- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
File a joint tax return. Sure you could do it as a single person but that would be lying, which is morally wrong. 
Rob4Hope wrote:OK…so if you are resurrected and single,..and you are in the Telestial Kingdom cuz you were BAD! You got the parts cuz you are man or woman,…right? So, no nookie there?….just gotta live without the fun stuff? I have wondered about this. In the temple, the LOC kicks in for the Terrestial right? so,…what is going on down there in that bottom one…..I mean really? They are in the Telestial, and have to abide that law right? But LOC is for the higher kingdoms….at least the way I was taught. This is a rather confusing question. If you have to obey all of the commandments, then why be in the lower kingdom? Cuz you are obeying all the commandments anyway,…right?
I read in Answers to Gospel questions that only individuals resurrected with celestial bodies will have sex organs. Persons resurrected with terrestrial or telestial bodies will not have these organs. Yes, this is still speculation but at least it came from a Prophet.
Roy wrote:I read in Answers to Gospel questions that only individuals resurrected with celestial bodies will have sex organs. Persons resurrected with terrestrial or telestial bodies will not have these organs. Yes, this is still speculation but at least it came from a Prophet.
Prophets don’t seem to speculate any better than the rest of us. However, their speculation can become perceived doctrine and that’s where the problems arise.
My view is we stop speculation on this and the myriad of other things we know very little about and focus on what we do have information about – most of which is centered on what we’re supposed to do here (without necessarily knowing why). The church’s new emphasis on sabbath worship seems to espouse this point of view as well.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s sex as we know it in the afterlife, either. But that’s what I think, I have no proof one way or the other and I’m not about to take one apostle/prophet’s word for it either way. It’s what makes sense to me. I find comfort in not knowing much about the afterlife because then I don’t worry about it – and I think that’s really the plan.
I’m going to pre-preemptively respond to my own question above. I don’t think there is anything outside of marriage you can have without breaking moral law with a single exception–sex. That has to happen inside of marriage. So, if there is no marriage, there is no sex. And if there is no sex in heaven then somehow we have children up there in some strange way that is TOTALLY unknown at this point. But, the emphasis over and over and over is Marriage so we can be exhaulted and be like Heavenly Father.
I bring this up because when it comes down to it,…the real question is not necessarily marriage in the next life,…it is sex in the next life…at least IMHO.
And,..I agree with DJ…we don’t know much of nothing in this area. It is a mess!
And, the comments from JFS about the Telestial and Terestial kingdoms had a massive discussion out there about the “T K Smoothie”. It was hilarious. The question was whether we would become Ken and Barbie dolls with no basic defining genitalia because, after all, we won’t need or use them if we are damned,…so why have them? I have not participated in much more of a hilarious discussion before in my life…
Prophets DO…I repeat DO…speculate sometimes,…and it get blown all out of proportion and becomes doctrine.
We already can create children without sexual intercourse, and doing so without any amount of gestational pregnancy isn’t science fiction to us. It was inconceivable 😆 to everyone not long ago, but it is not so now.Let me repeat:
I love the idea of eternal marriage, and I know MANY non-Mormons who believe in it, as well, even though their churches say it won’t be. I do. It want to lose that concept, and I don’t think sex as we know it here has to be part of marriage after death.
That is speculation, also, but it’s mine. If I want to be able to speculate, I need to allow others to speculate, as well. If I try to deny their right to speculate, I need to give up mine – and I don’t want to give up mine.
Old-Timer wrote:…and I don’t think sex as we know it here has to be part of marriage after death.
Ray, I respect your opinion and right to have it. I also want to have my own, so that lends flexibility and “fairness” to others.
With respect to this sexual opinion you have posted, I confess I don’t know what happens in heaven either, but if there is no sex over there, it will be, at least to me, a cosmic shock–an ultimate AHA moment!
I have felt a sense, for years even, that LDS teachings have covertly, subtly, and in some cases cunningly pitted sexuality against spirituality. I have not understood this, but by golly, I see it–I mean I am not inventing this: I really do see this happening in strange ways.
Let me give you an example so you have an idea of what I mean (and the interpretation given will make sense, whether you agree or not):
1 Cor 7:5
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
IN this scripture, you cease sexual activity (with consent), to give yourself to fasting and prayer. Why do you give yourself to fasting and prayer?….to increase spirtuality,…right? (seems reasonable to me).
For some reason, you need to stop sexuality to increase spirituality. When that period of time is over, what is the reason Paul gives for coming back together?….to avoid being tempted too much. So, sexuality is a “pressure valve” to avoid being tempted by Satan? And, does this not mean that if you were “spiritual enough”…you wouldn’t need sex because you would be able to avoid temptations without this outlet?
This is one way this scripture was presented to me. It pits sexuality and spirituality against each other.
