Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm nervous to try and tackle this theory but I'll do my best. I'm definitely open to critique of my thought process here.

I've come to a bit of a realization today about the continuing debate about SSM and the role of gays in the plan of salvation. This modern debate seems to be based on elements similar to the debate in which Orson Pratt and Brigham Young engaged. Specifically, I'm thinking of their debate over intelligence(s) and the progression of God. (I'll do my best to describe this in the way that I understand it and I'll try to make this brief)

In essence, Orson Pratt claimed that the first God organized Himself from among eternally existing intelligences. These intelligences are the core and origin of each individual, including God. Pratt then claimed that God progressed sufficiently to become perfect at which time he organized other intelligences, the first of which was Jesus Christ. But the keys are a) preexisting individual intelligences  b) God progressed to perfection so His personal progression has ceased except for the continuing progression of the other intelligences He organized.

Brigham Young, on the other hand taught about intelligence as more of a force/material from which spirits were created, not as preexisting individuals. He taught that God, and therefore all spirits, eternally progress. Therefore God is not eternally perfect. Therefore God has a father, who has a father, who has a father etc. eternally.

The debate about the LGBT role in the plan of salvation, including SSM and eternal progression, seems to be at least partially rooted in this same debate. Is each individual preexisting and organized by God into a spirit with preexisting personal attributes, or is each spirit created by God from the material of intelligence.

IF each individual was organized from preexisting intelligences, or refined into a spirit by an eternally perfect God instead of being created from a substance of intelligence by a God who is still progressing, and therefore is not yet perfect/complete, then perhaps it's easier to believe that the individual, with all of it's particular idiosyncrasies, talents, character traits etc, including SS attraction, might eternally be gay by nature. The organization of the individual from the preexisting intelligences could be an asxual process instead of a sxual one. Therefore SS couples may also be capable of organizing intelligences in eternity because it doesn't involve a kind of sxual reproduction.

On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation. With eternal progression a possibility I see how LGBT could be viewed by some as a "work in progress" that will continue to progress.

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

Thoughts? Rip away

 

 

[Buckeye]

I've come to similar heretical views myself. For me, "creation" is much much more than procreation. Creation entails choosing to come down to the level of another (a condescension), to give your time, talents, and all other possessions (a sacrifice), to provide an example of how the other can progress to become like you (a sanctification), and to patiently provide these things and cover for the other's failings while they struggle to improve (a justification). In this view, procreation - and especially the 9 month gestation - are one very beautiful example of creation, but there are infinite other ways to create.

I've come to this view because of the tensions in how to define the creative relationships that our faith recognizes, but which have nothing to do with sexual procreation. Sherri Dew wrestled with these same themes in her famous conference address 'Are We Not All Mothers,' where she argued that all women are mothers (and hence creators) even if they haven't given physical birth to another. For me, the prime example of this tension is found in the Savior. He is called the Father. Yet his fatherhood has nothing to do with sexual procreation. So if Christ can fully be a father without procreation, then surely those who follow him can be too, including LGBT.

The simple fact is that the doctrine of spirit child birth has very little scriptural support. The most that you can find is D/C 132's discussion of eternal seed, but that requires one to read in the interpretation that 'seed' means procreation. I find that reading to be contrary to Joseph's view expressed in the King Follett Discourse. And, of course, Joseph is the ultimate authority on what D/C 132 means.

As I've taken this heresy further, I've come to the conclusion that the best solution (as far as I can see down the road) is to recognize that there are many gods, there have always been many gods, and there always will be many gods. We don't have a Father in Heaven and a Mother in Heaven. We have many of them. It's proper to call them Elohim - a term meaning the gods plural. If sex does exist in the eternities, I have every reason to believe that some of my parents are homosexuals. That's why its so dangerous to cut myself off from LGBT people in this life. Because I'm not gay, I need the examples and lived experiences of my LGBT siblings to understand those of my eternal parents who have that same characteristic. I cannot distance myself from them without necessarily distancing myself from God. To separate myself from them, I damn my own progression.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

.................................................................

