Celestial and asexual

[CV75]

On 7/15/2021 at 11:37 AM, Nofear said:

The Celestial Kingdom: it's not about the sex.

Yes, it is not about the sex, it is about the covenant order of the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:50-70, particularly note verses 57 and 69). Every human faculty and capacity will be resurrected in perfection to happily align with this covenant order, according to that which we are willing to receive. Putting too much stock into any kind of sexual notion detracts from our covenant relationship with God, which guarantees the perfect enjoyment of all our human faculties. Those who are happiest in this life with all our mortal foibles are those who put God first, as are those who put Him first when all these foibles are removed.

[The Nehor]

On 7/16/2021 at 1:01 PM, juliann said:

Plus, God thinking about sex every 15 minutes like it is said men do is rather off putting. 

That is entirely a myth. The funnier one is men think about it every seven seconds which either convinces everyone most guys are crazy and sends a few men to the doctor insisting their testosterone is too low because they can go hours without thinking about it.

On 7/16/2021 at 1:01 PM, juliann said:

That was my first inkling about sex in heaven stuff. Why would we need a brief high? We are in heaven. 

I suspect that heaven is not a permanent state of static bliss. The bliss comes from the experiences. At least I hope so. If after the resurrection I feel the same surfing the event horizon of a black hole as I do embracing my spouse or building a biggerer and betterer T-Rex then what is the point of differentiating experiences at all? Why do anything?

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect that heaven is not a permanent state of static bliss. The bliss comes from the experiences. At least I hope so. If after the resurrection I feel the same surfing the event horizon of a black hole as I do embracing my spouse or building a biggerer and betterer T-Rex then what is the point of differentiating experiences at all? Why do anything?

Yes, we know that God experiences grief, most of it probably from us. It pleads the question, why in the heck would They create us?!   Maybe a topic for another thread.

Nonetheless, the emotional experiences of divine personages is probably something that transcends a physiological and chemical response. It's quite possible sex could transcend in the needed way. We don't know.  There is a lot of stuff about the psychology of resurrected beings we just don't know. But if the emotional state is in anyway connected to a physiological and/or chemical response, my presumption, working hypothesis, is they'd be able to create that on a whim.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Yes, we know that God experiences grief, most of it probably from us. It pleads the question, why in the heck would They create us?!   Maybe a topic for another thread.

I think most parents probably ask themselves a similar question at least once in their lives - "what were we thinking!?"  I suggest that the vast majority eventually find overwhelmingly strong, positive validation for their reasons throughout parenthood.    

"It pleads the question"...I like it !  Keep Scott off your back. 

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Nonetheless, the emotional experiences of divine personages is probably something that transcends a physiological and chemical response. It's quite possible sex could transcend in the needed way. We don't know.  There is a lot of stuff about the psychology of resurrected beings we just don't know. But if the emotional state is in anyway connected to a physiological and/or chemical response, my presumption, working hypothesis, is they'd be able to create that on a whim.

It is my personal speculative belief that divine emotion will indeed be a physiological and chemical reaction between spirit matter and resurrected matter.  All matter is chemical.  All spirit is matter.   Perhaps there are chemicals "more refined" in spirit matter that we don't understand.   It is my belief that God cannot transcend eternal law.  I suspect that those chemical reactions are part of eternal law.  Obedience to naturally leads to positive chemical consequences.  Disobedience naturally leads to unpleasant chemical consequences.  They cannot violate the eternal law of nature and remain God - so, I don't think it stands that they could manipulate that on a whim.   Just my speculation anyway.  I think there is an important chemical interaction between spirit and flesh which makes the resurrection of our physical bodies vital to a divine sense of well-being.  There is no question that our resurrected bodies will be chemical if they are material, and I suspect those chemicals will not be inert, but are inherent to our sense of well-being.  I predict that we will exist in an eternal symbiotic relationship with matter/chemical, which itself is a form of intelligence.  

