What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was shared here:

The part I shared was near the end.  

That's where I saw it, thanks so much!

[Esrom]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:38 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

“Most gay members realize the church has nothing for them and leave.”

Most does not equal all. And I will note that in a recent podcast (shared by Robert on another thread), Tom Christofferson said Elder Holland’s talk left him feeling like his legs were swept out from under him. He described how offensive he finds the idea that he will be straight in the eternities (comparing it to the doctrine that everyone will be white in heaven). 

The interview I found with Tom Christofferson on Faith Matters:     

In this discussion, he speaks on the very topic you mentioned (starting about 40:20) and he didn't come across as offended at all, but sounded as though he was creating dialogue about what Article of Faith 9 could mean for future understanding revealed by God, without us telling God what to reveal.  Being disciples of Christ foremost was the essence of his point, imo.

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/18/2021 at 6:15 PM, Esrom said:

Well, I do hate engaging again but this is just wrong. Why do so many insist on lumping all LGBT together as a monochrome category?  For many LDS LGBT, yes the church may cease to offer anything to them, given their priorities and choices.  For others, like myself, who have returned, it offers a great deal.  There was recently a lesbian on several podcasts who talked enthusiastically about being re-baptized and endowed after spending decades as a gay activist.  Elder Christofferson's brother, Tom, returned to the church later in life and has written a book about his journey.  Richard Ostler has a podcast in which he has interviewed dozens of LDS LGBT who represent many viewpoints, including many who choose to remain in the church.  The organization North Star is filled with LGBT members who still find great value in the church.  No, they're not all self haters. They've just found merit in the restored gospel, many after having experienced and become dissatisfied with what is offered outside the church.  It's a huge error to assume that all LGBT think alike.

A very dear friend has gone through the gamut from miraculous conversion to mission to complete rejection and apostasy and contracting AIDS to repentance and rebaptism to active participation in North Star and living an exemplary life of service despite monumental obstacles. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:15 PM, Esrom said:

Well, I do hate engaging again but this is just wrong. Why do so many insist on lumping all LGBT together as a monochrome category?  For many LDS LGBT, yes the church may cease to offer anything to them, given their priorities and choices.  For others, like myself, who have returned, it offers a great deal.  There was recently a lesbian on several podcasts who talked enthusiastically about being re-baptized and endowed after spending decades as a gay activist.  Elder Christofferson's brother, Tom, returned to the church later in life and has written a book about his journey.  Richard Ostler has a podcast in which he has interviewed dozens of LDS LGBT who represent many viewpoints, including many who choose to remain in the church.  The organization North Star is filled with LGBT members who still find great value in the church.  No, they're not all self haters. They've just found merit in the restored gospel, many after having experienced and become dissatisfied with what is offered outside the church.  It's a huge error to assume that all LGBT think alike.

Esrom,

I'm glad you're here. I'd very much like to hear from your perspective. 

As a gay individual, what do you believe the church teaches about your eternal destiny? In other words, do you believe you will be gay in eternity or will you be healed from an "affliction" of being gay? If you will still be gay, what does the church teach about how you would achieve exaltation?

I agree that it would be foolish to assume all LGBT think alike, but I really don't see what the church can offer UNLESS you believe that being LGBTQ is an affliction that will be healed. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Esrom]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Esrom,

I'm glad you're here. I'd very much like to hear from your perspective. 

As a gay individual, what do you believe the church teaches about your eternal destiny? In other words, do you believe you will be gay in eternity or will you be healed from an "affliction" of being gay? If you will still be gay, what does the church teach about how you would achieve exaltation?