In essence, Orson Pratt claimed that the first God organized Himself from among eternally existing intelligences. These intelligences are the core and origin of each individual, including God. Pratt then claimed that God progressed sufficiently to become perfect at which time he organized other intelligences, the first of which was Jesus Christ. But the keys are a) preexisting individual intelligences  b) God progressed to perfection so His personal progression has ceased except for the continuing progression of the other intelligences He organized.

Brigham Young, on the other hand taught about intelligence as more of a force/material from which spirits were created, not as preexisting individuals. He taught that God, and therefore all spirits, eternally progress. Therefore God is not eternally perfect. Therefore God has a father, who has a father, who has a father etc. eternally.

I usually agree with Orson, but in this case he is wrong.  There was no first god.  There was no beginning and there shall be no end.  There is an infinity of gods and of worlds.  However, the mystery of the nature of intelligence(s) is beyond my capacity to understand or explain.  Not sure what is correct, although I favor individual intelligences existing eternally -- cannot be created and cannot be destroyed -- and have the fundamental capacity (within limits) of free agency.

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The debate about the LGBT role in the plan of salvation, including SSM and eternal progression, seems to be at least partially rooted in this same debate. Is each individual preexisting and organized by God into a spirit with preexisting personal attributes, or is each spirit created by God from the material of intelligence.

IF each individual was organized from preexisting intelligences, or refined into a spirit by an eternally perfect God instead of being created from a substance of intelligence by a God who is still progressing, and therefore is not yet perfect/complete, then perhaps it's easier to believe that the individual, with all of it's particular idiosyncrasies, talents, character traits etc, including SS attraction, might eternally be gay by nature. The organization of the individual from the preexisting intelligences could be an asxual process instead of a sxual one. Therefore SS couples may also be capable of organizing intelligences in eternity because it doesn't involve a kind of sxual reproduction.

On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation. With eternal progression a possibility I see how LGBT could be viewed by some as a "work in progress" that will continue to progress.

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

..........................................

Very thought-provoking questions, and well formulated.  Don't know the answer, although there are many human behaviors evident across a wide spectrum, some of which result from genetic predisposition, others generated in utero, and still others learned in this life.  The old nature-nurture debate again.  What is true of same sex attraction?  Is it the same or different than any other congenital state?  Is it inherent in the intelligence(s) from which we were formed?  Or was that a part of our creation as spirit children of God?

By the way, it would be helpful if you could cite a good source where this Young-Pratt debate is discussed.

[JLHPROF]

Needless to say I come down on the Brigham Young side of the equation.  Orson was wrong about a lot of things.
However I like your compare and contrast very much.
But regardless of method of creation, determining which characteristics we possess are eternal remains a debate.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm nervous to try and tackle this theory but I'll do my best. I'm definitely open to critique of my thought process here.

I've come to a bit of a realization today about the continuing debate about SSM and the role of gays in the plan of salvation. This modern debate seems to be based on elements similar to the debate in which Orson Pratt and Brigham Young engaged. Specifically, I'm thinking of their debate over intelligence(s) and the progression of God. (I'll do my best to describe this in the way that I understand it and I'll try to make this brief)

In essence, Orson Pratt claimed that the first God organized Himself from among eternally existing intelligences. These intelligences are the core and origin of each individual, including God. Pratt then claimed that God progressed sufficiently to become perfect at which time he organized other intelligences, the first of which was Jesus Christ. But the keys are a) preexisting individual intelligences  b) God progressed to perfection so His personal progression has ceased except for the continuing progression of the other intelligences He organized.

Brigham Young, on the other hand taught about intelligence as more of a force/material from which spirits were created, not as preexisting individuals. He taught that God, and therefore all spirits, eternally progress. Therefore God is not eternally perfect. Therefore God has a father, who has a father, who has a father etc. eternally.