Edited July 19, 2021 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Yes, we know that God experiences grief, most of it probably from us. It pleads the question, why in the heck would They create us?!   Maybe a topic for another thread.

Nonetheless, the emotional experiences of divine personages is probably something that transcends a physiological and chemical response. It's quite possible sex could transcend in the needed way. We don't know.  There is a lot of stuff about the psychology of resurrected beings we just don't know. But if the emotional state is in anyway connected to a physiological and/or chemical response, my presumption, working hypothesis, is they'd be able to create that on a whim.

Perhaps D&C 88 can be used to understand the physiology of exalted beings (“Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?”). The parable (verses 46-61) can be viewed as an expression of Ecclesiastes 3: 1-15. The “man [woman]” represents the baseline immortal physiology, and the “servants” represent various activated physiologies for specific intentional and personalized activities ("kingdoms"), in season. United with other exalted beings in a divine council, he takes turns with his peers doing x, y or z so that the proper order of “all existence” is maintained. The schedule is flexible and personality-driven so everyone is happy maximizing their personal preferences within the order of the covenant of the Church of the Firstborn.

Edited July 19, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think most parents probably ask themselves a similar question at least once in their lives - "what were we thinking!?"  I suggest that the vast majority eventually find overwhelmingly strong, positive validation for their reasons throughout parenthood.    

"It pleads the question"...I like it !  Keep Scott off your back. 

It is my personal speculative belief that divine emotion will indeed be a physiological and chemical reaction between spirit matter and resurrected matter.  All matter is chemical.  All spirit is matter.   Perhaps there are chemicals "more refined" in spirit matter that we don't understand.   It is my belief that God cannot transcend eternal law.  I suspect that those chemical reactions are part of eternal law.  Obedience to naturally leads to positive chemical consequences.  Disobedience naturally leads to unpleasant chemical consequences.  They cannot violate the eternal law of nature and remain God - so, I don't think it stands that they could manipulate that on a whim.   Just my speculation anyway.  I think there is an important chemical interaction between spirit and flesh which makes the resurrection of our physical bodies vital to a divine sense of well-being.  There is no question that our resurrected bodies will be chemical if they are material, and I suspect those chemicals will not be inert, but are inherent to our sense of well-being.  I predict that we will exist in an eternal symbiotic relationship with matter/chemical, which itself is a form of intelligence.  

Yes, it would seem that spirit and element, inseparably connected in an exalted order, would likewise produce a physiology same as in mortality but with a perfected functionality.

[Nofear]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps D&C 88 can be used to understand the physiology of exalted beings (“Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?”). The parable (verses 46-61) can be viewed as an expression of Ecclesiastes 3: 1-15. The “man [woman]” represents the baseline immortal physiology, and the “servants” represent various activated physiologies for specific intentional and personalized activities ("kingdoms"), in season. United with other exalted beings in a divine council, he takes turns with his peers doing x, y or z so that the proper order of “all existence” is maintained. The schedule is flexible and personality-driven so everyone is happy maximizing their personal preferences within the order of the covenant of the Church of the Firstborn.

Being a materialist (albeit, my idea of material is greater than secularists assume) I can sympathize with this response. It still runs afoul the "perfect control" I hypothesize celestial beings have over their physical and spiritual bodies. Maybe the answer is just as simple as the gods seeing the pointlessness to keeping themselves in an artificial state of euphoria. My instinct suggests there is more to the story. I just don't know what. But, I can respect that position as a logically viable one even if emotionally I'm not ready to adopt it.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Nofear

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Being a materialist (albeit, my idea of material is greater than secularists assume) I can sympathize with this response. It still runs afoul the "perfect control" I hypothesize celestial beings have over their physical and spiritual bodies. Maybe the answer is just as simple as the gods seeing the pointlessness to keeping themselves in an artificial state of euphoria. My instinct suggests there is more to the story. I just don't know what. But, I can respect that position as a logically viable one even if emotionally I'm not ready to adopt it.

