Actively Homosexual Saints And Celestial Glory

[smac97]

I don't disagree with anything you have said. But I would like to tell you from someone who is gay why having gay sex isn't really that important.

Well, it's apparently important for some people.

 

You see the church has done a good job convincing me that there is no place for a gay person in the celestial kingdom.

I think you are materially misrepresenting the Church here. The Church teaches nothing like "there is no place for a gay person in the celestial kingdom." In fact, I have previously said in this thread that "those who repent of violating the Law of Chastity (such as by repenting of ... 'actively practicing' homosexual conduct) can certainly attain the Celestial Kingdom."

So it seems strange that you are mischaracterizing the Church's teachings, and also stating that you don't disagree with "anything" I've said, which would seem to include the above statement.

 

The current doctrine of the church is that for a gay person to be accepted Into the celestial kingdom they must be celibate in this life.

Well, not really. The doctrine of the Church is that a person must obey the Law of Chastity, which allows for sexual activity between a husband and wife, but which otherwise prohibits sexual conduct. So "a gay person" is held to precisely the same standard of conduct to which all members are held. That standard may entail celibacy, or not, depending on the individual.

More in the next post.

Edited July 10, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous thread:

 

The promised is that by doing so they will become straight and be able to marry a woman for eternity. There are no gays in the celestial kingdom.

First, I reject the label of "gay" as a noun describing the children of God.

Second, I disagree with your underlying sentiment. I think there will be people who attain the Celestial Kingdom who, in this life, experienced same-sex attraction, and even who lived a "gay lifestyle" but repented of it. Likewise, I believe that fornicators and adulterers and all other types of sinners can reach the Celestial Kingdom through repentance and reliance on the Atonement.

 

So if I don't want to become straight after I die, what is the point of repenting?

For the love of God. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

For subordinating your will to His. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12:50)

I don't think you are in a unique position. Plenty of us love our sins more than we love God. Your statement above is no different from someone saying "I like stepping out on my wife, so if I don't want to stop philandering, what is the point of repenting?"

Repentance is a voluntary thing. It requires faith. Hope. Trust. The Spirit. Wisdom. Humility. The willingness to love God more than sin.

 

It is a much better decision to choose to have a fulfilling life here on earth shared with someone you love.

Hmm. That sounds an awful lot like the sentiment in 2 Nephi 28:7. Without God, without regard for His will and His plan for us, "eat, drink and be merry" or "choos(ing) to have a fulfilling life" or whatever would be an understandable way to go.

I hope you change your mind about all of this. Perhaps some day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2015 by smac97

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

I am very open with my gay friends that if they wanted to be an Elder in Israel they would have to change some behaviors and beliefs.  But I am also honest that I too had to change behaviors and beliefs to become one too.

I think that's fine. We are all sinners. I don't think we do anyone any favors by pretending that their preferred sin is special or privileged, or that repenting of it is optional or not necessary because of the Atonement. Hence the caution in 2 Nephi 28:7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

Thanks,-Smac

I don't disagree with anything you have said. But I would like to tell you from someone who is gay why having gay sex isn't really that important. You see the church has done a good job convincing me that there is no place for a gay person in the celestial kingdom. The current doctrine of the church is that for a gay person to be accepted Into the celestial kingdom they must be celibate in this life. The promised is that by doing so they will become straight and be able to marry a woman for eternity. There are no gays in the celestial kingdom.

So if I don't want to become straight after I die, what is the point of repenting? It is a much better decision to choose to have a fulfilling life here on earth shared with someone you love.

 

There is nothing to suggest that any person will be resurrected as being gay in any glorified state they are given.  There is no indication that even in the Telestial Kingdom there will be gay relationships.  Perhaps the only place that might happen is those resurrected to outer darkness. Life is short.  To choose to be with someone for say 60 years on earth and to spend the next 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 plus "earth" years paying in some way for that decision does not seem the best decision to make.  It is like winning a lottery ticket for a billion dollars but one has to wait 10 years to get the billion and deciding "no, I will take the alternative payout of 10 dollars now.  Thank you very much" Does not make much sense to me.

Edited July 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Mormonmaniac]

Is homosexuality a gross sin or is homosexual behavior a gross sin?

The only people I call homosexual are those who act out on their temptations. I am attracted to other women besides my wife, does this make me an adulterer? No. And such is the case for those who do not act out on the temptation to be homosexual to be called homosexuals.

[JAHS]

 

Is homosexuality a gross sin or is homosexual behavior a gross sin?

The only people I call homosexual are those who act out on their temptations. I am attracted to other women besides my wife, does this make me an adulterer? No. And such is the case for those who do not act out on the temptation to be homosexual to be called homosexuals.