The debate about the LGBT role in the plan of salvation, including SSM and eternal progression, seems to be at least partially rooted in this same debate. Is each individual preexisting and organized by God into a spirit with preexisting personal attributes, or is each spirit created by God from the material of intelligence.

IF each individual was organized from preexisting intelligences, or refined into a spirit by an eternally perfect God instead of being created from a substance of intelligence by a God who is still progressing, and therefore is not yet perfect/complete, then perhaps it's easier to believe that the individual, with all of it's particular idiosyncrasies, talents, character traits etc, including SS attraction, might eternally be gay by nature. The organization of the individual from the preexisting intelligences could be an asxual process instead of a sxual one. Therefore SS couples may also be capable of organizing intelligences in eternity because it doesn't involve a kind of sxual reproduction.

On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation. With eternal progression a possibility I see how LGBT could be viewed by some as a "work in progress" that will continue to progress.

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

Thoughts? Rip away

 

 

No rips, just a point on the argument.  Those are very interesting thoughts

But I think you are only covering two of many possible other explanations and I think your explanations can also lead in different directions.

One think I think we need to avoid is bringing up the old free will/determinism argument.  I am not saying you did, just that some interpretations of what you have said could lead in that direction- that since gays are "born that way" it is all God's fault or God's will (either one) that He wants it that way.

Yet of course our usual answer to that is that "accidents sometimes happen because of agency or just an open universe in which there is an element of randomness" when we answer questions about why "bad things happen to good people. 

I think both your interpretations disregard this element- and both presume that there ARE "gay spirits" which is debatable.

The idea that gay people can progress in the eternities is a fascinating one which I could actually accept- with the proviso that we accept a sort of Freudian idea that gayness is narcissism and a kind of lack of full development into adulthood.  But of course Freud is Freud.   I am not advocating that- I am just saying that is an alternative in the argument.  When I read this:

Quote

On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation. With eternal progression a possibility I see how LGBT could be viewed by some as a "work in progress" that will continue to progress.

what immediately occurred to me was that the next paragraph would say that eventually gay people would progress into beings who could engage in heterosexual procreation as their parents had.  THAT would be a conclusion I think that even the church could accept and perhaps soften their view.  But of course that is not politically correct.  

I don't see how your conclusion that 

Quote

Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction.

follows at all from the idea that gay people are a "work in progress"

So I think that there are many other directions leading to far different conclusions from either BY's view or that of Orson P.

So this is strictly about the argument.

You could have just said "Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction." and skipped the references to BY or OP, because I don't think that that conclusion necessarily follows from either of their points, making their points of view irrelevant to your argument

Again- you still might be right.  Surely God can cause humans to be conceived asexually- we already have the view that Mary so conceived Jesus in Christianity.  That is beleived by 99% of Christians

But that's not Mormonism.  Mormonism is about sexual reproduction and I don't see a way around it without us becoming Methodists of Catholics or something other than Mormons.  Mormonism is about a literal Father and Mother and growing up to become like them.

I don't see a way around that at this time, unless you kind of incorporate the Freudian kind of view to gays

Edit

Freud on Gayness  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud's_views_on_homosexuality

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

Quote

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

Thoughts? Rip away

 

To summarize and carry out the effect of official LDS doctrine:

Homosexuality plays no part in the plan of salvation except to stop the progress of those who accept it, protect it, promote it, and/or engage in it. Therefore, if inborn, it will be fixed in the resurrection.  If not inborn, it cannot be practiced or entertained in the kingdom of heaven where no unclean thing can dwell.  Hence Homosexuality has no positive eternal nature.

[Coreyb]

Pratt also believed that the creation of spiritual offspring was sexual in nature, not merely a mentoring of lesser intelligences.

