is needed, but that could just be a result of our limited knowledge. Remember that Brigham was very sure that God had to have sex with Mary to create Christ's body, but the church has now completely abandoned that teaching.
2. Continue to emphasize that sex has a very important role apart from creating embryos. The church used to teach that the purpose of sex was simply reproduction. This was a key part of the opposition to contraception. Today the church openly teaches that sex has very important unifying purposes apart (and perhaps even superceeding) reproduction. I'm confident that the vast majority of sex between sealed members of the church today is not being done for procreation.
3. Support SS couples the same way we support infertile heterosexual couples. In both situations, the relationship has great value and the potential to raise up children that are adopted. I often find it odd how so many arguments against SSM would also undermine infertile heterosexual marriages.
4. Regardless of whether sex will play a role in the eternities, we can emphasize that true creation, including a continuation of one's self, is not limited to sexual reproduction. Creation comes through the word - through example, sacrifice, and literally giving of one's self to another. While child bearing is certainly one way in which a person gives of himself (rather herself), it is not the only way and, critically, it is not a necessary way in order for someone to fully be a parent. Sister Sheri Dew emphasized this point in her 2001 discourse "Are We Not All Mothers," when she said, "Motherhood is more than bearing children. … It is the essence of who we are as women."
5. Finally, and most importantly, focus on Christ. Christ is our ultimate example of fatherhood (parenthood) and yet our doctrine is that his fatherhood has nothing at all to do with sexual reproduction. I could go on and on about my own conclusions, but I find that most progress is made when people wrestle with this conundrum themselves. The best answer I have is (again) that of Sister Dew. Parenthood is the essence of who we are as men and women. It is not based on sexual reproduction - that is just one of a myriad of ways in which parenthood is expressed.

[california boy]

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

I can hardly wait to see the look on your wife's face when she gets to the gates of the Celestial Kingdom.  "Congratulations on a job well done.  Enter into the Celestial Kingdom.  Now your job will be to be literally eternally pregnant for eternity, producing billions of spiritual babies."

 

Perhaps the only thing worse than being gay in the afterlife is being a woman and making it into the Celestial Kingdom.

[Thinking]

I won't be surprised either way.

 

The LDS Church has a history of receiving major revelations in response to social pressure.

 

On the other hand, I believe that this is one issue that could cause a major split in the LDS Church.

[stemelbow]

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.

1949:

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

Today:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

It's happened before. The Church has pretty much disavowed strong permanent sounding declarations from the First Presidency. Of course we don't accept that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, nor that it reflects unrighteous actions in the premortal life, as the First Presidency once declared.

[california boy]

 

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.

 

So what happens when a husband is faithful throughout this life, but his wife distains the gospel and won't be a part of it?  I thought we each had to work out our own salvation/

 

Paul also said that it is better for men to be celibate.  How is that working out for you??

[california boy]

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.

 

What doctrine do you think is more difficult for the church membership to accept"

 

That all of Gods children can now be married in the temple for time and eternity regardless of their sexual orientation given to them by God.

 

or

 

It is now ok once again for men to marry other men's wives.  Or maybe it is only ok once again for the prophet to marry other men's wives.

[california boy]

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.

 

LOL.  This could be your best answer.  Maybe a bit flawed.  It is true that me and my boyfriend get along extremely well.  I often say that if I didn't like him, I couldn't like myself because we are so similar in our goals, direction and the way we want to live our lives.  But I also know gay couples who could not be more different.  The differences between them seem to be what unites them as much as the sameness of my relationship with my boyfriend unites us.  I don't think that you being married for eternity to a guy will solve all of your issues.

 

I can't respond to all of these posts.  But I just want to say that I don't post on this subject because "I want to do this so the church should let me".  I don't even know if I would come back into the church if temple marriage was possible.  But I do know that I love the church and that right now I and thousands of gay former members are not part of the plan of salvation.  It seems to be that all of God's children should have a way to reach exaltation.  Just because you are born gay does not mean that you are barred for life from the blessings of sharing this life with someone you love.  Think for a moment how hard it would be to cut your spouse out of your life.  Think of the heartache and loneliness life would be without your family.

 

The brotherofjared asked the question "How can same sex couples know the trials of getting pregnant or the feeling associated with bringing a child into the world that is of their own loins?"  I am asking the question "How can a gay member know the trials of life itself without the experience of having a spouse.  Being married is the most important relationship one could have in this life.  To deny that experience simply because you are, through no fault of your own attracted to the same sex seems damning from the moment you are placed on this earth.  Does that really fit into the gospel plan?  Is the thrill of the next life thrilling because you will be with some woman or because you will be with your wife, the one you love, the one you have shared this earth life with?  Just how excited would you be to live a faithful life here on this earth with the hopes of being assigned some woman you are not even attracted to for the eternities?  Yet many do not have any issues with this doctrine?  They are more worried about how the seed of Abraham is passed on or the style of temple robes?  