 

OK so homosexuality is not a sin (you have been calling it a sin). Just wanted to make sure I understood your position.  But are they really not acting out on the temptation to "be" homosexual, or are they homosexuals who are refusing to commit homosexual behavior? There's a big difference. 

[Calm]

How about they are just people who are choosing not to engage in homosexual behaviour?

[Mormonmaniac]

OK so homosexuality is not a sin (you have been calling it a sin). Just wanted to make sure I understood your position. But are they really not acting out on the temptation to "be" homosexual, or are they homosexuals who are refusing to commit homosexual behavior? There's a big difference.

Homosexuality, as I define it, is one who acts upon their SSA.

[Tsuzuki]

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young have to say about homosexuality? I'm sure if God thought it was important, He would have mentioned something to them.

[Mormonmaniac]

homosexual ="Tsuzuki" post="1209512974" timestamp="1436597398"]

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young have to say about homosexuality? I'm sure if God thought it was important, He would have mentioned something to them.

[california boy]

I don't disagree with anything you have said. But I would like to tell you from someone who is gay why having gay sex isn't really that important.

Well, it's apparently important for some people. 

You see the church has done a good job convincing me that there is no place for a gay person in the celestial kingdom.

I think you are materially misrepresenting the Church here. The Church teaches nothing like "there is no place for a gay person in the celestial kingdom." In fact, I have previously said in this thread that "those who repent of violating the Law of Chastity (such as by repenting of ... 'actively practicing' homosexual conduct) can certainly attain the Celestial Kingdom."So it seems strange that you are mischaracterizing the Church's teachings, and also stating that you don't disagree with "anything" I've said, which would seem to include the above statement. 

The current doctrine of the church is that for a gay person to be accepted Into the celestial kingdom they must be celibate in this life.

Well, not really. The doctrine of the Church is that a person must obey the Law of Chastity, which allows for sexual activity between a husband and wife, but which otherwise prohibits sexual conduct. So "a gay person" is held to precisely the same standard of conduct to which all members are held. That standard may entail celibacy, or not, depending on the individual.More in the next post.

Sorry but it is you that is misrepresenting what I said. I never said that a gay person could.not repent and enter the celestial kingdom. Of course they can. What I did say is that they would have to become straight. They would then get to marry a woman, something they had no desire to do on earth.

There are no gay people in the celestial kingdom because you have to be straight to be in the celestial kingdom. Does the church teach that there will be any gay couples in the celestial kingdom. Can a gay member stay celibate through out this life and then be able to have a same sex partner in the celestial kingdom? Could a gay couple be deeply in love in this life always living the law of chastity and then be together in the celestial kingdom? If you can tell me that if I am celibate in this life I can be with my boyfriend in the celestial kingdom THEN you have given me a reason to be celibate. This is not about loving sin more then wanting to be worthy of the celestial kingdom

Most members can only look at the plan of happiness from only their straight perspective: fall in love, get married in the temple, have children, raise them with the support structure of the church . When they.die they are exalted with their spouse and live forever having billions of children. Every step of that path can bring you happiness.

[Tsuzuki]

Why dont you ask Lucifer and find out.

You mean ask God to reveal the truth of the matter via the Holy Ghost? Sounds like a plan.

[Damien the Leper]

Smac,

 

You did a thorough job of finding the weakness in my use of the English language.     I'm still struggling to explain this sensitive issue.

 

I am not advocating for forgiveness of unrepented sins.  

 

I am trying to say we should not judge others harshly just because we find their particular sin more distasteful than our own.  That's what I'm trying to say by "ick factor".

 

I am trying to say we have no business using the law to enforce our own religious beliefs, if we also expect a libertarian treatment of our own beliefs (tax free donations, polygamous marriage in the 1800s, the right to establish schools that teach our doctrines...)

 

Our society's morals are based in Christian teaching and all our laws stem from that teaching.  I don't know why we should all of a sudden saw Christian morals should now, in the day and age, have no role or impact on our society.  Seems a bit short-sighted and narrow. 

 

Every society has morals.  If not Christian morals whose morals should take precedence in our society and why?  What gives this new moral standard the seal of approval and on what grounds is this awarded?  Should moral standards be fluid and really more a reflection of the whims of the day?  Maybe, but again a really short-sighted, shallow society results from such willy-nilly approach to morals. 

 

As a church maybe we should be more condemning of all sin.  However, focus is drawn to homosexuality simply because homosexuals are demanding that our society recognize their lifestyle as normal and healthy.  The problem is that nothing could be further from the truth.  The human body is simply not made for homosexual sex.  A gastrointestinal tract is designed and made for one thing; forcing it to serve another purpose creates a whole host of health problems.  Enough said; if you doubt have a frank discussion with your doctor about the what should and should not go where and why and what are the consequences of repeated abuse of same.