I agree that it would be foolish to assume all LGBT think alike, but I really don't see what the church can offer UNLESS you believe that being LGBTQ is an affliction that will be healed. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, it's a great question to reflect on.  I have come to believe that identity is dynamic, not static.  And sexual attraction is such a small part of overall identity, imo.  I know others would disagree.  I did not think that way when I was younger, when hormones and romantic desires were at their peak, and "gay" was my identity. Affliction is certainly a loaded word, and purposely used for effect I think.  Are we not all here to change, grow, withstand temptation, and act against the carnal nature?  Are we not all in the process of becoming?   I realize you're asking about eternity... well we just don't know do we?  Doesn't the 9th Article of Faith leave a lot yet to be revealed?  Do we trust that in God's house, there are many mansions and that Christ said he went to prepare a place for us?  Couldn't diversity be a part of that existence?  I don't know.  Isn't wholeness in every aspect the expected standard in the celestial kingdom?  What that wholeness means I do not yet know.  Trusting in that promise would be a matter of exercising faith imo.  Can we separate political and activist agendas from these deep soul questions?  Many cannot. 

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, Esrom said:

Well, it's a great question to reflect on.  I have come to believe that identity is dynamic, not static.  And sexual attraction is such a small part of overall identity, imo.  I know others would disagree.  I did not think that way when I was younger, when hormones and romantic desires were at their peak, and "gay" was my identity. Affliction is certainly a loaded word, and purposely used for effect I think.  Are we not all here to change, grow, withstand temptation, and act against the carnal nature?  Are we not all in the process of becoming?   I realize you're asking about eternity... well we just don't know do we?  Doesn't the 9th Article of Faith leave a lot yet to be revealed?  Do we trust that in God's house, there are many mansions and that Christ said he went to prepare a place for us?  Couldn't diversity be a part of that existence?  I don't know.  Isn't wholeness in every aspect the expected standard in the celestial kingdom?  What that wholeness means I do not yet know.  Trusting in that promise would be a matter of exercising faith imo.  Can we separate political and activist agendas from these deep soul questions?  Many cannot. 

Thanks for your response.

Yes, I think we're all in the process of becoming but I think the question of orientation and how the church treats it is interesting and speaks to whether or not the plan of salvation applies to LGBT or if it only applies to former LGBTQ who become straight in eternity. So anyone who is LGBTQ would need to decide if they believe orientation and identity or traits that will continue or if they will be "healed" of being LGBTQ so that they fit into the plan of salvation. As I see it, LGBTQ don't fit into the plan. Of course that's just my opinion based on what I've seen church leaders say, and what I haven't heard them say. To me that's unacceptable but mileage may vary.

 

[Esrom]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for your response.

Yes, I think we're all in the process of becoming but I think the question of orientation and how the church treats it is interesting and speaks to whether or not the plan of salvation applies to LGBT or if it only applies to former LGBTQ who become straight in eternity. So anyone who is LGBTQ would need to decide if they believe orientation and identity or traits that will continue or if they will be "healed" of being LGBTQ so that they fit into the plan of salvation. As I see it, LGBTQ don't fit into the plan. Of course that's just my opinion based on what I've seen church leaders say, and what I haven't heard them say. To me that's unacceptable but mileage may vary.

 

Well, the atonement is universal, right?  My understanding is that the atonement includes not only forgiveness of sin, but also restoring every person to wholeness.  What that specifically means for LGBTQ issues in the eternities remains unknown.  I was just reminded of the New Testament verse:  "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).   I think we're called to follow Christ and if we do that, we're not going to be disappointed, unhappy, or unfulfilled.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Esrom said:

I was just reminded of the New Testament verse:  "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).   I think we're called to follow Christ and if we do that, we're not going to be disappointed, unhappy, or unfulfilled.

Exactly! I am so, so grateful that the Lord is willing to take deeply flawed me and transform me into a being of glory. There is nothing in my 'identity' that is more important than that promise. Intentionally teaching that holding onto who we are in mortality is somehow of greater value than becoming who God knows we can and should be in eternity is diabolical. It is literally anti-Christ.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Esrom said:

Well, the atonement is universal, right?  My understanding is that the atonement includes not only forgiveness of sin, but also restoring every person to wholeness.  What that specifically means for LGBTQ issues in the eternities remains unknown.  I was just reminded of the New Testament verse:  "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).   I think we're called to follow Christ and if we do that, we're not going to be disappointed, unhappy, or unfulfilled.

