Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[Daniel2]

There is a huge difference between what can be accomplished and the method God has ordained for it to be accomplished.

Just because we have come up with alternate methods to do something, doesn't mean they apply to the eternal order.

I agree that "just because we can" doesn't necessarily mean that it DOES apply to the eternal order, and that wasn't my point.

My point was if WE (as mere mortals) already can overcome the limits of dual-gendered, barren, sexual reproduction with our very limited technology and medicine, then surely God could and can, in manners that are likely far more viable within the natural eternal order...

And that the limits we presume exist because we assume that God organizes intelligences into spirit children in the same way that we procreate may be only assumptions about a "eternal order" which we actually know almost nothing about.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

I have a handicap.  I cannot hear.  As far as I know, It is possible for me to eventually be sealed in a Temple through the process of repentance in which hearing has nothing to do with it.   Saying that SSA is a handicap with no reference to scripture or revelation is just another "speaking as a man" thing that can change at anytime. The arrogance of the thinking as a "handicap" in the eternities is an injustice to anyone on this earth who has a physical handicap.  I can't wait to hear again should that be so..however, my spirituality and character and who I am is hardly connected to sound. 

If you think I'm painting with too broad of a brush, my dear, I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree.  I agree with you that handicaps and homosexuality are fundamentally different, but the same principle still applies: mortal life isn't fair (either to the handicapped or to homosexuals), but whatever loss we experience in mortality will be made up to us in the resurrection, so in that sense, they're the same.  Any disagreement notwithstanding, I wish you well.

[Rivers]

There is too much we simply don't know about how things work in the afterlife regarding sexuality and child-bearing.

[CMZ]

I don't think that is what he meant.

 

They are equal in importance in one area already to men in an eternal basis as exaltation takes place in pairs.  But at the moment we don't know much beyond that as to what is their role and why their gender will be an essential part of it.  We need more revelation to understand and be able to make full use what we know at this point.  There are too many inferences being made about women by members and even some leaders haven't followed through on what comments they've made imply that lessen the sense of individual value for many women.  Revelation can clarify this and remove problematic understandings.

 

We also have little knowledge of what Heavenly Mother has, is she just Wisdom and a councilor or is there a power in her role that is different, needed in order to complement the Priesthood of God the Father.  I believe that there is and I believe that eventually she will gift it to her daughters.  I don't see it as something completely alien to the Priesthood of the Father.  I think of it with an analogy….some ultimate source of power that is then refracted through the Father and the Mother into their particular version of Priesthood/Priestesshood.  In joining them back together as one through an exalted couple exercising these powers and authorities to act first in the name of the Father and then someday in the name of the Mother, the result of the blended powers is somehow strengthened and refined and added glory unto just as exercising love together will add strength and dimension and glory that were not present when that love had no one to exchange it with.

 

I don't mean to imply there is no overlap or that only women will be able to exercise some aspects of the Mother's Power and Authority, but simply that it will operate in the same way as the Priesthood does among women.  The Priesthood/Priestesshood will be at its best when both are exercising their version of the Divine Power (not anthropomorphizing it, the Divine Power is the Power of the Divine Family…the extended version with all of the Father and the Mother's children and if there are 'aunts and uncles' with their family, grandparents, etc).

 

A lot of stuff to get into there. I don't think we are entirely without answers. Of course we don't have all of them. I just don't think we need to wring our hands in despair... I'll cut it off right there. This is one of those topics where one can say a little about it and then someone will razz them for having left out what they feel is an important point, but maybe it was only left out for time considerations and not being able to touch on every possible point in one post.

[JLHPROF]

I agree that "just because we can" doesn't necessarily mean that it applies to the eternal order, and that wasn't my point.

My point was if WE (as mere mortals) already can overcome the limits of dual-gendered, barren, sexual reproduction with our very limited technology and medicine, then surely God could and can, in manners that are likely far more viable within the natural eternal order...

And that the limits we presume exist because we assume that God organizes intelligences into spirit children in the same way that we procreate may be only assumptions about a "eternal order" which we actually know almost nothing about.

 

And as per the thread I started yesterday, in the absence of canonized revelation, I choose to accept the teachings of the prophets, even if they are just opinions.  I find it preferable to speculation about new forms of procreation.

 

Brigham Young

"There is not a person here today but what is a son or a daughter of that being. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here. This, perhaps, is hard for many to believe, but it is the greatest nonsense in the world not to believe it. If you do not believe it, cease to call him Father; and when you pray, pray to some other character...

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth."

 

John A. Widtsoe

"It has already been said that sex is an eternal principle. The equivalent of sex has always existed and will continue forever. As the sex relation, then, represents an eternal condition, the begetting of children is coincidentally an eternal necessity. We have been begotten into the spirit world by God the Father"

 

and even Eliza R. Snow

"In thy holy habitation,

Did my spirit once reside?

In my first primeval childhood

Was I nurtured near thy side?

For a wise and glorious purpose

Thou hast placed me here on earth

And withheld the recollection

Of my former friends and birth"

Edited December 28, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

I hate to break it to you, but what is said on this thread is not always doctrine, nor is it always the will of God.  Saying that homosexuality is a handicap and needs to be viewed the same as someone being bald or blind may not actually be true.  

 

I view people who are left handed as being not like me and as such not normal.  Most people agree.  When you are right handed, it is the natural way to write, Using scissors is easier, batting a baseball is more correct.  Need I go on?  

 

We all should be right handed.  It is how God intended us to be.  He has even stated that the right hand of God is the coveted place to be.  So all who are resurrected must be changed from being left handed to being right handed.  The scriptures are quite clear.  

 

Unfortunately being attracted to the same sex is much more serious and has far greater implications than simply changing hand preference.

You seem to be very talented at avoiding the issues.

And how pray tell could we determine whether or not homosexuality or MS or being born with no legs was a "true" handicap or not?

 

This comment applies to absolutely nothing I said.  I am sure that those with serious handicaps will be comforted by the knowledge that their problems are no worse than being left handed or bald

 

And how was your trip to Paris? That question is about as relevant to what I asked as what you wrote.

Edited December 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

We have learned through sad experience that preventing a group of Gods children from receiving temple marriage simply based on the statements of a prophet or even the statements of the first presidency or even the consensus of the apostles who lack a revelation from God may very well not be the will of God.  

 

Point to me an actual revelation from God to his prophet where He has told him that same sex marriages and sex within those marriages, just like opposite sex marriages and sex within those marriages are not worthy of temple blessings.  Point me to  a revelation where God has said that same sex attraction disappears in the next life.  Revelation from God is how the church used to determined doctrine.  Has it now come down to working out a statement by committee and then taking a vote on it when we want to know the will of God?  If so, then how is this still the church of God?  Show me where prophets in the scriptures sat down by committee and worked up a revelation from God.

 

20 years from now, apologists may very well be saying that our thinking was wrong in 2014.  Forget all that has been said.  God has finally spoken.  Now ALL of Gods children are welcome into the plan of salvation through temple marriage.  The law of chastity is, as it always has been, only sexual relations within the bonds of marriage.  Everything else is a sin in the site of God.

This is so confused I don't even know where to begin.

 

First of all, where did we even get the idea of temple marriage in the first place?  Prophets

Did you dream up the idea of temple marriage yourself??  And now you feel left out of your own fantasy that temple sealings are possible?

 

The people who gave us the revelations in the first place, get to define the rules

 

If prophets can tell us that temple marriage is possible, in the first place they get to set the conditions.  Either they are considered prophets or they are not.  Either you accept the belief or you don't.

 

Who wrote the temple recommend questions?  Prophets

 

Who wrote the Proclamation?  Prophets.

 

Who wrote the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality?  Prophets.

 

Do you think I am making this stuff up on my own?  How absurd can you get?

[mfbukowski]

I don't know 100% what may or may not come in the future but I do think it's erroneous to think that women only become important if given the priesthood (or priestesshood).

Please show me where I said anything close to this.

[mfbukowski]

You just proved my point. The reasons don't really matter.

Exactly!!

[mfbukowski]

Today's limited medical science is far inferior from divine omnipotence. Would you agree?

And yet, modern science, crude and limited as it may be when compared to godly all-powerfulness, has already begun thr process to finding a way to create both egg and sperm from a single-gendered parent/s. As posted on a separate thread:

I believe this article has merit in this "thought experiment" discussion on exalting gays.

How limited and paltry our own understanding of procreation is. We assume it is all about biology, and that celestial procreation is bound to the same limitations we currently experience on earth.

I suggest that we do not know and cannot even imagine what we do not know about what existence will be after mortality.

Who gave you the idea that celestial reproduction was even possible?

 

The very prophets you have chosen to now disbelieve, about it requiring a male and a female.

 

In other words, you are dreaming up your own doctrine.  Do you find that inconsistent?

 

Perhaps there should be another church established with you as the prophet.  That's probably what I would do if I were you.

[mfbukowski]

And that the limits we presume exist because we assume that God organizes intelligences into spirit children in the same way that we procreate may be only assumptions about a "eternal order" which we actually know almost nothing about.

Or they might not be.

 

So who is right- you or the prophets?

 

I really don't care which you choose- which you choose is actually the whole point.  THAT is whom you should follow.

 

Suppose you become Jewish so you can preach that Jesus is the messiah?   Does that make sense?

[rodheadlee]

T

How limited and paltry our own understanding of procreation is. We assume it is all about biology, and that celestial procreation is bound to the same limitations we currently experience on earth.

I suggest that we do not know and cannot even imagine what we do not know about what existence will be after mortality.

It ain't rocket science.

 

26 ¶ And God said, Let ^aus ^bmake ^cman in our ^dimage, after our ^elikeness: and let them have ^fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27 So God created man in his own ^aimage, in the image of God created he him; male and ^bfemale created he them.

Edited December 28, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Daniel2]

It ain't rocket science.

26 ¶ And God said, Let ^aus ^bmake ^cman in our ^dimage, after our ^elikeness: and let them have ^fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own ^aimage, in the image of God created he him; male and ^bfemale created he them.

No... creating a spirit child by organizing an immortal intelligence into a spirit body certainly isn't mere rocket science. It's far more mystical and harder to fathom.

And I wouldn't rely on a allegorical book that describes man being made from clay and woman as being created out of Adam's rib as an authoritative source that clarifies the actual medical/scientific means by which human life was created. Your milage may differ. ;-)

[Daniel2]

Or they might not be.

So who is right- you or the prophets?

I really don't care which you choose- which you choose is actually the whole point. THAT is whom you should follow.

Suppose you become Jewish so you can preach that Jesus is the messiah? Does that make sense?

If it isn't clear, I'm happy to clarify: I certainly don't follow, believe in, or sustain LDS leaders or trust their judgement on this issue.

My heart and head and experience and spirit and every fiber of my being tell me otherwise.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Who gave you the idea that celestial reproduction was even possible?

The very prophets you have chosen to now disbelieve, about it requiring a male and a female.

In other words, you are dreaming up your own doctrine. Do you find that inconsistent?

There is much I find inconsistent. That is the nature of and process how mythologies develop, change, and evolve over time, as so much of LDS doctrine has done (as every religion has and does).

[mfbukowski]

No... creating a spirit child by organizing an immortal intelligence into a spirit body certainly isn't mere rocket science. It's far more mystical and harder to fathom.

And I wouldn't rely on a allegorical book that describes man being made from clay and woman as being created out of Adam's rib as an authoritative source that clarifies the actual medical/scientific means by which human life was created. Your milage may differ. ;-)

Then what WOULD you accept?

 

That is the question isn't it?  Your own revelations?  Fine!  Go for it!  What's stopping you?

 

Be your own Joseph Smith and take matters into your own hands.

[mfbukowski]

If it isn't clear, I'm happy to clarify: I certainly don't follow, believe in, or sustain LDS leaders or trust their judgement on this issue.

My heart and head and experience and spirit and every fiber of my being tell me otherwise.

Good- then why are you here complaining about it? Follow your heart- you don't need us!

[mfbukowski]

There is much I find inconsistent. That is the nature of and process how mythologies develop, change, and evolve over time, as so much of LDS doctrine has done (as every religion has and does).

So start your own temple and do your own sealings, or don't!  Why bother with us?

[Daniel2]

So start your own temple and do your own sealings, or don't! Why bother with us?

Because my family are LDS, and I value my relationships with them, and long for a full relarionship between the and my husband.

The church's teachings, however, are a rumbling block to their ability to value their relationship with me and my husband.

And so I am here to do missionary work. It's part of my heritage.

[mfbukowski]

Because my family are LDS, and I value my relationships with them, and long for a full relarionship between the and my husband.

The church's teachings, however, are a rumbling block to their ability to value their relationship with me and my husband.

And so I am here to do missionary work. It's part of my heritage.

Fine with me, but at least come up with a consistent theology.

 

Advocating temple sealings for same sex couples just doesn't fit with LDS theology.  Maybe some kind of "Love is all we need" theology would work, but LDS theology says to overcome the natural man, and that gender is eternal.   I just don't see how the two can be made consistent.

 

Still crickets.