[waveslider]

I don't see what all the fixation on LGBTQ people is all about. We all have our own weaknesses, and tendencies toward our own flavors of sinful behavior. Sin is sin no matter if it is sxual in nature, or just stealing a piece of gum or something. I personally have a hard time thinking someone is actually born gay, only that we are born with more of a weakness to want to choose certain things, whether it's SS attraction, wanting to steal, or whatever. No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God, our Father in Heaven's abode. Utilizing the atonement requires repentance from whatever sins we have. We are given weaknesses to keep us humble. Those weaknesses can become strengths if we choose to follow the Savior Master, as he teaches us to master all of our desires. After the resurrection we will have already mastered these desires, or we will be resurrected to a lesser glory. The time of learning to master those desires will be over and we will match the glory of the Kingdom we will belong to in Christ's great mercy. The veil will have been completely lifted and we will remember who we truly are, and the atonement will have made it possible for all of us who have chosen to follow Christ to live with God again, even if we started out as an LGBTQ on that temporal journey, or not.

It is very clear that acting on SS attraction is against the laws of God. There have been cities and civilizations destroyed because of Sodomy, so I have a hard time believing anyone in a Celestial glory lives this way. It is a perversion of the highest Celestial order:

"1  In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2  And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3  And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4  He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."
D&C 131:1-4

This covenant of marriage isn't inclusive of SSM:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."
Family Proclamation, The Family Proclamation (by the way this was put out before the first time there was even, ever a vote on SSM in the first place)

There clearly is no room for SSM or anything like it in God's plan. As far as God progressing, it isn't because He has more to learn, rather it is an eternal increase to His kingdom, with out an end. I have a hard time believing that God is trapped in the construct of time only moving in one direction as we are in, in this temporal state. He is Eternal, The beginning and the end. I have a feeling that past present and future are all one eternal now to Him. He is omniscient and omnipotent:

"O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it."
2 Nephi 9:20

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."
Revelation 19:6

There is no mistaken gender identity, only assumptions of man thinking it is so.:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
Family Proclamation, The Family Proclamation

This is what I believe, and although there is a lot of conjecture that can go on, as illustrated here, because we just can't find out these deep truths that we are supposing, as to evolution of Godhood, we are only serving up rationalizations by doing so. I personally find I need to focus more attention on just learning to hear, recognize and obey God's voice as I try to become a better follower of Christ. I trust God that one day I will be able to not only know about these things in their real truth, but will actually be able to comprehend it, unlike I can ever do in this temporal existence. I find it hard enough just to truly learn to master the basics.

 

[Meadowchik]

I'm not sure if this isn't a distinction without a difference, atleast given the subject at hand. A pre-existing intelligence that has been organised into a spirit being versus a spiritual being created from pre-existing "intelligence:" Both are perhaps equallyu subject to some innate characteristics independent of God's influence, because either way, we're left with pre-existing, independent matter at the base.

Anyway, it's still a grand leap from a divinely organised spiritual being to the modern understanding of human sexuality. Personally, I don't think sexuality works in the way modern notions dictate.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thoughts?

I think God organized Himself the same we do. He, like we, was never alone. He had the various family relationships, spiritual and physical, in a progressive fashion fitting the various estates.

In this way, each individual is both preexisting (co-eternal with God) and organized by God into a spirit with his preexisting personal attributes, and each spirit is created (organized) by God from the material of intelligence. No preexisting personal attribute is fixed until the end of our probation, and the mode of a spirit’s creation is not relevant. By that I mean, a co-existing intelligence may have as much to do with his development into a spirit as God does—it is likely a shared enterprise involving choice and covenant, much like our mortal birth is a shared enterprise between God, us, and those who bring us forth (choices and covenants made in the premortal world, and those fortunate enough, in the temple as well. For example, we all chose to come into the world through a sperm and an egg, or for those near the end of the sixth seal, a reasonable facsimile thereof!