I get that, but it doesn't feel like you're answering the question. It's true there are things we don't know, but the church doesn't even allow for the possibility that LGBTQ people can fit into the Plan (as it is currently taught) unless they are no longer LGBTQ. So if you are saying that the atonement will heal LGBTQ from being LGBTQ that would seem to line up with what the church seems to hope will happen. But as far as LGBTQ continuing to exist as LGBTQ in eternity, there doesn't seem to be much hope where the church is concerned.

In other words, if you believe LGBTQ is an affliction that will/can be healed, then the LGBTQ community and their families and loved ones are in decent shape. If LGBTQ is NOT an affliction to be healed, then the church doesn't really have any answers or hope for the community.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get that, but it doesn't feel like you're answering the question. It's true there are things we don't know, but the church doesn't even allow for the possibility that LGBTQ people can fit into the Plan (as it is currently taught) unless they are no longer LGBTQ

It's great to have you here, @Esrom!

I'm also interested in your opinion on whether or not you think you will be gay in the resurrection. A secondary question (but probably more important, as far as long-term Church activity and loyalty) is: do you want to not be gay in the resurrection?

The gay members I know who are making it work (are active and loyal/supportive of Church doctrine and practice) don't want to be gay, and don't want to be gay in the hereafter. HappyJack's questions made me wonder if that describes you, too. 

Obviously, the atonement is amazing, and there is a lot we don't know, but I'm just curious about your opinion, and your preferences.

Thanks!

[Esrom]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get that, but it doesn't feel like you're answering the question. It's true there are things we don't know, but the church doesn't even allow for the possibility that LGBTQ people can fit into the Plan (as it is currently taught) unless they are no longer LGBTQ. So if you are saying that the atonement will heal LGBTQ from being LGBTQ that would seem to line up with what the church seems to hope will happen. But as far as LGBTQ continuing to exist as LGBTQ in eternity, there doesn't seem to be much hope where the church is concerned.

In other words, if you believe LGBTQ is an affliction that will/can be healed, then the LGBTQ community and their families and loved ones are in decent shape. If LGBTQ is NOT an affliction to be healed, then the church doesn't really have any answers or hope for the community.

I've been attempting to answer your question, while avoiding the popular narrative that the church is in error and therefore "bad".  I didn't say affliction, that's a straw man argument imo.  We are all afflicted with a carnal nature, and "it" won't survive the brightness of glory to come.  Love will however.  In what form, we don't know.   I also didn't say the atonement heals being gay.  It heals anything that makes a person less than whole, and I don't believe we know what all that includes.  I don't spend much time critiquing the church's LGBTQ approach, as I've personally seen it change greatly since the 80's, and expect more change will occur.  I have come to believe the transforming gospel itself is the hope for any individual or community (LGBTQ or otherwise), not politically correct policies.  Many of the early pioneers made enormous sacrifices for the gospel, without assurance that they'd have life or family security in this life.  But today, we seem to expect everything in life (and church) to be all lined up in a neat package and bow, absent the sacrifice.  My point is that uncertainty and paradox, and even disappointment are a part of mortality.  I also don't think the church leaders know details of the existence that awaits any of us in the next life, just vague ideas.  We see thru a glass darkly Paul said.  God will reveal more, in due time.

[Esrom]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's great to have you here, @Esrom!

I'm also interested in your opinion on whether or not you think you will be gay in the resurrection. A secondary question (but probably more important, as far as long-term Church activity and loyalty) is: do you want to not be gay in the resurrection?

The gay members I know who are making it work (are active and loyal/supportive of Church doctrine and practice) don't want to be gay, and don't want to be gay in the hereafter. HappyJack's questions made me wonder if that describes you, too. 

Obviously, the atonement is amazing, and there is a lot we don't know, but I'm just curious about your opinion, and your preferences.

Thanks!