[Daniel2]

Fine with me, but at least come up with a consistent theology.

Advocating temple sealings for same sex couples just doesn't fit with LDS theology. Maybe some kind of "Love is all we need" theology would work, but LDS theology says to overcome the natural man, and that gender is eternal. I just don't see how the two can be made consistent.

Still crickets.

Actually, it's been answered several times. You simply refuse to hear, apparently.

But, I'll try once more:

1. It's entirely possible and consistent with current theology that God doesn't expect all of his children in the celestial kingdom to pro-create; that gay, but still married couples, serve other celestial, and even creative functions (creating, overseeing, and tending to the flora and fauna and beautification of the worlds that the gods create...? Many gays and lesbians on earth display talents related to and/or an affinity for caregiving of those here on earth...)

2. Conversely, perhaps sexual reproduction is not necessary for the organization of spirit children in the eternities, and perhaps celestial parents beget children through alternate means.

The Greeks taught that God created humanity in three types of pairings: male/female, male/male, and female/female, and that we mortals spend our existence searching for our missing other half. For those that are heterosexual, their spouse is of the opposite gender, and for those that are gay or lesbian, their spouse is their same gender. All families are valued, and each couple finds joy in the measure of their creation.

LDS theology doesn't have to change that much to accommodate different roles/functions with the celestial heirarchy... especially given that only 1/3 of the beings inhabiting the celestial kingdom will be "exalted" and 2/3 will fulfilling other celestial roles. Thus far, LDS doctrine has been silent on the roles and functions of this other 2/3... and the articles of faith proclaim that God will yet reveal many important things pertaining to his kingdom.

After all, the purpose of life is not "to have children." The purpose of life is to have joy . Many--even most--may find joy in bearing children. But others may find joy in other ways... helping rear others' children... in animals... flowers... art... music... creation... If God is the author of all things, then he is responsible for infinite diversity, all of which may glorify him by fulfilling the measure of their infinite and diverse creation.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Daniel2

[Hamba Tuhan]

Wait.  Are you stating that you think homosexuals have only existed since the late 19 century because that is when the word came into use?  Or am I misreading what you stated.

 

No, because that is when the entire concept of sexual orientation behind the word was first constructed.

 

'The Invention of the Heterosexual' is an excellent interview in Salon that provides an accessible summary of the history.

 

Another source and some selected quotes for people who may care about what we know historically:

 

'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation': 'The social-constructionist approach has posed important challenges to ahistorical, essentialist accounts of sexual orientation and extended our understanding of the impact of culture on human sexuality. Most constructionist analyses have focused on homosexual identities, however, ignoring heterosexuality and bisexuality. By attending predominantly to homosexual identities, researchers may seem to support the notion that only "deviant" sexuality (i.e., homosexuality) is socially constructed as opposed to the more radical idea that all sexual orientations are constructed, or that the entire concept of a sexual orientation is itself a social construction. After all, heterosexuality as a sexual identity (rather than as a default behavior pattern) is a rather recent phenomenon in our society, only called into being by the existence of homosexuality'.

'Sexual orientation, according to this definition, has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space. I will not dwell on the third quality, that of consistency, although there is considerable evidence to challenge the notion that sexual orientation is consistent over time and/or space. Instead, I wish to examine the first and second factors, those of sexuality and gender. I will claim that "sexual orientation" (as it is understood in modern Western culture) privileges both sexuality and gender as fundamental, biological categories of experience. By this I mean that the way in which sexual orientation is understood by both the mainstream culture and the scientific community has resulted in the assumption of sexuality and gender as basic and self-explanatory. Our cultural construct of sexual orientation focuses attention narrowly on sexuality and gender as the key elements of relationships instead of examining the wide range of human bonding preferences'.

'Perhaps sex-centrality was inevitable given the increasing discourse of sexuality in Western culture and the proliferation of a sexual zoology ... In addition to typologies of sexuality becoming more elaborate, Freudian theory increased the pervasiveness of sexual discourse by fostering the notion that no human bonding is free from sexuality. Thus not only were a variety of sexual categories available, but all human relationships(friendships, parent-child relationships) became imbued with sexuality, and emotional attachment came to be seen as linked with sexual desire'.

 

In short, people in this thread are debating the 'eternal nature' of sexual identities that simply did not exist as states of being as recently as 150 years ago ... and which still do not exist in many human societies located outside the colonising reach of the overly sexualised, psychologised, Hollywoodised West.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

This is so confused I don't even know where to begin.