 

I am not in the game of drawing firm lines about what kind of people will and will not get into the Celestial Kingdom.  What I am quite firm on is that each of us needs to pursue discipleship with an eye single to the glory of God.  It demands a great deal of each of us and each of us needs to repent daily.  However, trying to excuse our sins because of the sinful nature of everyone else is a nonstarter.  We must stand on our own life, choices, and actions and relationship with our Savior.  Anyone who rejects Christ and attempts to excuse their sin is not going to have a happy resurrection.

That silly picture of Jesus holding the Constitution is an outright lie and propaganda.

[Damien the Leper]

To quote Patti Smith:

"Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine

Meltin' in a pot of thieves

Wild card up my sleeve

Thick heart of stone

My sins my own

They belong to me"

Best words to live by.

Furthermore, if God wants me to "turn" heterosexual in the next life then I'll gladly show myself to the door to outer darkness. I'd rather be there than Celestial Kingdom.

[Bobbieaware]

Valentinus said: "That silly picture of Jesus holding the Constitution is an outright lie and propaganda."

Of your own free will and choice you participate on Mormon discussion forum, knowing (because of your background I'm presuming you do aknow) the Latter-day Saints believe the Constitution of the United States of America is inspired of God. So why the disrespect?

"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose..." (Doctrine & Covenants 101)

Edited July 11, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[janderich]

To quote Patti Smith:

"Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine

Meltin' in a pot of thieves

Wild card up my sleeve

Thick heart of stone

My sins my own

They belong to me"

Best words to live by.

Furthermore, if God wants me to "turn" heterosexual in the next life then I'll gladly show myself to the door to outer darkness. I'd rather be there than Celestial Kingdom.

In the next life each person will find the place they are most happy. But note that your happiness will not be complete. It will be lacking in some form.

 

The commandments are not set to crush you, just give you direction. You can choose as you will. But the way to full happiness and light is clear. So be careful about holding on to your way of life too tightly when clear direction has been given.  

[smac97]

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young have to say about homosexuality? I'm sure if God thought it was important, He would have mentioned something to them.

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young how to say about pornography? Or smoking meth? Or spending too much time online or gaming?

As for what God "would" have done, I think he would have established a pattern and organization where the church would have ongoing priesthood leadership in the form of prophets and apostles, so that such leaders could provide counsel to the membership of the church as developments in society arise.

More to the point, that is what God did do. Cool, eh?

-Smac

[SmileyMcGee]

"Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience..."

It is probably that "ick factor" that caused straight men to claim, in the name of God, that homosexuality is a sin. They were probably speaking as men.

[Tacenda]

Nice OP Kevin, and Happy "late" Big 50!

ETA:  

 

I like this quote:

 

“It is very likely that every person in the Church knows someone--a family member or a friend--who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I also think it is very likely ...that many people do not know that they know a homosexual or bisexual person because that person is afraid to reveal that part of himself or herself for fear of being rejected, punished, or excluded.

Nothing has suspended the commandment of Jesus to love one another and to bear one another’s burdens.”

-Chieko Okazaki, Disciples, p. 121

Edited July 11, 2015 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

 

That silly picture of Jesus holding the Constitution is an outright lie and propaganda.

 

 

What does that silly picture have to do with what I have said?   Or are you just on a soap box, which I have no problem with because I have my own soap boxes.

[ERayR]

Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom.  I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. 

 

I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man.  There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship.  I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage.  Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice.   For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation.  

 

By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. 

 

Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it.  Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it.

 

Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

 

Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight.  The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel).

 

I welcome others thoughts on this thread.  But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible.  I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions.  If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. 

 

The Celestial Kingdom is the place where God's work is done.  God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life. (having spirit children and mortal children)  Wouldn't same sex couples be a little out of place and uncomfortable in that environment?

[JLHPROF]

 

Regarding actively practicing gays and the celestial kingdom.  I disagree with the notion (shared here by some) that being in the presence of the Father in the Celestial Kingdom will never be obtainable by actively practicing gays. 

 

I have pondered the relationship of my non-LDS gay childhood friend who lives in a monogamous, homosexual partnership with a good man.  There are love, respect, care, generosity, and other godly attributes exercised in that relationship.  I cannot judge their friendship and support of each other to be less than the friendship and support in my own Temple marriage.  Strip away the foreignness and "ick factor" of something different from my own experience, and the only natural consequence is that my friends cannot have the blessings that are attached to the laws of marriage and chastity the Lord currently asks us to practice.   For example one natural consequence is the lack of natural offspring with their partner, which I identify as part of the eternal increase promised as part of exaltation.  

 

By this measure those heterosexuals who are married in the Temple, and do not honor those covenants may be surprised to find themselves under greater condemnation in the hereafter than those who did not make the same covenants, but who honor others according to their own beliefs. 

 

Voluntarily giving up the Lord's recommended form of marriage (which is in our time the practice of heterosexual monogamy) means voluntarily giving up the blessings that go with it.  Just as Brigham taught about the principle when Saints who were called to plural marriage disavowed it.

 

Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 .. if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

 

Beyond trying to understand these general principles, that obedience to a law predicates the blessings that come from it, no Saint is qualified to judge the eternal state of any other Saint, gay or straight.  The Saints ought to be very careful in passing judgement on homosexuals or any other group they disagree with, outside of the scope of their authority to act as Judges in Israel (Bishops or others with direct revelation for those who seek counsel).

 

I welcome others thoughts on this thread.  But be respectful of others and please avoid personal bias to the greatest extent possible.  I am looking for the ability to disagree with others, but not judge them unrighteously or impose our social biases on their actions.  If we are advocating that heterosexual monogamy (our current practice as revealed by the Lord's annointed) then let's advocate from a position of wisdom and love for others. 

 

The Celestial Kingdom is the place where God's work is done.  God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life. (having spirit children and mortal children)  Wouldn't same sex couples be a little out of place and uncomfortable in that environment?

 

 

There will be no same sex couples in the Celestial Kingdom.  Not because they sinned and can't be forgiven.  We are in no place to judge that.  But because the same-sex relationship or attraction is not Celestial or eternal in nature and cannot continue there.

 

The biggest flaw I see in considering who gets to be "Celestial" is the notion that it is a reward/punishment system.  Be homosexual, get punished by not being allowed into the Celestial Kingdom.  This is not accurate.

 

It is an issue of environment, or natural consequences if you will.  Our natures cannot be Celestial if they do not conform to Celestial law. 

(My personal belief is that the same principle prevented the 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven from receiving physical bodies - not a punishment but an unwillingness/inability to abide by the appropriate law - see D&C 130:20-21).

 

Rewards/punishments have nothing to do with that.  Now, if we think Celestial law, the law by which the Gods live, allows for SS relationships then we would think that a SS couple could be there.  If we think unchangeable Celestial law doesn't allow for such a relationship then we would think they would either need to change to abide the law or be unable to enter.

 

So rather than debating over people's sins and who gets in to the Celestial Kingdom our time would be far better spent trying to understand a Celestial law and a Celestial society and the requirements to be there.  It is like gravity - not a legislated rule from a leader, but a natural law that cannot be circumvented.

[filovirus]

After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, God came and asked where Adam was. "And I was afraid, because I was naked. And I hid myself." God truly does want us all to receive of his glory. It will be us who hide ourselves because of our nakedness. Those who cannot abide in His glory will not want to be in the Celestial Kingdom. Yet everyone who repents of their own, individual sins will be able to abide in His glory. The law of chastity, as well as other commandments, are clear.

This scripture applies to each and every one of us: "Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end" (Alma 34:33)

Edited July 11, 2015 by filovirus

[Tsuzuki]

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young have to say about homosexuality? I'm sure if God thought it was important, He would have mentioned something to them.

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young how to say about pornography? Or smoking meth? Or spending too much time online or gaming?

As for what God "would" have done, I think he would have established a pattern and organization where the church would have ongoing priesthood leadership in the form of prophets and apostles, so that such leaders could provide counsel to the membership of the church as developments in society arise.

More to the point, that is what God did do. Cool, eh?

-Smac

Homosexuality isn't a new thing. What was the official church policy in, say, 1850?

[carbon dioxide]

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young have to say about homosexuality? I'm sure if God thought it was important, He would have mentioned something to them.

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young have to say about necrophila?  I am sure if God thought it was important, he would have mentioned something to them.   I think the answer to your question is that God expects us to use our brains just a little bit.  He does not have to counsel us in everything nor does every issue needs to be addressed in detail.  Is there even a remote hint that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young would have seen homosexuality as a good thing?  One what basis would they gather such an idea?  When the scriptures do approach homosexuality, it is always in the negative.  Looking for evidences of approval of homosexuality in the scriptures is like looking for evidence of roast beef in a chocolate chip cookie recipe. 

[ERayR]

 

 

What did Joseph Smith or Brigham Young how to say about pornography? Or smoking meth? Or spending too much time online or gaming?

As for what God "would" have done, I think he would have established a pattern and organization where the church would have ongoing priesthood leadership in the form of prophets and apostles, so that such leaders could provide counsel to the membership of the church as developments in society arise.

More to the point, that is what God did do. Cool, eh?

-Smac

Homosexuality isn't a new thing. What was the official church policy in, say, 1850?

 

 

Irrelevant.