- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Greg Prince did an interview yesterday on Radio West. Apparently he is writing a book on the history of homosexuality in the church. Did you know that the word “homosexuality” was never mentioned in an official LDS Church publication until 1968?!!!
Prince says Kimball was quite progressive on his views of race, but regressive on his views of sex. Must listen to the interview.
See
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/history-mormons-and-homosexuality I really like Greg’s writing. I am excited for the book he is working on. I like his David O. McKay book and have his Leonard Arrington book on my “to read” list. I found it really interesting that he says he has reliable “leaks” and a Utah Stake President said 10% of his stake resigned over the Nov 2015 policy on gays and kids of gays. Also the first year after the policy change 60K people resigned from the church.
I thought his demeanor was very fair to the church. I feel this is yet another personal step toward a more empathetic understanding of gays. I was blind to the reality of damage the 2015 policy caused to members of the church. At this point in time, my belief regarding LGBT people is that their orientation is a condition of mortality, much like depression or anxiety (though I hesitate to lump them in with a list of ‘bad’ things), and as such, it will no longer be an issue after the resurrection. God is fully understanding of it because sexual orientation and gender identity are almost entirely (if not entirely) outside the control of the individual. I don’t yet have a solid belief on how this figures into temple blessings, but I do believe that everything is going to work out in the end.
On a tangential note, I’m honestly appalled that the church spent our tithing money on political campaigns. Sure, that’s from before I made money and therefore paid significant tithing, but it still bothers me retroactively. I know it was a drop in the bucket in comparison to the yearly donations, but it’s the principle of it that matters. I would much prefer that money be spent on extravagant buildings and college tuition.
:shifty: Beefster wrote:
At this point in time, my belief regarding LGBT people is that their orientation is a condition of mortality, much like depression or anxiety (though I hesitate to lump them in with a list of ‘bad’ things), and as such, it will no longer be an issue after the resurrection. God is fully understanding of it because sexual orientation and gender identity are almost entirely (if not entirely) outside the control of the individual. I don’t yet have a solid belief on how this figures into temple blessings, but I do believe that everything is going to work out in the end.
I actually believe that this is more or less the current church stance on the issue. However it raises some important questions. Does it seem reasonable that a person’s homosexuality would be removed in the afterlife but a person’s heterosexuality would remain? That the individual would no longer be attracted to their mortal SSM spouse but would instead be attracted to something else? In the interest of being fair, it seems appropriate that all sexuality would be removed.
Why stop there? Gender roles, expectations, and inequality is a mess. There are individuals that are intersex (both genders, on a sliding scale) and individuals of a certain gender that feel deeply inside that they should be the other (transgender). Even for those that are firmly male and firmly female, the history of polygamy and the current sexism of the temple endowment demonstrate seemingly eternal imbalances. In the interest of being fair, it seems appropriate that gender would be removed.
That actually seems to be pretty consistent with what Jesus taught, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy to share in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage.”
P.S. I am not fully committed to a sexless genderless eternity (I honestly do not know what eternity might be like) but I hope that this exercise is helpful to detecting the problems of supposing that everyone in the resurrection will magically turn into cisgender, heterosexual, white folk.
Continuing on with what Roy posited, the main reason I hear heterosexuality will be the norm in the afterlife is because male and female reproductive systems combined make babies, and since the eternities are mostly filled with having spirit babies, instructing them, and sending them to Earths, we all need to have the complementary junk (pun intended). However, this falls apart for me when I consider that as far as I’ve heard anyone teach about resurrected bodies, they don’t operate like human bodies IE not needing to eat or detoxify the blood or breathe etc etc. If that is actually true, then the endocrine and circulatory systems can’t help keep reproductive systems as we know them operating. Women menstruate – and only for a period of their lives, and men create sperm. As for this woman, I sure don’t want to be spending any part of the afterlife with a period. Let alone pregnant. People who say “Well, that may be and it may mean we don’t understand it, but it’s best to have faith. Heavenly Father wants you to have faith.” lack imagination, in my opinion. There are major inconsistencies with a human-like afterlife, and I think it’s fun to posit on what COULD be, instead of buckling down on trying to believe in what doesn’t make sense. In regards to homosexuality, I can’t answer the question of what aspects of personality are human and what parts would carry over? I consider my introvertedness a central part to who I am, but a gay person says the same thing about their homosexuality. Are they different? How are they different? Why would one be kept and the other one not? I don’t understand, and I don’t get much from trying to force the belief.
I hadn’t ever heard of any numbers regarding resignations following the policy. 10% of a Utah stake and 60K overall is quite something, in my book.
Roy wrote:
Does it seem reasonable that a person’s homosexuality would be removed in the afterlife but a person’s heterosexuality would remain? That the individual would no longer be attracted to their mortal SSM spouse but would instead be attracted to something else? In the interest of being fair, it seems appropriate that all sexuality would be removed.