The covenants that allow progress are structured irrespective of our personal attributes or the material nature of our intelligences. They are structured by God's attributes and intelligence (both spiritual and elemental). When we make and keep them within the realm or estate in which we abide, we have access to the higher realms and choices.

We are all a work in progress, regardless of our wherewithal.

So I think it good to meld what the best minds have to offer on this subject. In my effort to do that from what you've shared from Pratt and Young: People we label today as LGBT developed their psyche as intelligences co-eternal with God, were organized into spirit children and sent into the probationary state to obtain the covenants of exaltation. The same with those we label straight. Both sets of children suffer challenges related to mortal sexuality, and both have the opportunity to develop a sexuality that is fitting for exaltation. The only perfect model we have for that is Christ, and we gain insight into what He does with what He’s got by staying in touch with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Not all justification, cleansing, purifying and sanctification will occur in this life, and certainly not all physical challenges, but enough so to keep us on the path and progressing through the days God grants us.

[churchistrue]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm nervous to try and tackle this theory but I'll do my best. I'm definitely open to critique of my thought process here.

I've come to a bit of a realization today about the continuing debate about SSM and the role of gays in the plan of salvation. This modern debate seems to be based on elements similar to the debate in which Orson Pratt and Brigham Young engaged. Specifically, I'm thinking of their debate over intelligence(s) and the progression of God. (I'll do my best to describe this in the way that I understand it and I'll try to make this brief)

In essence, Orson Pratt claimed that the first God organized Himself from among eternally existing intelligences. These intelligences are the core and origin of each individual, including God. Pratt then claimed that God progressed sufficiently to become perfect at which time he organized other intelligences, the first of which was Jesus Christ. But the keys are a) preexisting individual intelligences  b) God progressed to perfection so His personal progression has ceased except for the continuing progression of the other intelligences He organized.

Brigham Young, on the other hand taught about intelligence as more of a force/material from which spirits were created, not as preexisting individuals. He taught that God, and therefore all spirits, eternally progress. Therefore God is not eternally perfect. Therefore God has a father, who has a father, who has a father etc. eternally.

The debate about the LGBT role in the plan of salvation, including SSM and eternal progression, seems to be at least partially rooted in this same debate. Is each individual preexisting and organized by God into a spirit with preexisting personal attributes, or is each spirit created by God from the material of intelligence.

IF each individual was organized from preexisting intelligences, or refined into a spirit by an eternally perfect God instead of being created from a substance of intelligence by a God who is still progressing, and therefore is not yet perfect/complete, then perhaps it's easier to believe that the individual, with all of it's particular idiosyncrasies, talents, character traits etc, including SS attraction, might eternally be gay by nature. The organization of the individual from the preexisting intelligences could be an asxual process instead of a sxual one. Therefore SS couples may also be capable of organizing intelligences in eternity because it doesn't involve a kind of sxual reproduction.

On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation. With eternal progression a possibility I see how LGBT could be viewed by some as a "work in progress" that will continue to progress.

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

Thoughts? Rip away

 

 

I think the key to understanding this predicament is not to get more specific and granular within the prophetic statements in our tradition, but to go the opposite direction.  We likely do not understand things as well as we think.  ie two ants are communicating with each other, trying to understand human behavior and thought.  Instead of getting more sophisticated within their current ant logic, they should probably admit they have no idea what it means to act and think like a human.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Needless to say I come down on the Brigham Young side of the equation.  Orson was wrong about a lot of things.
However I like your compare and contrast very much.
But regardless of method of creation, determining which characteristics we possess are eternal remains a debate.

I agree. This is still all very debatable; method of creation, which characteristics are eternal etc.

With so much metaphysical "doctrine" up for debate, similar to the OP/BY debates, it seems like it would be wise for the church to avoid absolute statements against SSM and hmosxuality in general, which assumes sxual reproduction as the only means of eternal creation.

It feels like as a church we've kind of taken a hybrid of the OP/BY positions which makes it an unclear, murky kind of theology.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't see what all the fixation on LGBTQ people is all about.