I’m thinking that perfect self-control would entail “listening to your body” and “trusting your body,” influenced in part by a glorious sociality with co-eternal intelligences and fellow gods. It would also entail innumerable other godly attributes, including subconscious and autonomic processes that never fail, bias, good habits and unique, innate preferences. How much self-control would a perfect body and mind require, anyway?

[rodheadlee]

I've known plenty of women that think of sex every 15 minutes. There is a whole genre of music devoted to it. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I've known plenty of women that think of sex every 15 minutes. There is a whole genre of music devoted to it. 

They don’t, at least not consistently.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

Maybe the answer is just as simple as the gods seeing the pointlessness to keeping themselves in an artificial state of euphoria.

Is it artificial if induced internally and not by use of an external influence like a drug or visual or other stimuli?

Just nitpicking…need distraction. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They don’t, at least not consistently.

I guess that depends on who you know. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I guess that depends on who you know. 

Self reporting isn’t that accurate…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201112/how-often-do-men-and-women-think-about-sex

 

[rodheadlee]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Self reporting isn’t that accurate…

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201112/how-often-do-men-and-women-think-about-sex

 

My evidence is purely anecdotal. Personal experience. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

My evidence is purely anecdotal. Personal experience. 

How do you measure it?  Reading the last part of the study (I edited to add that but got 403ed) shows the difficulties involved in part. 

[rodheadlee]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you measure it?  Reading the last part of the study (I edited to add that but got 403ed) shows the difficulties involved in part. 

My evidence is 35 years old. Its not scientific. I consider the early 30s the prime of the homo sapien sex life. So 35 years ago would be 1983. It was gathered at office parties where alcohol was being consumed. 

My main point is there are women who enjoy sex just as much as a man does and just as often. 

I'm 68 I don't have a sex drive but my wife still does. 

[Calm]

Totally agree with you on your main point.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Nofear said:

Being a materialist (albeit, my idea of material is greater than secularists assume) I can sympathize with this response. It still runs afoul the "perfect control" I hypothesize celestial beings have over their physical and spiritual bodies. Maybe the answer is just as simple as the gods seeing the pointlessness to keeping themselves in an artificial state of euphoria. My instinct suggests there is more to the story. I just don't know what. But, I can respect that position as a logically viable one even if emotionally I'm not ready to adopt it.

Who would classify euphoria as pointless? Feeling good is a reward in itself.

[MustardSeed]

Ill sign up for an eternal state of bliss. What could be better?  Less bliss? 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Ill sign up for an eternal state of bliss. What could be better?  Less bliss? 

Mixing in some thrills would make it better.

[bOObOO]

On 7/15/2021 at 8:37 AM, Nofear said:

A common complaint among some of the LGBT community is the idea that one will be made heterosexual in the after life seems repugnant. That complaint does seem to have some merit, but, I think it misses the mark* and puts too much mortality into immortality as it were. My reasoning:

1. While I believe there will be likely be sexual relationships in the eternities, it won't be entirely the same. Celestial beings will have full control of their body. Coitus won't be for the pleasure of the hormonal response we get in mortality (not that such is the only reason for it now). If our post-mortal happiness was contingent upon chemistry and we have full control of our bodies, we could just put ourselves in a state of blissful "high" all the time. Our happiness will transcend the state of our bodies internal chemistry. I won't be sexually attracted at any level to other women (or men). Any attraction chemistry will be a voluntary choice.

2. Love will transcend physical expression and it won't discriminate. Christ loves Ghandi or Mother Teresa just as much as Caiaphas or Hitler. As we approach exaltation, that love will be perfect for everyone. I'll love my spouse just as much as I'll love my elementary school bully. That's not to say there won't be friendships that are different. Christ called his disciples his friends. While I'm trying, I may not exactly be in the friend circle yet. I'll be friends with my spouse and others whom I love each equally as much. That can include men and non-spouse women.