That's an appropriate question I think, but a very deep one.  As I said earlier, I believe sexual attraction is but a part of overall identity.  In one sense, if God created gay people, then why would that trait/orientation ever need to go away?  But in another sense, shouldn't God's will for me be more important than any attraction I have?  What if the LGBTQ experience is part of mortality and is time limited, not eternal?  Why?  For mortal experience maybe.  At times I was unhappy being gay. I would not say that now.  I have a gay friend who married a woman and had children.  He went through untold hell.  But now, decades later, he feels fulfilled in his marriage and family, and believes he made the right decision despite the struggles.  He's still gay.  Was his choice a mistake?  Did he live a lie?  Will he awake in the resurrection still gay?  I don't know.  As far as what I personally prefer, I am giving that more thought.  

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In other words, if you believe LGBTQ is an affliction that will/can be healed,.... If LGBTQ is NOT an affliction to be healed,...

Many years ago, I watched a documentary about deafness. One of the most memorable parts for me was the part describing the portions within the deaf community that believe so strongly that deafness is not a disability, is not a pathology, that they actively argue against implants and surgeries that significantly improve a person's ability to hear. The documentary did not delve into theology, but I have often wondered if these people believe they will be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, if they want to be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, and/or if they believe that there will be deaf people in the resurrection.

In another direction, consistent with my user name, if you saw me you might "judge [me] to be about 5 foot 3 [but without the soft Texas drawl]" (from an old Marty Robbins western ballad). At 63 inches (160 cm for those on the metric system), I am in in the first percentile for stature. You could say that, while I'm considered "normal", I am definitely at the extreme end of the bell curve. I have sometimes wondered if I will pick up a few inches in the resurrection so that I am closer to average. Or, considering the hypothetical scenario where I accept the growth hormone treatment offered in my youth so that I am a few inches taller today, would I be resurrected at 63 inches, because that is the "perfect" height for me?

I don't know the answers, and I don't know that I expect God to reveal any answers to that level of detail. It seems to me, though, that this is a significant part of the question -- what is considered "affliction that can/will/should be healed" and what is considered "normal variation that will not or should not be healed."

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Many years ago, I watched a documentary about deafness. One of the most memorable parts for me was the part describing the portions within the deaf community that believe so strongly that deafness is not a disability, is not a pathology, that they actively argue against implants and surgeries that significantly improve a person's ability to hear. The documentary did not delve into theology, but I have often wondered if these people believe they will be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, if they want to be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, and/or if they believe that there will be deaf people in the resurrection.

In another direction, consistent with my user name, if you saw me you might "judge [me] to be about 5 foot 3 [but without the soft Texas drawl]" (from an old Marty Robbins western ballad). At 63 inches (160 cm for those on the metric system), I am in in the first percentile for stature. You could say that, while I'm considered "normal", I am definitely at the extreme end of the bell curve. I have sometimes wondered if I will pick up a few inches in the resurrection so that I am closer to average. Or, considering the hypothetical scenario where I accept the growth hormone treatment offered in my youth so that I am a few inches taller today, would I be resurrected at 63 inches, because that is the "perfect" height for me?

I don't know the answers, and I don't know that I expect God to reveal any answers to that level of detail. It seems to me, though, that this is a significant part of the question -- what is considered "affliction that can/will/should be healed" and what is considered "normal variation that will not or should not be healed."

But it might be an important question if there was a requirement that one must be at least 64 inches tall to get into heaven  

[Vanguard]

23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Many years ago, I watched a documentary about deafness. One of the most memorable parts for me was the part describing the portions within the deaf community that believe so strongly that deafness is not a disability, is not a pathology, that they actively argue against implants and surgeries that significantly improve a person's ability to hear. The documentary did not delve into theology, but I have often wondered if these people believe they will be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, if they want to be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, and/or if they believe that there will be deaf people in the resurrection.

In another direction, consistent with my user name, if you saw me you might "judge [me] to be about 5 foot 3 [but without the soft Texas drawl]" (from an old Marty Robbins western ballad). At 63 inches (160 cm for those on the metric system), I am in in the first percentile for stature. You could say that, while I'm considered "normal", I am definitely at the extreme end of the bell curve. I have sometimes wondered if I will pick up a few inches in the resurrection so that I am closer to average. Or, considering the hypothetical scenario where I accept the growth hormone treatment offered in my youth so that I am a few inches taller today, would I be resurrected at 63 inches, because that is the "perfect" height for me?