 

To put it simply, LGBTQ people don't have a place in the plan of salvation as currently taught *unless* they are fundamentally changed in the next life and they get a kind of do over as heterosexuals. But they would only be fundamentally changed IF their orientation isn't part of their eternal identity. The confusion about the metaphysical origins of God, spirits, and creation/organization leave that open for debate.

So the fixation is about hoping to find a place for LGBTQ brothers and sisters in the church. Seems important to me.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

I don't see what all the fixation on LGBTQ people is all about. We all have our own weaknesses, and tendencies toward our own flavors of sinful behavior. Sin is sin no matter if it is sxual in nature, or just stealing a piece of gum or something. I personally have a hard time thinking someone is actually born gay, only that we are born with more of a weakness to want to choose certain things, whether it's SS attraction, wanting to steal, or whatever. No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God, our Father in Heaven's abode. Utilizing the atonement requires repentance from whatever sins we have. We are given weaknesses to keep us humble. Those weaknesses can become strengths if we choose to follow the Savior Master, as he teaches us to master all of our desires. After the resurrection we will have already mastered these desires, or we will be resurrected to a lesser glory. The time of learning to master those desires will be over and we will match the glory of the Kingdom we will belong to in Christ's great mercy. The veil will have been completely lifted and we will remember who we truly are, and the atonement will have made it possible for all of us who have chosen to follow Christ to live with God again, even if we started out as an LGBTQ on that temporal journey, or not.

It is very clear that acting on SS attraction is against the laws of God. There have been cities and civilizations destroyed because of Sodomy, so I have a hard time believing anyone in a Celestial glory lives this way. It is a perversion of the highest Celestial order:

"1  In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2  And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3  And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4  He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."
D&C 131:1-4

This covenant of marriage isn't inclusive of SSM:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."
Family Proclamation, The Family Proclamation (by the way this was put out before the first time there was even, ever a vote on SSM in the first place)

There clearly is no room for SSM or anything like it in God's plan. As far as God progressing, it isn't because He has more to learn, rather it is an eternal increase to His kingdom, with out an end. I have a hard time believing that God is trapped in the construct of time only moving in one direction as we are in, in this temporal state. He is Eternal, The beginning and the end. I have a feeling that past present and future are all one eternal now to Him. He is omniscient and omnipotent:

"O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it."
2 Nephi 9:20

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."
Revelation 19:6

There is no mistaken gender identity, only assumptions of man thinking it is so.:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
Family Proclamation, The Family Proclamation

This is what I believe, and although there is a lot of conjecture that can go on, as illustrated here, because we just can't find out these deep truths that we are supposing, as to evolution of Godhood, we are only serving up rationalizations by doing so. I personally find I need to focus more attention on just learning to hear, recognize and obey God's voice as I try to become a better follower of Christ. I trust God that one day I will be able to not only know about these things in their real truth, but will actually be able to comprehend it, unlike I can ever do in this temporal existence. I find it hard enough just to truly learn to master the basics.

 

"All the fuss" is about the belief that homosexual sex is not sinful, hence gay marriage is perfectly fine and might at some time include temple sealings.

THAT is what the bottom line is, and this is the search for the justification of that idea

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.

Thoughts? Rip away

Ok, this is kind of a fun speculative theology exercise.  I remember reading about the Orson Pratt and BY debates in Gary Bergera's Conflict in the Quorum.  

Personally, I think that mainstream Christianity aligns more with Orson Pratt.  This idea of a all knowing God, a God that can't progress at all because God is the ultimate all knowing being.  BY's God that is progressing seems more in alignment with the King Follett discourse and late Nauvoo theology and is uniquely Mormon.  The idea of spirits having sxual relationships to produce spiritual offspring seems highly odd to me.  Perhaps I haven't read enough early BY to have heard his ideas on this subject.  Its just as strange to me as his proclamations about Moon men.  