 

First of all, where did we even get the idea of temple marriage in the first place?  Prophets

Did you dream up the idea of temple marriage yourself??  And now you feel left out of your own fantasy that temple sealings are possible?

 

The people who gave us the revelations in the first place, get to define the rules

 

If prophets can tell us that temple marriage is possible, in the first place they get to set the conditions.  Either they are considered prophets or they are not.  Either you accept the belief or you don't.

 

Who wrote the temple recommend questions?  Prophets

 

Who wrote the Proclamation?  Prophets.

 

Who wrote the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality?  Prophets.

 

Do you think I am making this stuff up on my own?  How absurd can you get?

You are absolutely right of course.  If the prophets have instituted temple marriage and the plan of salvation is their plan, then it is their right to define it any way they want.  If they want to exclude gay couples from temple marriage, I certainly have no problem with that.  Since it is something the prophets started, they are free to be the ones to decide how it is run.

 

But it is my belief that God instituted the plan of salvation and instituted temple marriage as part of that plan.  I thought since it was His plan for His children, He should have a say in how temple marriage is conducted on earth.   Since I believe that temple marriage came from God, I am more inclined to look to Him to decide these things.

Edited December 29, 2014 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

Actually, it's been answered several times. You simply refuse to hear, apparently.

But, I'll try once more:

1. It's entirely possible and consistent with current theology that God doesn't expect all of his children in the celestial kingdom to pro-create; that gay, but still married couples, serve other celestial, and even creative functions (creating, overseeing, and tending to the flora and fauna and beautification of the worlds that the gods create...? Many gays and lesbians on earth display talents related to and/or an affinity for caregiving of those here on earth...)

2. Conversely, perhaps sexual reproduction is not necessary for the organization of spirit children in the eternities, and perhaps celestial parents beget children through alternate means.

The Greeks taught that God created humanity in three types of pairings: male/female, male/male, and female/female, and that we mortals spend our existence searching for our missing other half. For those that are heterosexual, their spouse is of the opposite gender, and for those that are gay or lesbian, their spouse is their same gender. All families are valued, and each couple finds joy in the measure of their creation.

LDS theology doesn't have to change that much to accommodate different roles/functions with the celestial heirarchy... especially given that only 1/3 of the beings inhabiting the celestial kingdom will be "exalted" and 2/3 will fulfilling other celestial roles. Thus far, LDS doctrine has been silent on the roles and functions of this other 2/3... and the articles of faith proclaim that God will yet reveal many important things pertaining to his kingdom.

After all, the purpose of life is not "to have children." The purpose of life is to have joy . Many--even most--may find joy in bearing children. But others may find joy in other ways... helping rear others' children... in animals... flowers... art... music... creation... If God is the author of all things, then he is responsible for infinite diversity, all of which may glorify him by fulfilling the measure of their infinite and diverse creation.

So you are saying that it's ok with you that gay couples get secondary roles in the ck and are not exalted?

 

No problem with that, but that wasn't the question.  We are told that even those in the telestial kingdom will have "joy"- so much so that it is said that if we could know now what joy one would experience there, that we might commit suicide to get there.

 

But I really think that I could never have gotten away with putting it the way you did with the gay sterotypes:

gay, but still married couples, serve other celestial, and even creative functions (creating, overseeing, and tending to the flora and fauna and beautification of the worlds that the gods create...?

If I had said that you would have said that I was stereotyping gays as florists and interior decorators.

[mfbukowski]

You are absolutely right of course.  If the prophets have instituted temple marriage and the plan of salvation is their plan, then it is their right to define it any way they want.  If they want to exclude gay couples from temple marriage, I certainly have no problem with that.  Since it is something the prophets started, they are free to be the ones to decide how it is run.

 

But it is my belief that God instituted the plan of salvation and instituted temple marriage as part of that plan.  I thought since it was His plan for His children, He should have a say in how temple marriage is conducted on earth.   Since I believe that temple marriage came from God, I am more inclined to look to Him to decide these things.

Again I don't see the consistency here I guess. You are no longer a member yet you believe that temple marriage came from God and that somehow we could have known about it without prophets, since the prophets were wrong about how they defined it.

Yes, I am very confused and still looking for something that hangs together consistenly

Please explain how it is possible for us to know about temple marriage and yet maintain that the prophets were wrong about how it works.

And how do you look to God to "decide these things" if the prophets are wrong and you don't seem to want to be your own prophet?

How are we to know what God decides then?