Question

[stemelbow]

What if sexual orientation was an eternal component of a particular person?

I think we dare not go there. I'm sure plenty will say, "no way...I know it".

but it's possible.

If it were eternal and people who are gay will always be so, perhaps we are really wrong about how the practice is seen in God's eyes. It's not like we haven't been wrong before.

[ksfisher]

Much of our sexual desire is hormonally driven.  Much of the discussion surrounding gays in the eternities assumes that these same hormones will be functioning in the same manner in the eternities.  This seems to be assuming things that we really don't know about the nature and functions of a resurrected body.

 

While gender is eternal, the drive to "multiply and replenish the earth"  may not be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What if sexual orientation was an eternal component of a particular person?

 

And what if it is not. I mean, so far I see no evidence for this position so I am not sure why some hold to it.

 

In fact the very idea seems to be a counter to everything we currently know.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Uncle Dale]

What if sexual orientation was an eternal component of a particular person?

I think we dare not go there. I'm sure plenty will say, "no way...I know it".

but it's possible.

If it were eternal and people who are gay will always be so, perhaps we are really wrong about how the practice is seen in God's eyes. It's not like we haven't been wrong before.

 

As there needs be opposition in all things, I'll state the obvious

inverse (or converse) of your question:

 

What if sexual orientation IS NOT an eternal component of any

particular person?

 

Notice that I changed the "was" to an "is," which eliminates our

consideration of whether or not there is a "pre-existence."

 

I also changed things by adding a "not" -- which directs our

attention to the possibility of a person's earthy orientation 

and attraction to others (sexually) ending at death.

 

Were any Mormon to seriously ponder these possibilities,

that step would bring him and his theology miles closer to

that of mainstream Christianity.

 

But, it would also jeopardize his traditional view of the 

"families are forever" doctrine -- not to mention endangering

the plan of salvation doctrine (as Eloheim, a progressed human

being, is said to have impregnated Mary in the natural way;

the angels impregnated humans, resulting in Nephilim, etc.)

 

UD

[stemelbow]

Much of our sexual desire is hormonally driven.  Much of the discussion surrounding gays in the eternities assumes that these same hormones will be functioning in the same manner in the eternities.  This seems to be assuming things that we really don't know about the nature and functions of a resurrected body.

 

While gender is eternal, the drive to "multiply and replenish the earth"  may not be.

Interesting.

[stemelbow]

And what if it is not. I mean, so far I see no evidence for this position so I am not sure why some hold to it.

There's no evidence for either position. If it's not is just asking me the same question that I asked.

 

In fact the very idea seems to be a counter to everything we currently know.

That's the point. It's not like that hasn't happened before. We knew so much so that our scriptures told us that people with dark skin were cursed. But as it is, we simply don't accept that now. The idea that they were not cursed was counter to everything those LDS members back then currently knew. I say, just wait. There will be tons of surprises to come.

[KevinG]

It is either a flaw, and will be corrected or overcome. Or it is designed and we will be corrected in our beliefs. I will not lose faith in Christ and the plan of Salvation either way.

I have asked "why" in my prayers, wanting to be an ally of my homosexual friends- and once I move past my prejudices and snap judgements, the conclusion I have reached is that the reason homosexual behavior is prohibited by our religion, is our emphasis on eternal Increase being an integral part of celestial glory. There are lots of implications for me, including my not judging homosexuality any harsher than my own favorite sins of sloth, gluttony, and lightness of mind.

In the eternities our treasures may be the same as they are now. I would no sooner consign a homosexual friend to banishment from the celestial kingdom, than I would myself for my own violations of Gospel laws. In fact I would welcome my friends into my eternal home and treasure their company. If our eternal fate is celestial parent vs celestial ministering angel, and we have chosen our path, I can see a place for all of us.

Having said that, any blessing we choose to reject once we accept the gospel, will certainly be a loss. Be it an eternal increase, or other things sacrificed to our own desires over God's plan.