I'm thinking about the proclamation and where it says that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  I think about this word eternal, and i think that we confuse the meaning of this word through imposing our preconceived assumptions onto it.  The proclamation didn't say that gender is static or unchanging, it just said its eternal, meaning we have gender attributes that are a part of what makes us who we are and that these attributes will continue to be a part of us.  But that doesn't mean they won't change over time or parts of these attributes won't be emphasized more at one point in time than another.  

For LGBT individuals, I tend to think that our religion gets stuck on this idea of eternal identity meaning static identity.  Because I identify as being attracted to a particular gender today then you can put me in this box and label me in a particular way, and I will remain in that box for eternity.  This is not my concept of eternity.  Its not eternally one unchanging identity.  Why would it be?  Doesn't progression mean we are changing, growing, learning, experiencing, choosing?  What is static about eternal progression?  I think our culture has often confused concepts and placed assumptions on eternity that don't need to be there.  

 

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. This is still all very debatable; method of creation, which characteristics are eternal etc.

With so much metaphysical "doctrine" up for debate, similar to the OP/BY debates, it seems like it would be wise for the church to avoid absolute statements against SSM and hmosxuality in general, which assumes sxual reproduction as the only means of eternal creation.

It feels like as a church we've kind of taken a hybrid of the OP/BY positions which makes it an unclear, murky kind of theology.

But only if you extrapolate their views beyond what they ever said or thought.

To me, all theology is murky so why not just make up your own murky theology?                     

[halconero]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Needless to say I come down on the Brigham Young side of the equation.  Orson was wrong about a lot of things.
However I like your compare and contrast very much.
But regardless of method of creation, determining which characteristics we possess are eternal remains a debate.

I was about to say "an Orson Pratt fan? Grooooossssss. Brother Brigham all the way."

For realz though, it is an excellent contrast, and I think you're on the right track. The debate is significantly rooted in the nature of Godhood, creation, and exaltation, and what each of those entail. As for myself, all the higher ordinances, including those commonly disseminated in the temples and those that are not, tend to strongly support the Brighamite (and I would argue Josephite) understanding of Godhood and partnership between husband and wife in the Patriarchal order.

Still though, a rep point for the great analysis.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But only if you extrapolate their views beyond what they ever said or thought.

To me, all theology is murky so why not just make up your own murky theology?                     

OK- fair enough. So if we're just making up our own murky theology, why not try to make it more inclusive instead of less?

[stemelbow]

The thing that trips me up some is eternal beings being sexual beings.  What does moments of sexual connection and pleasure mean in an eternal state?  I can't quite grasp it.  It also makes no sense at all to think eternal immortal but physical characters procreate and produce billions of spirit babies, by nature different than their parents. 

Having family connections for eternity through sealings adds another element for me.  I'mnot just sealed to my wife.  I'm not even just sealed to my children, or parents.  But the connections become so universal I'm sealed to everyone else.  Husband and wife seems pointless in such a society.  I'm hopeful husband and wife are close and eternally together, but the roles or positions seem useless.  Our current children would be grownups with their own children who are grownups.  Our focus would not be on each other but on other spirits who are going through the ever lasting circle of progression. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. This is still all very debatable; method of creation, which characteristics are eternal etc.

With so much metaphysical "doctrine" up for debate, similar to the OP/BY debates, it seems like it would be wise for the church to avoid absolute statements against SSM and hmosxuality in general, which assumes sxual reproduction as the only means of eternal creation.

It feels like as a church we've kind of taken a hybrid of the OP/BY positions which makes it an unclear, murky kind of theology.

I think it goes deeper than just a question of sexual reproduction.  

To me it is the entire principle of Opposition in All Things, that choice itself implies good and evil - opposites in a dialectic that is the basis for Mormonism.  This is the "compound in one" we hear about  There is Intelligence vs "matter unorganized", subjective vs objective, freedom vs determinism, light vs dark, pleasure vs pain, yin vs yang, etc etc etc    "Is there no other way?"  Nope.  No. Other. Way. 