It seems weird to imagine. I would imagine the love for a SSM spouse would still remain and their mortal life as a gay person would still define them in some way. I suspect I won’t be dealing with unpredictable moods anymore after the resurrection, but I will still feel that the depression has shaped who I am. I know they’re not exactly comparable, but I think the principle is the same.Roy wrote:
P.S. I am not fully committed to a sexless genderless eternity (I honestly do not know what eternity might be like) but I hope that this exercise is helpful to detecting the problems of supposing that everyone in the resurrection will magically turn into cisgender, heterosexual, white folk.
Our mortal bodies work via chemical and electrical impulses, which sometimes do not operate in the typical manner. While I definitely believe our experiences with our mortal body shape our eternal identity, they do not solely define it. With bodies that work in a presumably better designed way, chemical/electrical problems just don’t exist anymore. Assuming that any condition will continue to exist into eternity implies that the identity existed in the premortal existence.If anyone is interested in watching Greg Prince’s lecture on this topic, here is the link: He goes into greater detail than the RadioWest interview. It was an amazing presentation, and I’m glad I was able to attend, as well as interview him prior to this presentation.
Beefster wrote:
It seems weird to imagine. I would imagine the love for a SSM spouse would still remain and their mortal life as a gay person would still define them in some way. I suspect I won’t be dealing with unpredictable moods anymore after the resurrection, but I will still feel that the depression has shaped who I am. I know they’re not exactly comparable, but I think the principle is the same.
Our mortal bodies work via chemical and electrical impulses, which sometimes do not operate in the typical manner. While I definitely believe our experiences with our mortal body shape our eternal identity, they do not solely define it. With bodies that work in a presumably better designed way, chemical/electrical problems just don’t exist anymore. Assuming that any condition will continue to exist into eternity implies that the identity existed in the premortal existence.
I’ve heard from some members who experience male pattern baldness that they’re excited for the day in the resurrection that they’ll finally be made “whole” and have an entire head of hair, but that’s often because baldness is seen as a less desirable, less sexually attractive trait, at least for the general population. If baldness was seen as a source of intelligence, brawn, or leadership, maybe men would be pining for The Balding Days of the Resurrection. My point is, if a trait of a person wasn’t maligned or deemed morally inferior, in this case homosexuality, and we admitted as a church that no one has any idea how resurrected bodies work or more importantly how spirit bodies are formed, then we might finally be less zealous about outlawing homosexual expression.
It’s quite problematic to say that homosexual sexualities are issues that need to be handled or endured. Putting them on par with mental illness is even more problematic, and honestly condescending. As Prince mentioned, both in animal and human nature, homosexuality is a natural and biological phenomenon. “Homosexual brains”, if they can even be called that, are created in utero, meaning that some part of homosexuality is genetically determined, just like heterosexuality is genetically determined. There is nothing abnormal about homosexuality in the sense that it causes the body or mind to have a maladaptive response to its environment. To contrast that, depression/anxiety/mental illnesses by definition are maladaptive and do not have healthy ways of relating to the environment. Illness is abnormal because it is maladpative and impinges on healthy functioning. Therefore the difference in mental illness and homosexuality lie not in the low percentages experienced by the general population, which some people construe as being abnormal, but by the healthy or unhealthy ways in which they incline the person who has the trait.
I think you make a good point, DC. I don’t mean to be disparaging or condescending when I compare homosexuality to depression. I really need a better analogy. There is only one thing that is maladaptive to homosexuality and that is the lack of reproductive ability. That’s not really a problem within modern society where we aren’t clamoring for survival and passing on our genes. Nowadays, gay men can have their own children using surrogate mothers and lesbian women can do the same through sperm donation, so it no longer hinders us like it once did.
I don’t know how it all fits into eternity, though the evidence suggests that sexuality is a trait of a physical body. I do not know whether that extends to the resurrection or not or to what extent it does. Maybe gays are welcome with open arms in the CK and we’ll have gay sealings someday. Maybe it’s a mortality-only thing. But considering that homosexuality wasn’t even on the church’s radar until the late 60s, that does make it seem like the former is more likely. I don’t have the answers. I’m just going to love everybody and trust God.
Beefster, that’s a fair point about the inability of a same-sex pairing being maladaptive in the sense that it can’t reproduce. I guess I usually flit over that for some of the reasons that you mentioned above. I also found it interesting that the church was mostly mute on the subject until the late ’60s. Prince mentioned the Stonewall riots in 1969 and a light flicked on in my head regarding a connection between the two, similar to learning about the priesthood ban and the situation around the first temple in Brazil. It adds another layer to my understanding.
I’ve also heard some people speculate that only people I the highest level of the CK will be able to have sex and therefore have spirit babies. That begs more questions such as what happens to everyone else’s reproductive systems? Do they have them? Are they not there? What sort of medical device is implanted to account for the dead space inside them now? Do class action lawsuits exist if the medical devices malfunction? Can we sue God??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good discussion. Now I’ll buck the trend. 
I think it’s funny, and I realize that this is a sort-of joke, sort-of not, but…
Some members in the church believe that only people in the highest tier of the CK will be able to have spirit children and the joke is that people in the lower kingdoms must not have reproductive organs, “TK smoothies,” but there are millions of people that are unable to have children in this life, yet we don’t immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be because they are missing genitals… yet the assumption is there for the afterlife.
Another wrinkle. In the thread we’ve talked about whether people will resurrect with traits that we might think of as being defining characteristics… and baldness too. At times in the past I wondered whether we were all destined to be interchangeable automatons. All “perfect” in behavior and with a perfect body, so little variety to be had there. It’s one of those things that had me questioning the place of individuality in the eternities. Can I be me or do I become a drone as I become perfect. I’ve since moved on.
Anyway, we’re talking traits that may or may not be taken from us. Homosexuality, sexuality in general, bald spots too.
DW is short. She’d like to be taller and I don’t think she’d be happy for eternity if she resurrected into her 20-something body because her 20-something body is still short. Did the imperfections of a fallen world create a chemical mix that prevented her from growing to her “true” height? Meanwhile you may have someone else that is short that loves being short and moving them to fall somewhere in the divinely appointed 5’8″ – 6’2″ range would be upsetting. So does the resurrected ideal follow the desires of the individual or some cosmic standard?
I’m not looking for answers. I take a “I’ll worry about my resurrected body if and when I get one… with its bald spot too.” approach.
Beefster wrote:
Assuming that any condition will continue to exist into eternity implies that the identity existed in the premortal existence.
Good thoughts. Did we have gender in the premortal realm? Did we have sexuality? How much of who we are is a function of our spirit (the ultimate nature) and how much is everything else (Environment – up to and including the processes and functions of our mortal “clay” host body). Would our spirit even be capable of sentient thought without a brain firing synapses or would it just be a “spark” of life?
I have another thought experiment. Suppose I am left handed living in a right handed world. I find this hard because everything is made for “righties”. It gets even worse. Suppose that the religious leadership taught that being left handed was morally inferior and that using my left hand was a sin. In this world history, there was a time when you could be jailed or killed for being a “lefty” but things have progressed somewhat since then. Now it is recognized that being left handed is not a choice. I still do not get to go to all the “rights only” parties – but I am told that if I live my life very carefully not to use my left hand (or maybe slip up from time to time and repent) that I will be blessed by being made right handed in the resurrection.
Question: Are those that exclude me in this life justified by promising me that it will be made “right” (pun intended) in the next?
Roy wrote:
Beefster wrote:
Assuming that any condition will continue to exist into eternity implies that the identity existed in the premortal existence.
Good thoughts. Did we have gender in the premortal realm? Did we have sexuality? How much of who we are is a function of our spirit (the ultimate nature) and how much is everything else (Environment – up to and including the processes and functions of our mortal “clay” host body). Would our spirit even be capable of sentient thought without a brain firing synapses or would it just be a “spark” of life?
I have another thought experiment. Suppose I am left handed living in a right handed world. I find this hard because everything is made for “righties”. It gets even worse. Suppose that the religious leadership taught that being left handed was morally inferior and that using my left hand was a sin. In this world history, there was a time when you could be jailed or killed for being a “lefty” but things have progressed somewhat since then. Now it is recognized that being left handed is not a choice. I still do not get to go to all the “rights only” parties – but I am told that if I live my life very carefully not to use my left hand (or maybe slip up from time to time and repent) that I will be blessed by being made right handed in the resurrection.
Question: Are those that exclude me in this life justified by promising me that it will be made “right” (pun intended) in the next?
Ray I love that analogy! I think we know so little about the next life that we should stop pretending that we do and just err on the side of love – let the consequences follow. A loving Heavenly Father will either understand or send more clear revelation if we’re wrong. Why maintain the status quo until we get revelation if the current status quo was never revelation to begin with? Wouldn’t it be better to just love now?
Roy wrote:
Beefster wrote:
Assuming that any condition will continue to exist into eternity implies that the identity existed in the premortal existence.
Good thoughts. Did we have gender in the premortal realm? Did we have sexuality? How much of who we are is a function of our spirit (the ultimate nature) and how much is everything else (Environment – up to and including the processes and functions of our mortal “clay” host body). Would our spirit even be capable of sentient thought without a brain firing synapses or would it just be a “spark” of life?
I have another thought experiment. Suppose I am left handed living in a right handed world. I find this hard because everything is made for “righties”. It gets even worse. Suppose that the religious leadership taught that being left handed was morally inferior and that using my left hand was a sin. In this world history, there was a time when you could be jailed or killed for being a “lefty” but things have progressed somewhat since then. Now it is recognized that being left handed is not a choice. I still do not get to go to all the “rights only” parties – but I am told that if I live my life very carefully not to use my left hand (or maybe slip up from time to time and repent) that I will be blessed by being made right handed in the resurrection.
Question: Are those that exclude me in this life justified by promising me that it will be made “right” (pun intended) in the next?
From what I understand, this isn’t a joke. It used to be considered a sin to be left handed. I wonder if they went through a period were “It is OK to have LHT (left Hand Tendencies) and is no longer considered a sin, but you just can’t use your left hand.”
[img]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9a/9b/40/9a9b40a01163e5394f0ba5e5eb39405a–left-handed.jpg [/img]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.