I don't know the answers, and I don't know that I expect God to reveal any answers to that level of detail. It seems to me, though, that this is a significant part of the question -- what is considered "affliction that can/will/should be healed" and what is considered "normal variation that will not or should not be healed."

All very well said. : ) These are great questions. For myself, I am no longer interested in entertaining conversations about how we will all look 'great' in the hereafter - you know, "Will I have a full head of hair?, Will my teeth be like Donny Osmond's?, Will I be the perfect height?, and so on. I don't believe we even know what we're talking about in that regard. IMO this also goes for relational dynamics. I know we're told I can be with my spouse though I don't know in what capacity. All I have are my 'mortal world ideas' about what that might look like and I think these are lacking quite a bit. I'd rather allow the mystery of what an existence with my Father-in-Heaven might be all the while accepting I will have some type of relationship with loved ones that I can not even imagine in this mortality.  

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it might be an important question if there was a requirement that one must be at least 64 inches tall to get into heaven  

Ah ha! The truth behind infant baptism finally comes out!

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Esrom said:

That's an appropriate question I think, but a very deep one.  As I said earlier, I believe sexual attraction is but a part of overall identity.  In one sense, if God created gay people, then why would that trait/orientation ever need to go away?  But in another sense, shouldn't God's will for me be more important than any attraction I have?  

I agree that sexual attraction is only a part of overall identity. And like you said earlier, it's not even one of the most important ones. My son's MTC teacher, who came out on Facebook in defense of Elder Holland after his talk, described his identity as being a son, husband, father, brother, and priesthood holder --- not wanting to focus on "gay" as an identity. I think those gay members who are going to "make it" in the Church can't see "gay" as their overarching, primary identity.

1 hour ago, Esrom said:

What if the LGBTQ experience is part of mortality and is time limited, not eternal?  Why?  For mortal experience maybe. 

That's the $64,000 question. I think all of the factors that we face in life, including orientation, stem from our development in the preexistence and what we personally need to experience, overcome, improve, and change. Some of these factors have inherent "degree of difficulty," and I believe that will be factored into the final judgment as well. Part of this, I believe, involves a pre-existence choice to have to face these challenges (i.e., personal choice, not random chance or even God's unilateral decision). 

1 hour ago, Esrom said:

At times I was unhappy being gay. I would not say that now.  I have a gay friend who married a woman and had children.  He went through untold hell.  But now, decades later, he feels fulfilled in his marriage and family, and believes he made the right decision despite the struggles.  He's still gay.  Was his choice a mistake?  Did he live a lie?  Will he awake in the resurrection still gay?  I don't know.  As far as what I personally prefer, I am giving that more thought.  

I don't personally believe homosexuality tendencies existed in the preexistence, and I don't believe it will continue after resurrection (I think the tendencies are still there in the spirit world awaiting judgment and resurrection, though). 

While I don't recommend straight marriage and family raising as a means of "curing" homosexuality, I don't think he made a mistake, and I don't think he lived a lie. 

Thanks for your thoughts and insights!

[rongo]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Many years ago, I watched a documentary about deafness. One of the most memorable parts for me was the part describing the portions within the deaf community that believe so strongly that deafness is not a disability, is not a pathology, that they actively argue against implants and surgeries that significantly improve a person's ability to hear. The documentary did not delve into theology, but I have often wondered if these people believe they will be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, if they want to be cured of their deafness in the resurrection, and/or if they believe that there will be deaf people in the resurrection.

. . .

I don't know the answers, and I don't know that I expect God to reveal any answers to that level of detail. It seems to me, though, that this is a significant part of the question -- what is considered "affliction that can/will/should be healed" and what is considered "normal variation that will not or should not be healed."

That is an interesting question. I'm a department chair in the foreign language department at my school, and our ASL teacher is deaf and LDS. My brother-in-law served an ASL mission in Philadelphia, and he's been a well of information about deaf culture. We have an amazing deaf woman in our ward who taught an ASL class before we moved out of the ward (we're now back in that ward two years later). Based on my interactions with active, LDS deaf people, I think most of them believe they will be cured of deafness in the hereafter. But, the larger deaf community is actually generally hostile to the hearing community, and as you said, many among them see those who get cochlear implants or who try to be able to hear as "traitors." They don't see themselves as needing to be fixed. When Gallaudet University put in a hearing president who was fluent in ASL, he was removed after violent protests. 

It is an interesting question to ask active LDS deaf people --- whether they believe they will be deaf in the resurrection. I wonder what those who believe they will be think of passages describing Jesus healing the deaf? 

[Esrom]

54 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that sexual attraction is only a part of overall identity. And like you said earlier, it's not even one of the most important ones. My son's MTC teacher, who came out on Facebook in defense of Elder Holland after his talk, described his identity as being a son, husband, father, brother, and priesthood holder --- not wanting to focus on "gay" as an identity. I think those gay members who are going to "make it" in the Church can't see "gay" as their overarching, primary identity.

That's the $64,000 question. I think all of the factors that we face in life, including orientation, stem from our development in the preexistence and what we personally need to experience, overcome, improve, and change. Some of these factors have inherent "degree of difficulty," and I believe that will be factored into the final judgment as well. Part of this, I believe, involves a pre-existence choice to have to face these challenges (i.e., personal choice, not random chance or even God's unilateral decision). 

I don't personally believe homosexuality tendencies existed in the preexistence, and I don't believe it will continue after resurrection (I think the tendencies are still there in the spirit world awaiting judgment and resurrection, though). 

While I don't recommend straight marriage and family raising as a means of "curing" homosexuality, I don't think he made a mistake, and I don't think he lived a lie. 

Thanks for your thoughts and insights!

We are in much agreement, but you expressed it much better!

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Esrom said:

 I also didn't say the atonement heals being gay.  It heals anything that makes a person less than whole, and I don't believe we know what all that includes. 

I agree.  I see a general sexual attraction to people of a certain type something that limits us, that prevents control of thought and behaviors. I don’t see any logical reason for us to continue to have a sexual orientation if you want to label being sexually attracted in a certain way an “orientation”; after all we are talking about a desire that currently interferes with our self-control, causes us to have random sexual thoughts, that leads us to want to have sex with new partners…which we won’t need or desire most likely, especially if exalted and in a perfect marriage relationship that fulfills our needs…if we can be said to even have needs in that way rather than consciously choosing to activate physical feelings.  

Assuming sex outside of marriage is still a sin and no sin will exist or be desired to exist in any of the kingdoms of glory…otherwise they will cease to be kingdoms of glory, combine that with no death…anyone desiring to have sex will likely be having it with a marriage partner.  Why would we need a sexual orientation or broad sexual attraction if we aren’t dating or changing our sexual relationship partners, either for fun or for procreation?  If we are already married, we would want to be only attracted to our marriage partner already, no orientation would be needed for that.  And being perfect, we won’t need to have a scatter shot sexual drive that keeps us married so we can have access to sex, etc.  There would be plenty of other factors that would keep the relationship bonds intact, including any sexual bonds.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

don't know the answers, and I don't know that I expect God to reveal any answers to that level of detail. It seems to me, though, that this is a significant part of the question -- what is considered "affliction that can/will/should be healed" and what is considered "normal variation that will not or should not be healed."

You don’t have to label anything an affliction to still wonder if an attribute will be eternally present.  Just ask yourself is this something I will need in an eternal life, in a perfected form?  What would be the purpose of …….?