3. Both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are perfect beings. Neither can treat/respond to me better than the other. Their response will always be exactly right. But, there seems to be something about exaltation and having a divine male and female parent that is necessary (D&C 131:1-4). Somehow in their perfection, there is still a difference. What that is, I don't know. For some reason, our species decided on a two sex system (other creatures have different sex arrangements). I don't know why (might be related to the creation of spirit children in some way if any of you recall my opinions on that, /shrug, don't know).

Putting all three items together, the idea of sexual attraction in the celestial kingdom seems entirely moot. I can be friends with men. I can be friends with women. If exalted, there will be something special and different between me and my spouse. But that will not preclude social, non-sexual relationships with my other friends. If I hinge my identity and celestial expectations on my hetero-normative attractions that I experience in mortality now, I think am going to be severely disappointed. The same goes for LGTB individuals. It will be about much, much more than attraction. The Celestial Kingdom: it's not about the sex.

Anyway, that's the thinking I had this morning. Probably has more holes than Swiss cheese. But, pointing those out is one of the things this board is good at. I shan't be offended.

 

* To be fair, I think the idea some early latter-day saints had on sexual relations (particularly polygamists) is also not on the mark.

I'm not sure that I see any holes in your thinking but I do wonder if you have thought of some things I have considered.

1. seems to be about being sexually attracted to others and I read you as saying you don't think you'll be attracted to others unless you voluntarily choose to be attracted to that person, whether male or female. I wonder what you think might prompt you to choose to be attracted to someone.  For me it is usually something about that person that I think is good which prompts me to want to be close to that person, to somehow join with them to try to get as close as I feel I can possibly get to them.  Including climbing into their own body if I possibly can, to try to wrap them all around me, so that the 2 of us somehow become one, or at least feel like we are one and as close as we can possibly get.

2. seems to be about how much we can possibly love other people and I wonder if you realize that how much love someone we love feels is dependent on how much of our love they accept or want to accept.  We often say God loves everybody but some people don't believe in God, therefore they are not aware of that love and do not believe it exists.  And someone else telling them about God or God's love often feels like empty words.  So even if God does love everyone as much as anyone can possibly love that love is not being accepted by people who do not believe in God or God's love.

3. seems to be about how some people are perfect and how nobody can be better than perfect.  But a perfect man is not a perfect woman, and a woman is not a man, so one will never be the same as the other.  Hence a need for both kinds of perfection, so that both can make more of each other.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I'm not sure that I see any holes in your thinking but I do wonder if you have thought of some things I have considered.

1. seems to be about being sexually attracted to others and I read you as saying you don't think you'll be attracted to others unless you voluntarily choose to be attracted to that person, whether male or female. I wonder what you think might prompt you to choose to be attracted to someone.  For me it is usually something about that person that I think is good which prompts me to want to be close to that person, to somehow join with them to try to get as close as I feel I can possibly get to them.  Including climbing into their own body if I possibly can, to try to wrap them all around me, so that the 2 of us somehow become one, or at least feel like we are one and as close as we can possibly get.

2. seems to be about how much we can possibly love other people and I wonder if you realize that how much love someone we love feels is dependent on how much of our love they accept or want to accept.  We often say God loves everybody but some people don't believe in God, therefore they are not aware of that love and do not believe it exists.  And someone else telling them about God or God's love often feels like empty words.  So even if God does love everyone as much as anyone can possibly love that love is not being accepted by people who do not believe in God or God's love.

3. seems to be about how some people are perfect and how nobody can be better than perfect.  But a perfect man is not a perfect woman, and a woman is not a man, so one will never be the same as the other.  Hence a need for both kinds of perfection, so that both can make more of each other.

How have you been buddy?

[bOObOO]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How have you been buddy?

Fine.  How have you been?  Instead of calling me buddy, please call me bOObOO.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Fine.  How have you been?  Instead of calling me buddy, please call me bOObOO.

Sorry bOObOO. How goes the hunt for the white whale? Caught that albino plankton eater yet?

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Sorry bOObOO. How goes the hunt for the white whale? Caught that albino plankton eater yet?

Goodbye.