2 Nephi 2:11

Quote

 

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purposein the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and thejustice of God.

 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

 

It is my firm belief that we are here to learn not only about the half of humanity who are exactly like us, but also the other half of humanity that are quite different- "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus"

To become fully actualized human beings we need to intimately "know" (and yes that includes the biblical sense - the Hebrew "yada") the opposite sex.  

We do not need to understand ONLY others who are mirrors of ourselves!  What do we learn about the other half of humanity that way??

We need to NEED the other half of humanity in our lives for that experience- that is part of becoming a fully actualized human who has experienced both sides of all things- the yin AND the yang.  We need the good with the evil, the female with the male etc

So for me, the principle is far deeper than mere reproduction- it is the CORE of Mormonism.  

Edited September 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The thing that trips me up some is eternal beings being sexual beings.  What does moments of sexual connection and pleasure mean in an eternal state?  I can't quite grasp it.  It also makes no sense at all to think eternal immortal but physical characters procreate and produce billions of spirit babies, by nature different than their parents. 

Having family connections for eternity through sealings adds another element for me.  I'mnot just sealed to my wife.  I'm not even just sealed to my children, or parents.  But the connections become so universal I'm sealed to everyone else.  Husband and wife seems pointless in such a society.  I'm hopeful husband and wife are close and eternally together, but the roles or positions seem useless.  Our current children would be grownups with their own children who are grownups.  Our focus would not be on each other but on other spirits who are going through the ever lasting circle of progression. 

It's the experience of two different bodies as one in spiritual union creating "a compound in one", a child. We are, all of us the union of female and male, a compound of one.  The physical act is a symbol of the great underlying principle of the unity of opposites which life itself is.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK- fair enough. So if we're just making up our own murky theology, why not try to make it more inclusive instead of less?

Because there really are pragmatic "natural laws" which always work for the survival of the species, and those will never change.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To put it simply, LGBTQ people don't have a place in the plan of salvation as currently taught *unless* they are fundamentally changed in the next life and they get a kind of do over as heterosexuals. But they would only be fundamentally changed IF their orientation isn't part of their eternal identity. The confusion about the metaphysical origins of God, spirits, and creation/organization leave that open for debate.

So the fixation is about hoping to find a place for LGBTQ brothers and sisters in the church. Seems important to me.

Even more simply put, NONE of us have a place in the plan of salvation as currently taught *unless* we are fundamentally changed in the next life and we get a kind of do over as not only sexual beings, but a fully mortal beings. Note by "the next life" I mean the life after making covenants, for that is the only way we can be changed, reborn, or obtain a "do-over" through repentance. Also, note that "fully mortal beings" includes the post-mortal, pre-resurrection stage.

Whatever we might think our sexuality was, is, or will be, it is not yet exempt from the temptation to stray from God's covenants. When it is, that would be the definition of exalted sexuality, and is what would be discovered to be part of our actual eternal identity. Other things like gender are more obvious due to their treatment in scripture.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK- fair enough. So if we're just making up our own murky theology, why not try to make it more inclusive instead of less?

As I did here, I think: Posted 3 hours ago

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because there really are pragmatic "natural laws" which always work for the survival of the species, and those will never change.  

I thought things were murky. Now there are pragmatic "natural laws" essential for the survival of the species of spirits that will never change? That murkiness seems to have cleared up quickly.

This is the paradox of the church and many within it. On one hand a person may be comfortable saying that things are complicated and that we don't understand all the mysteries of God while on the other hand they speak, teach, and act like they have the mysteries figured out and God's ways will never change. So much for eternal progression, I guess.  

Now I assume a person who speaks with absolute certainty and understanding of God is more dangerous than the person who admits to not knowing. I view one as humble and the other... not so much.

Edited September 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon