Marty’s post in the parking lot

Good, you see exactly what I see. I think the gist of the post is some questions about the after life and how much of here is physical and how much is spiritual. But the not so underlying implication in using homosexuality as an example is that being gay is defective. I’m sure there are many who believe that, I’m not one of them and I really have no idea if there is any sexuality other than in this life. The first red flag was “we can agree” because I don’t think we can agree and I’m pretty sure most gays would not agree (and I personally don’t agree).

In my PM to him I told him we may ask him to edit the post, and I’m fine with that – but I think it needs lots of editing to remove anything that could be offensive to gays and those who love or care about a gay person in their life. Related to that, I think any reference to being gay as a defect needs to come out. He just needs another frame of reference for the question, I think.

Yeah, I’ve gone back and reread and I think he is trying to present the paradox from a believer’s point of view – a sort of if/then where if homosexuality is wrong (as is church teaching from the point of view of some) then what happens in the hereafter? I think he’s really trying to get those who believe SSA is damning to see it from another point of view by comparing it to other situations. And I get why he’s using homosexuality – because it seems to be the only teaching like this although it could be argued that alcoholism or some mental illnesses are similar. And that’s the problem – alcoholism and mental illnesses are diseases, homosexuality (or SSA if you prefer) is not. I think our understanding of physical versus spiritual illness is so limited as to not be able to address that idea – we just don’t know. His questions are intriguing, but I don’t know that we can do anything more than speculate.

Here are the red flags as far as I’m concerned:

Here’s why I think the question is relevant to gay people. When gay people die, will they still be gay in the Spirit? Or will their gayness leave them the second their “defective” body dies? In other words, is being gay a physical condition or spiritual condition

I don’t actually know which Marty believes, but he implies SSA is physical. We don’t know that and I think it may be offensive to some to imply that it is physical. (And by extension, is heterosexuality also only physical?)

Seems like we’d all have to agree that it’s a physical thing, right? If it’s spiritual, then a resurrection to a perfect body wouldn’t necessarily cure them, right? We’d have to admit that they were always gay, and that would really throw a monkey wrench in our anti-gayness.

I did first interpret this as implying that we all have to agree that SSA is physical. It could be that he is presenting this as an orthodox viewpoint and as a caveat for the sake of argument. I think it is too easily understood the way I first understood it and can therefore be offensive – we certainly do not all agree that SSA is physical, or a defect, or can be cured (even in the resurrection). The point about gays in heaven does throw some church teachings/beliefs/doctrine into a paradox, and is a good point.

If we expand this argument, we’d also have to accept that there are a host of other defects in physical bodies that fundamentally distort our mortal experience of our own spiritual self.

Another allusion to the idea of SSA being a defect.

* Will I still have remnants of my old self? I’ll still have memories, and strong feelings associated with those memories, right?

* What if I discover my spouse is really someone I detest?

* How accountable can I truly be, if my entire probationary state was spent as someone fundamentally different?

* Would a gay person experience disgust at the thought of any memories they have of themselves engaging in homosexual behavior? Or will they still have positive associations with these memories?

* Can we think of anything else besides homosexuality where the Church clearly teaches that the condition is a sort of mental/psychological defect? I’m specifically referring to non-debilitating conditions, where the person maintains full faculties but is fundamentally altered.

* Are there any similar conditions, where the Church teaches that we are commanded to suppress what feels like our natural self in the promise that our self will be fundamentally changed after we die? Is there any condition where that involves celibacy and the absence of romantic connection?

I don’t dislike the questions. There is some scriptural teachings about us being the same in the next life as we are in this, so we have to make a jump there but the idea is based on the case he is trying to make that if we are “cured” what are we like?

I agree with his conclusion, which he should have made his theme – when the idea of being broken is applied to SSA it makes no sense in light of other church teachings regarding the resurrection.

I agree it’s time to change also – but I don’t agree that we need to petition the leadership for the change. That didn’t go so well for the OW group, and is generally frowned upon anyway (although I don’t know why because Joseph Smith did it a lot).

So the question becomes can this post be written without using SSA as an example and still present the paradox? Or using SSA as an example, can it be written in such a way that it won’t be offensive to those who don’t think they are broken or need to be cured by the resurrection?

I think he is a good nut, and I think the questions seem to be honestly seeking to work through where the church places us as members to think of these things while things are changing. But I don’t like those quotes and how they are worded.

I am going to go read the whole post in the parking lot before I have an opinion. Does it need to be edited, or does it need to be responded to in the thread after posted? I will check it out.

Read it. Don’t like it. Don’t want that approved. That is my opinion.

I think DJ’s suggestion in the PM is good to coach him. Because there could be a discussion topic there to explore…the eternal sexuality of our souls…not just gender, which the Proclamation declares the church’s position on our spirits having gender.

But for those reasons you listed DJ, the post saying things like

will their gayness leave them the second their “defective” body dies?

cure them

and so forth as you mentioned.

The topic can be explored if worded a better way. Those are offensive, even if in asking questions.

The question is if sexuality is eternal. That’s all that needs to be asked. Don’t start getting into sexual acts in heaven or threesomes in the celestial kingdom or homosexuality or anything…just…is homosexuality apart of a person’s eternal character.

If he doesn’t want to ask that, then he shouldn’t post a topic.

nibbler’s PM to him is good coaching.

Here’s an updated post that he PM’ed to DJ and I:

I’ve found myself getting very frustrated by this approach towards homosexuality. At its core, I believe it’s deeply offensive to gay people, and if you really dig into this philosophy, it creates problems and paradoxes that undermine large parts of Mormon theology. Acceptance of homosexuality as a necessary and normal part of nature and our eternal identity just works better.

Here’s why it’s offensive. When you strip away the fluffy words, this is what you are saying: “Your Spirit is not gay, but there’s something about your physical experience on earth that makes you feel like you’re gay.” In other words, “You are defective”. Fortunately, our leaders have softened their language, whereas in the 70s, that “defect” was considered vile, repugnant, embarrassing, unclean, debauchery, and acting on those natural but “defective” tendencies was grounds for assault, expulsion from school, excommunication, and being socially ostracized. (I have references for all those statements)

Let’s walk down this path as a thought experiment, and let’s assume for a brief moment that homosexuality is somehow a defect of the physical body. What we are saying, in essence is:

Hypothetically: There are physical conditions which alter our essential experience of ourselves in mortality. Somehow the body hijacks the emotional core of our being, and replaces it with something else. There’s no way to overcome this condition, and there’s no reliable way to separate our “true” self from the “hijacked” self; in these chases, the affected is advised to “wait it out”, and at the resurrection their body will be restored to a perfect state.

But even that can’t be right, because if the condition is truly a physical condition, then the Spirit would be free from its effect at the moment of death, right?

Also, if you buy into this theory, there’s no reason to believe that this condition is limited to homosexuality. Let’s expand our thinking and speculate that there are a multitude of other physical conditions that would cause someone with seeming complete power of their faculties to have a false experience of themselves. And this false experience could conceivably be comprehensive, or in other words, the experience you have of yourself on earth is completely different than your “real” spiritual self. Can you imagine the strange experience at death, what we can only imagine as spiritual schizophrenia? You would have complete memories of your thoughts and emotions on earth, but suddenly they would feel like they belong to someone else.

* What if you don’t like your “real” self?

* What if you can’t stand the “real” version of your spouse?

* How accountable are you really, if your entire mortal existence was essentially in someone else’s shoes?

* What kinds of things might be controlled by this phenomena? Anger, addiction, skepticism, anti-authoritarianism?

We’re taught that our spirits were “ignorant” before they came to earth, that the process of being exposed to right and wrong would give us the knowledge and experience to grow to become more like Heavenly Father. That happens in the form of memories and experiences (which are essentially all we take with us when we die). These people, including gay people, essentially leave their mortal experience with warped and disconnected memories. This is like handicapping a child during the critical developmental years, only to remove the handicap once they get to be 8 years old. They are going to be seriously and adversely affected by stunting their growth during critical years, right? Why would we believe anything different about our spiritual development during mortality?

And what’s worse, it’s like taking infants with otherwise perfect vision and making them wear glasses that distort their vision, and then telling them they’re going to hell when they can’t figure out the way through the maze you set up. To be fair, to avoid hell, they do have the option of sitting in a chair while all the other kids have fun running through the maze. “You can do the maze after you die”. Not cool.

When you chase this concept down, it just doesn’t pan out. It works for people with physical limitations, and it works for people with mental disabilities (because we deem them ‘not accountable’), but it just doesn’t work for gay people, or anybody else.

I think it’s time that our leaders try to figure out how to make homosexuality fit with Mormon theology. It’s really not that hard to make it fit, and like many other things, God waits to reveal it until society is “ready to receive it”. If we’re not already there, we will be in the next 20-30 years.

This is how I personally view it (and how it could be made to fit within LDS theology):

Homosexuality is a natural and necessary part of our society. It’s part of the diversity required to maintaining societal and biological balance. It’s not simply a fluke or a defect. As our earth life mirrors our eternal existence, there’s no reason to assume that this diversity wouldn’t be part of the natural order of eternities. This is a critical part of the gospel saved for the latter days when society would finally be advanced enough to be able to hear the truth.

Being gay is part of a person’s eternal identity. It makes them unique and will carry with them throughout eternities. At times, God has made changes to marriage and family relationships, and now our society is prepared for the acceptance and understanding of homosexual members to receive the blessings of marriage and sealing.

Not trying to start a flame war, but thoughts?

I’m still reading it but wanted to give others the chance (I have to read things like 5 times because I have poor readers comprehension).

I’m only a paragraph or two in but it looks good. Marty is currently waiting for approval (from DJ) and he’ll only post once he gets it.

Great discussion, everyone.

Thank you!