What will even continue to be part of our personality if it is not necessary?  Why permanently keep an attribute in a form that may lead to damaging ourselves either physically or emotionally, if we have perfect bodies, perfect control?  Will we have tailbones just as they are (all a tailbone ever did for me as far as I know is make it hard to sit for very long) or an identical digestion system, a digestion system that is set up to be inefficient and that produces copious waste very inconveniently?  I see no reason to assume our current form is the height of progress; after all, even in mortality as a species we have been and are still evolving physically…is the end of evolution before we developed lactose intolerance in some populations or will all our perfect forms have that gene?  Or only some of them?  Our eternal environment will not be a perfect match to our mortal life, why would we have eternal bodies that are identical to ones that evolved to survive in a mortal, fallen environment?
 

Only a very few physical attributes have been defined as eternal.  A ‘programmed’ sexual attraction of any sort has not been one of them in my view.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.  I see a general sexual attraction to people of a certain type something that limits us, that prevents control of thought and behaviors. I don’t see any logical reason for us to continue to have a sexual orientation if you want to label being sexually attracted in a certain way an “orientation”; after all we are talking about a desire that currently interferes with our self-control, causes us to have random sexual thoughts, that leads us to want to have sex with new partners…which we won’t need or desire most likely, especially if exalted and in a perfect marriage relationship that fulfills our needs…if we can be said to even have needs in that way rather than consciously choosing to activate physical feelings.  

Assuming sex outside of marriage is still a sin and no sin will exist or be desired to exist in any of the kingdoms of glory…otherwise they will cease to be kingdoms of glory, combine that with no death…anyone desiring to have sex will likely be having it with a marriage partner.  Why would we need a sexual orientation or broad sexual attraction if we aren’t dating or changing our sexual relationship partners, either for fun or for procreation?  If we are already married, we would want to be only attracted to our marriage partner already, no orientation would be needed for that.  And being perfect, we won’t need to have a scatter shot sexual drive that keeps us married so we can have access to sex, etc.  There would be plenty of other factors that would keep the relationship bonds intact, including any sexual bonds.

So...everyone will be a-sxual but still engage as part of a marriage relationship regardless of actual attraction? Sounds like a bummer.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So...everyone will be a-sxual but still engage as part of a marriage relationship regardless of actual attraction? Sounds like a bummer.  

No, you are still using a paradigm that is in line with the current conditions.

I didn’t say no sexual attraction would exist, I said no generalized attraction, programmed out of our conscious control broad attraction will likely exist.

What is the purpose of me being sexually attracted to those who are tall, but not too tall coupled with a leaner body in the eternities?  There is a purpose in being sexually attracted to my spouse in the eternities even if just to have fun, but to achieve that why would I need to be attracted to others who look or act like him?

Edited September 21, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So...everyone will be a-sxual but still engage as part of a marriage relationship regardless of actual attraction? Sounds like a bummer.  

Yeah, I don't see that as compatible with "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" (Proclamation). 

I know that more progressive members over the years have tried to parse that into a narrow definition of "gender," but I think it's clear what the "original intent" and interpretation of that was and is, among those not trying to separate it from sex and orientation:

1) all people have an eternal gender (pre-existence, here, and in the hereafter) that corresponds to mortal biological sex

2) this includes "default setting" (form fits function) orientation associated with that gender. It's a continuation of the pre-existence, but with the physical body of the second estate. It also will be perpetuated after the resurrection.

2a) There are biological anomalies, such as hermaphroditism or other genetic defects that make this unclear or ambiguous in mortality (chosen trials or experiences, in my view), but these are rare. They are akin to other developmental defects that will be made right in the resurrection.

Attempts to portray the hereafter as asexual strike me as being embarrassed about how LDS corporealism strikes outsiders ("celestial sex," etc.). There is no reason why, given our doctrines about "that which has been done in other worlds" and how life on earth is similar to the preexistence (and how "that same sociality will exist" in the hereafter), to become neoplatonic about it. This anthropomorphism is one of the things that makes Mormonism unique and attractive to the elect, in my view, and I think we shed our peculiarities to not be seen as weird at our own peril. 

[Calm]

 

1 minute ago, rongo said:

2) this includes "default setting" (form fits function) orientation associated with that gender.

Orientation is a cultural construct of relatively recent vintage.  How then can it be a default setting of an eternal being?