 

It sounds to me like they are more willing to throw gay members under the bus than think that God has a plan for them as well that includes joy and happiness in this life and in the next.

[mfbukowski]

LOL.  This could be your best answer.  Maybe a bit flawed.  It is true that me and my boyfriend get along extremely well.  I often say that if I didn't like him, I couldn't like myself because we are so similar in our goals, direction and the way we want to live our lives.  But I also know gay couples who could not be more different.  The differences between them seem to be what unites them as much as the sameness of my relationship with my boyfriend unites us.  I don't think that you being married for eternity to a guy will solve all of your issues.

 

I can't respond to all of these posts.  But I just want to say that I don't post on this subject because "I want to do this so the church should let me".  I don't even know if I would come back into the church if temple marriage was possible.  But I do know that I love the church and that right now I and thousands of gay former members are not part of the plan of salvation.  It seems to be that all of God's children should have a way to reach exaltation.  Just because you are born gay does not mean that you are barred for life from the blessings of sharing this life with someone you love.  Think for a moment how hard it would be to cut your spouse out of your life.  Think of the heartache and loneliness life would be without your family.

 

The brotherofjared asked the question "How can same sex couples know the trials of getting pregnant or the feeling associated with bringing a child into the world that is of their own loins?"  I am asking the question "How can a gay member know the trials of life itself without the experience of having a spouse.  Being married is the most important relationship one could have in this life.  To deny that experience simply because you are, through no fault of your own attracted to the same sex seems damning from the moment you are placed on this earth.  Does that really fit into the gospel plan?  Is the thrill of the next life thrilling because you will be with some woman or because you will be with your wife, the one you love, the one you have shared this earth life with?  Just how excited would you be to live a faithful life here on this earth with the hopes of being assigned some woman you are not even attracted to for the eternities?  Yet many do not have any issues with this doctrine?  They are more worried about how the seed of Abraham is passed on or the style of temple robes?  

 

It sounds to me like they are more willing to throw gay members under the bus than think that God has a plan for them as well that includes joy and happiness in this life and in the next.

But of course you have not answered any of the hard questions.  It always boils down to "denying someone the experience of being married".  That's all it is to you.

 

That is not even the topic of the thread.

 

Your one theological objection has already been answered, and that we all DO have an opportunity for exaltation even after this life.  That is all that needs to be said.  If you don't want to figure out the theology behind that, then that should be a sufficient answer.  Were I gay and if I wanted to stay Mormon, I would figure out a way to have the theology make sense for me.

 

I will NEVER understand people who say they "love the church" but not the theology.  I do not even understand what that means.  For me the church IS the theology. I mean ward Christmas parties are fun and all, but I could do without all the work- that is definitely not why i am a member.

[DJBrown]

    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...

 

Could it be that people with SSA who obey the commandments will be in the Celestial Kingdom, but not exalted?  Remembering that exaltation only exists in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, it makes some sense to me that folks with SSA could occupy the CK, but not be exalted.

[Calm]

That definition use to only be applied to women who could not find a husband. It as since grown to include men who could not find a wife and now you apply it to SSA. As I said, I believe God has a plan that can save all of his children. I just don't know what it is and I can't see how that particular solution would apply to SSA (mostly because that's not an answer for people who truly are attracted to their own gender).

It was always applied to any one disabled, limited by circumstances not under their control as well.

[pogi]

It's happened before. The Church has pretty much disavowed strong permanent sounding declarations from the First Presidency. Of course we don't accept that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, nor that it reflects unrighteous actions in the premortal life, as the First Presidency once declared.

 

That's a pretty good case you make, but if you read the statement from the first presidency carefully you will see that it is vastly different from the proclamation on the family.  Take special notice of the parts in red:

 

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

 

 

Do you see how this states that the "day will come" for blacks to receive the priesthood, but that they are not entitled to it "at this present time"?  It is also clear from this statement that the justification for the deprivation of the priesthood to blacks is based on the interpretation of another principle which has not "clearly been made known."  It is not a solid declaration of principle as is the proclamation on the family, but rather an interpretation of an unclear principle.  They have since admitted that such an interpretation was wrong.

 

The proclamation on the family however, is not an interpretation of another unclear principle.  It is a declaration of what is: "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."  Do you see how this statement does not have "the day will come", or "at the present time"?  It is essential to His "eternal" plan.  That is the difference between these two statements.  One leaves the door open for change, the other doesn't.

Edited December 22, 2014 by pogi

[rockpond]

I can hardly wait to see the look on your wife's face when she gets to the gates of the Celestial Kingdom.  "Congratulations on a job well done.  Enter into the Celestial Kingdom.  Now your job will be to be literally eternally pregnant for eternity, producing billions of spiritual babies."

 

Perhaps the only thing worse than being gay in the afterlife is being a woman and making it into the Celestial Kingdom.

 

My very faithful, temple worker, mother-in-law recently asked me about "pregnancy" in the eternities.

 

I pointed out that her view of the Celestial Kingdom would likely require her to continually become pregnant and, probably, to practice polygamy.  She flatly rejected that.

 

So then I asked her if she didn't believe that she would need sex or pregnancy to have eternal increase, then why was she opposed to gay marriage?

 

She didn't have an answer.

[rockpond]

    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...

 

Yes, I think it's an easy fit.

 

You might find this Dialogue article by Taylor Petrey interesting:  Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology

[Ahab]

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...

Sure, just leave out the idea that a marriage must involve sexual relations with another person, either the same sex or opposite sex. Gays and lesbians could still love their spouses, if they wanted to love them (as that isn't necessarily involved in a marriage either), just as long as they didn't have sexual relations with their same sex spouse.

But I'm kinda guessing that gays and lesbians wouldn't want to marry someone of the same sex if they couldn't have sexual relations.

[Buckeye]

Yes, I think it's an easy fit.

 

You might find this Dialogue article by Taylor Petrey interesting:  Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology

 

I second the recommendation for Petrey. Good stuff.

 

As for SSM being an easy fit into exaltation, I think for most members (at least older members) the fit would be very hard. For whatever reason they are wedded to the notion that spiritual increase requires celestial sex (yes, pun intended). I'm not sure why, but it matters a whole lot to them.

 

For me, and many younger members, the fit is easier. I sometimes use this example. Suppose you found out that you were switched at birth; thus, your earthly body is not the result of the your earthly parents having sex. Would your relationship with your earthly parents be any different? Would you stop looking to them as parents? For me, the answer is an emphatic "no." I don't follow my parents because they did/did not have sex. I follow them because they loved me, sacrificed for me, and have shown themselves to have more knowledge than me on some key things. In other words, they're farther down the path and I trust them.

 

So why would the answer be any different for Heavenly Parents? I've been in hundreds of church lessons/talks where the question is asked "what does it mean that God is our Father?" Exactly 0 times has the answer been "because Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother had sex." Zero. It's amazing, whether in primary, youth classes, gospel doctrine, institute, or general conference, "sex" is never the answer. Likewise, I have a hard time believing anyone would reject God if they meet him in the next life and find out that sex was not part of their spiritual creation story.

 

The only reason sex becomes so important is because it is the only basis we have to exclude SS couples, whose sex lives gross us out. The good news is that the rising generation is less grossed out and, more importantly, much more exposed to the good that comes through SS families. Don't tell them SS couples can't have eternal increase; they can see the beautiful increase in those family's annual x-mas cards.

[stemelbow]

That's a pretty good case you make, but if you read the statement from the first presidency carefully you will see that it is vastly different from the proclamation on the family.  Take special notice of the parts in red:

 

 

Do you see how this states that the "day will come" for blacks to receive the priesthood, but that they are not entitled to it "at this present time"?  It is also clear from this statement that the justification for the deprivation of the priesthood to blacks is based on the interpretation of another principle which has not "clearly been made known."  It is not a solid declaration of principle as is the proclamation on the family, but rather an interpretation of an unclear principle.  They have since admitted that such an interpretation was wrong.

 

The proclamation on the family however, is not an interpretation of another unclear principle.  It is a declaration of what is: "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."  Do you see how this statement does not have "the day will come", or "at the present time"?  It is essential to His "eternal" plan.  That is the difference between these two statements.  One leaves the door open for change, the other doesn't.

My point is the First Presidency was certain that blacks were denied the privilege of the priesthood because "It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain...The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Today:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

The contradiction I pointed out was not that the Church used to say that the priesthood would be given to black people when all others receive the blessings of it first, but then it was given before that. The contradiction is the First Presidency's previous claim that black people were cursed, handicapped, and "that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality".

Just like the First Presidencies previous statements about the cause of the ban are now rejected (not referring to the "present time, or "the day will come" statements), the Church could at some point reject the previous statements found in the Proclamation? Surely many members in the Church in 1949 would have rejected the notion that the First Presidencies statements in the '49 statement could summarily be dismissed some decades down the road, but it happened.

[intra]

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

you mean this part? 

 

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. Andwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

[Flyonthewall]

you mean this part? 