I know on this earth it is not my place to judge others and consign them to hell for believing differently than me. God has given us rules and regulations for our happiness. If we are in error, and ready to listen (ex. Blacks and Priesthood) He will guide us to greater light and knowledge. If we are not in error, His mercies will guide each of us to the full blessings we are able to accept. In the interim our greatest commandment and duty is to love God and love one another. That dictates how we should act more than any other regulation or rule.

Edited February 19, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

As there needs be opposition in all things, I'll state the obvious

inverse (or converse) of your question:

 

What if sexual orientation IS NOT an eternal component of any

particular person?

 

Notice that I changed the "was" to an "is," which eliminates our

consideration of whether or not there is a "pre-existence."

 

I also changed things by adding a "not" -- which directs our

attention to the possibility of a person's earthy orientation 

and attraction to others (sexually) ending at death.

 

Were any Mormon to seriously ponder these possibilities,

that step would bring him and his theology miles closer to

that of mainstream Christianity.

 

But, it would also jeopardize his traditional view of the 

"families are forever" doctrine -- not to mention endangering

the plan of salvation doctrine (as Eloheim, a progressed human

being, is said to have impregnated Mary in the natural way;

the angels impregnated humans, resulting in Nephilim, etc.)

 

UD

Sure...What if the opposite? I guess once we start advocating, which has already started BTW, that God did not impregnate in the natural way, we are on the path to realizing sex to produce offspring isn't anyone's eternal destiny. Just like we've lerned mortals can get pregnant without sex, we might realize that eternally existing beings were not created through sex. We may conclude that Heavenly Mother did not grow spirit beings in her belly and forced them out when it was time.

And as we think this way, heterosexuality becomes far less important.

[KevinG]

Sure...What if the opposite? I guess once we start advocating, which has already started BTW, that God did not impregnate in the natural way, we are on the path to realizing sex to produce offspring isn't anyone's eternal destiny. Just like we've lerned mortals can get pregnant without sex, we might realize that eternally existing beings were not created through sex. We may conclude that Heavenly Mother did not grow spirit beings in her belly and forced them out when it was time.And as we think this way, heterosexuality becomes far less important.

Or more important if we learn that creation of life here is a blessing and like unto creation in the eternities. If we willingly give up that opportunity it could be taken and given to those who would have used it could they have done so, like the parable of the talents.

By creation I mean more than breeding, but the raising and nurturing of children as well.

[teddyaware]

What if sexual orientation was an eternal component of a particular person?

I think we dare not go there. I'm sure plenty will say, "no way...I know it".

but it's possible.

If it were eternal and people who are gay will always be so, perhaps we are really wrong about how the practice is seen in God's eyes. It's not like we haven't been wrong before.

 

Ar a recent General Conference, Elder Oaks seemed to suggest that same sex attraction stems from the fallen nature (a temporary condition) and not from the eternal natures of certain men and women. This caused me to wonder if all the concern and skirmishing that goes on about SSA is just a futile waste of time and energy because after the resurrection, when the fallen nature and the devil's power to tempt mankind will finally be brought to an end, it could be that the hold same sex attraction has on some hearts and minds will simply evaporate into the ether as the morning dew dissipates before the blazing summer sun. Could it be that just as lost limbs, sensory organs and injured mental capacities are going to be restored in the resurrection to those who now temporarily suffer loss, that in similar manner a distorted sense of self and one's gender role will also be corrected and restored to proper order when the fallen nature is overcome through and by the atoning power of Christ?

Edited February 19, 2015 by teddyaware

[stemelbow]

It is either a flaw, and will be corrected or overcome. Or it is designed and we will be corrected in our beliefs. I will not lose faith in Christ and the plan of Salvation either way.

I have asked "why" in my prayers, wanting to be an ally of my homosexual friends- and once I move past my prejudices and snap judgements, the conclusion I have reached is that the reason homosexual behavior is prohibited by our religion, is our emphasis on eternal Increase being an integral part of celestial glory. There are lots of implications for me, including my not judging homosexuality any harsher than my own favorite sins of sloth, gluttony, and lightness of mind.

In the eternities our treasures may be the same as they are now. I would no sooner consign a homosexual friend to banishment from the celestial kingdom, than I would myself for my own violations of Gospel laws. In fact I would welcome my friends into my eternal home and treasure their company. If our eternal fate is celestial parent vs celestial ministering angel, and we have chosen our path, I can see a place for all of us.

Having said that, any blessing we choose to reject once we accept the gospel, will certainly be a loss. Be it an eternal increase, or other things sacrificed to our own desires over God's plan.

I know on this earth it is not my place to judge others and consign them to hell for believing differently than me. God has given us rules and regulations for our happiness. If we are in error, and ready to listen (ex. Blacks and Priesthood) He will guide us to greater light and knowledge. If we are not in error, His mercies will guide each of us to the full blessings we are able to accept. In the interim our greatest commandment and duty is to love God and love one another. That dictates how we should act more than any other regulation or rule.

Perhaps for years we have been unwilling to listen to God ont his at all. Perhaps He has tried to impress upon us that we are wrong about homosexuality.

[Uncle Dale]

Sure...

And as we think this way, heterosexuality becomes far less important.

 

 

Granted.

 

In such a view of our situation, sexual orientation and identification becomes

a spectrum, with 95% of us clustered at one end or the other, and an expanse

of "different" sorts of folks occupying the mid section.

 

Which brings to mind an interesting controversy I encountered personally

in Community of Christ, relating to asexuality.

 

Some viewed it as a sin -- as a transgression against the commandment to

be fruitful and multiply. My own psychological and physical adjustments to

a severe and progressive neuropathy thus requiring a "laying on of hands"

by the elders, to restore the vitality and natural attraction of youthful days.

 

But, as luck would have it, my faith was not sufficient for the healing (or,

perhaps the CoC elders did not possess the power of the priesthood).

And thus my psychological and physical asexuality remains in place --

not so unusual a phenomenon for aging greybeards, whether or not

their nerve cells are victims of their own auto-immune system.

 

Oh well... I'm sure we'll all figure these things out, "over Jordan."

 

UD

[stemelbow]

Ar a recent General Conference, Elder Oaks seemed to suggest that same sex attraction stems from the fallen nature (a temporary condition) and not from the eternal natures of certain men and women. This caused me to wonder if all the concern and skirmishing that goes on about SSA is just a futile waste of time and energy because, after the resurrection, when the fallen nature and the devil's power to tempt mankind will finally be brought to an end, it could be that the hold same sex attraction has on some hearts and minds will simply evaporate into the ether as the morning dew dissipates before the blazing summer sun. Could it be that just as lost limbs, sensory organs and injured mental capacities are going to be restored in the resurrection to those who now temporarily suffer loss, that in similar manner a distorted sense of self and one's gender role will also be corrected and restored to proper order when the fallen nature is overcome through and by the atoning power of Christ?

Sure. That's possible. But it kind makes one wonder, then why treat Homosexuality as such a terrible sin? it'll stop after this life anyway. It may not really be hurting anyone's spiritual self.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps for years we have been unwilling to listen to God ont his at all. Perhaps He has tried to impress upon us that we are wrong about homosexuality.

Then God really needs to fire/kill his apostles and prophets.

[KevinG]

Then God really needs to fire/kill his apostles and prophets.

If God quickly smote all in error, without letting us grow and repent, the Earth would be a very barren place. Better to guide is and let us fill our cups with righteousness or iniquity first.

Edited February 19, 2015 by KevinG

[The Nehor]

Sure. That's possible. But it kind makes one wonder, then why treat Homosexuality as such a terrible sin? it'll stop after this life anyway. It may not really be hurting anyone's spiritual self.