 

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. Andwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

No, this part:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Think for a moment how hard it would be to cut your spouse out of your life.  Think of the heartache and loneliness life would be without your family.

 

'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple'.

 

'And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I can hardly wait to see the look on your wife's face when she gets to the gates of the Celestial Kingdom.  "Congratulations on a job well done.  Enter into the Celestial Kingdom.  Now your job will be to be literally eternally pregnant for eternity, producing billions of spiritual babies."

 

I was privileged to be with my mother about six weeks before she passed away. We had a rough time in the middle of one night, and to pass the time as I sat on the floor near her, I asked, 'Do you remember what it was like when I was small enough to fit in your arms?'

 

'Oh yes', she exclaimed. 'It was such a miracle. I wanted you so badly, and then I had you'. Then she added, 'The happiest thing I have ever done in my life was to be your mother. I never got my fill of it. I still want more children'.

 

I'm the youngest of five children. She had about an equal number of miscarriages. Two of my siblings were born nearly 9 weeks early. There is a large gap between my sister and me because the doctor had said that having another child would be the death of my mother. So she waited till she was in her mid-40s before bravely bringing me into the world. On many occasions, she said that when she considered having a perfect, resurrected body, she always remembered how she felt physically during the nine months that she bore me. She had been born with a congenital heart defect (which took her life in the end) and never felt well a single day of her life except whilst I was in her womb. She said she had loved having boundless energy during that time. She even held three Church callings.

 

God bless mothers!

Edited December 23, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

But of course you have not answered any of the hard questions.  It always boils down to "denying someone the experience of being married".  That's all it is to you.

 

That is not even the topic of the thread.

 

Your one theological objection has already been answered, and that we all DO have an opportunity for exaltation even after this life.  That is all that needs to be said.  If you don't want to figure out the theology behind that, then that should be a sufficient answer.  Were I gay and if I wanted to stay Mormon, I would figure out a way to have the theology make sense for me.

 

I will NEVER understand people who say they "love the church" but not the theology.  I do not even understand what that means.  For me the church IS the theology. I mean ward Christmas parties are fun and all, but I could do without all the work- that is definitely not why i am a member.

 

 

If you are sincere in wanting the answers to your questions, please read the link that Rockpond posted.   Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology

 

The author, Taylor Petrey, does a very complete job of answering the very questions you have asked.  I would love to hear your response to what he writes.  If you are unwilling or not interested enough in finding the answers to your questions, let me know, I will quote from the article enough to answer your theological concerns that you feel may preclude gay couples from also partaking of the blessings of Temple marriage.  

 

I may start with the very example you brought up about Adam and Eve.  Was Adam and Eve created by a sexual act?  Or were they organized by God from the dust of the earth as the scriptures state.  Even a physical body does not need to be created by a sexual act between a man and a woman let alone a spiritual body which the scriptures state God "organizes existing intelligences" not that God has a sexual relationship with His wife and out pop spiritual babies.

 

Read the article.  You will find how difficult it is to make most of the assertions you have made in your post.  If there is one statement that is not addressed in the article, let me know, I would be more than happy to answer it.  Sound fair?

[california boy]

I was privileged to be with my mother about six weeks before she passed away. We had a rough time in the middle of one night, and to pass the time as I sat on the floor near her, I asked, 'Do you remember what it was like when I was small enough to fit in your arms?'

 

'Oh yes', she exclaimed. 'It was such a miracle. I wanted you so badly, and then I had you'. Then she added, 'The happiest thing I have ever done in my life was to be your mother. I never got my fill of it. I still want more children'.

 

I'm the youngest of five children. She had about an equal number of miscarriages. Two of my siblings were born nearly 9 weeks early. There is a large gap between my sister and me because the doctor had said that having another child would be the death of my mother. So she waited till she was in her mid-40s before bravely bringing me into the world. On many occasions, she said that when she considered having a perfect, resurrected body, she always remembered how she felt physically during the nine months that she bore me. She had been born with a congenital heart defect (which took her life in the end) and never felt well a single day of her life except whilst I was in her womb. She said she had loved having boundless energy during that time. She even held three Church callings.

 

God bless mothers!

 

I am not discounting the miracle and joy of child birth.  I have children of my own.  I was present for every single one of them.  I am discounting the speculation that spirit children are conceived through a birthing process.  You will have a hard time finding a woman willing to give birth to 17 children let alone BILLIONS of spirit children through a birthing process.  Have this discussion with your own wife.  Ask her if she is looking forward to a Celestial Kingdom where she is eternally pregnant.  Like I said, perhaps the only thing worse than being gay in the next life is being a woman if your theory is actually true.