By that standard anything impossible or undesirable in the next life is not sinful. I do not think we want to open that floodgate.

[stemelbow]

Then God really needs to fire/kill his apostles and prophets.

Are you saying he should have done that back in the 40s when they were preaching, as a matter of truth, that black people were cursed and were less valiant in the pre-mortal world? Such a teaching has been disavowed, but back then, the apostles and prophets were certain they were right. Not to mention interracial marriage.

[The Nehor]

If God quickly smote all in error, without letting us grow and repent, the Earth would be a very barren place. Better to guide is and let us fill our cups with righteousness or iniquity first.

Better that 15 men should perish then a worldwide church dwindle and perish in unbelief.

[The Nehor]

Are you saying he should have done that back in the 40s when they were preaching, as a matter of truth, that black people were cursed and were less valiant in the pre-mortal world? Such a teaching has been disavowed, but back then, the apostles and prophets were certain they were right. Not to mention interracial marriage.

No, I admit I do not take apostolic reasoning for why commandments are in place much more seriously then I do my own unless it is clearly revelation. I take the commandments themselves seriously and the Priesthood Ban has never been declared a mistake. The reasoning can be wrong while the command is divine.

[stemelbow]

By that standard anything impossible or undesirable in the next life is not sinful. I do not think we want to open that floodgate.

if homosexuality is only sinful because it has a negative effect on people in mortality, then we ought to wonder what negative effect it has and how. Otherwise it's meaningless to think it will be eternally detrimental to us if it stops after this life. It is common in the Church to say the same desires and mind we have here will go with us.

[stemelbow]

No, I admit I do not take apostolic reasoning for why commandments are in place much more seriously then I do my own unless it is clearly revelation. I take the commandments themselves seriously and the Priesthood Ban has never been declared a mistake. The reasoning can be wrong while the command is divine.

So you think the explanation of the ban, proclaimed by apostles and prophets for many years, was never thought of as true revelation? Even supported by scripture? hmmm...I guess thinking that way could get me thinking the ban was supposed to have happened even if there were no revelation to say it was mandated from God.

[KevinG]

Sure. That's possible. But it kind makes one wonder, then why treat Homosexuality as such a terrible sin? it'll stop after this life anyway. It may not really be hurting anyone's spiritual self.

I've noticed a seriousness about any sins related to creation of life and ending life. However there is some hypocrisy in thinking serial monogamy (divorce and remarriage), or fatherlessness, is any less appalling than the choice to cohabitate with a same sex partner and not have physical offspring. In all cases the eternal consequences of what we choose in mortality can be serious. If I had to choose, homosexuality in a monogamous, dedicated relationship, would rank much lower on my moral outrage scale than the abandonment of a family by a father who decided he could do better with a new honey.

Edited February 19, 2015 by KevinG

[The Nehor]

if homosexuality is only sinful because it has a negative effect on people in mortality, then we ought to wonder what negative effect it has and how. Otherwise it's meaningless to think it will be eternally detrimental to us if it stops after this life. It is common in the Church to say the same desires and mind we have here will go with us.

Yes, we should wonder. We should not discount the commandment because we have not figured it out yet. I would even treat apostolic reasoning on the point skeptically. It is part of our job here in mortality to try to reason these things out and seek revelation to explain the commandments.

[The Nehor]

So you think the explanation of the ban, proclaimed by apostles and prophets for many years, was never thought of as true revelation? Even supported by scripture? hmmm...I guess thinking that way could get me thinking the ban was supposed to have happened even if there were no revelation to say it was mandated from God.

Many may have thought the reasoning was revealed or at least inspired. They were wrong. Correction has been made.

[KevinG]

Better that 15 men should perish then a worldwide church dwindle and perish in unbelief.

God can do this without us you know. Better that we should have the opportunity to learn to be like Him. That is the whole point of this plan we are under.

(Boy I hope you are just trolling me!)