Like I said in another post,….I forgive the GAs for the false doctrines they have taught, as well as the Stake Presidents, the 70s, the bishops, and my teachers,…and even my family. I hope in this effort that they will forgive me to. But, back on point–It will be a cosmic AHA moment for me to learn that sex doesn’t happen in the next life,..and it will make a lot of sense. It will mean, as I gather from your opinion (which I do respect), that sex is really just a mortal or “telestial” activity (something for this world only), and as we grow in spiritual magnitude, we will replace sex with something more holy and divine.
Ray, in a subtle way (and I mean this respectfully), your opinion on this supports my concern. If we grow in spiritual stature, making it to the Celestial Kingdom, and sex is not there because some other means is there for children, then does it not serve to support the dilemma that spirituality and sexuality are in opposition? As we become exhaulted, our spirituality will soar…but if that means we no longer have sexuality, then have I not made my point?
Rob4Hope wrote:With respect to this sexual opinion you have posted, I confess I don’t know what happens in heaven either, but if there is no sex over there, it will be, at least to me, a cosmic shock–an ultimate AHA moment!
I think we’re
allgoing to have some big shockers just like this. And we’re bringing on ourselves by pretending to know, supposing, and speculating about things we really know nothing about (including God’s will). In my teens and 20s: Sex in heaven? Kill me now! In my 30s and 40s: Sex in heaven? Mondo to the max.
In my 50s and 60s: Sex in heaven? It’s still a gas daddy-o.
In my 70s and 80s: Sex in heaven? I’m not too keen to do the jitterbug tonight.
In my 90s and 100s: Sex in heaven? Sorry, Mac, the bank’s closed.
One step at a time. First step: confirm that there is an afterlife. Second step: immediately start looking for a booty call. Priorities.
Who first revealed the possibility of sex in heaven? Did their lifestyle facilitate receiving such a revelation?
nibbler wrote:In my teens and 20s: Sex in heaven? Kill me now!
In my 30s and 40s: Sex in heaven? Mondo to the max.
In my 50s and 60s: Sex in heaven? It’s still a gas daddy-o.
In my 70s and 80s: Sex in heaven? I’m not too keen to do the jitterbug tonight.
In my 90s and 100s: Sex in heaven? Sorry, Mac, the bank’s closed.
One step at a time. First step: confirm that there is an afterlife. Second step: immediately start looking for a booty call. Priorities.
Who first revealed the possibility of sex in heaven? Did their lifestyle facilitate receiving such a revelation?
Ahhhh man…I am laughing hard over here….love it!!!!
😆 😆 😆 :thumbup: I think a major component of sex in the afterlife is a physical resurrection with sexual organs. I am not convinced that this will happen as it is outside my realm of experience. If my consciousness continues on after my death then I really hope that there is some meaningful interaction with other consciousnesses so that important relationships may continue in some fashion.
Rob, we tend to be very accepting of differing opinions here, as long as they are expressed respectfully and are not used to attack the Church – and are focused on finding our own faith paradigms that help us “stay LDS” to some degree and in some way. That is true especially when dealing with topics that are purely speculative, like this one. My thoughts on this are mine, and I know they are speculation. I believe we will be incredibly intimate, but I believe sex as we know it and pregnancy as we know it are not part of eternity. This is my own speculation, and I have no desire or intent to try to convince anyone I am right. I have no clue about this, and my view might change radically over time, just like it has from my younger years to now.
Roy wrote:If my consciousness continues on after my death then I really hope that there is some meaningful interaction with other consciousnesses so that important relationships may continue in some fashion.
I like and agree with this part. I believe I have experienced true love and I’m not sure that such love over time requires a sexual aspect. I’m not sure what Ray bases his idea of a non-sexual afterlife on, but I base my similar belief in the idea that sexual desire is physical as opposed to spiritual. True love, I believe, is spiritual. I fully recognize that there are differing opinions on that idea, but as a believer in evolution I see the sexual part as the carnal and natural man as it also relates to animals. I am not saying that as humans we should eschew sex for purposes other than reproduction and I don’t believe that at all – but I do believe sex is earthly and not heavenly.Ray, DJ and everyone, I respect your views on this. I do see it a little differently, but I also recognize it as speculation, and your views are NOT disrespected from me. You have also been respectful to me…which I am grateful for. I think that our views about the next life DO influence our views here. Sometimes it is a subtle thing, but it has an impact regardless. If there is no sexual expression in the next life but is only something here, it would make sense to NOT become attached to it here. Why?…because you would miss it in the next life since the “same spirit that possesses your body here will possess your body there”…(you all remember that scripture in the BofM?)
Since it is clearly taught that spirituality is something that will go with us everywhere, and if the “opinion” (I use that term loosely) is there is no sex in the next life, it can naturally follow that spirituality and sexuality can be at odds. That is my main point I think I am trying to make.
I have felt tendrils of this specter filter in and out of teachings and attitudes for years. My father, for example, clearly remembers somehow being taught by Joseph Fielding Smith that sexual relations were for having children, and if you were not having children, you had no business being sexual. I heard messages similar in my formative years, but since then, I have heard messages in subtle ways that sexuality and spirituality are in opposition–and as you grow spiritually, you no longer need sexuality because it is
of this world only. What bothers me is this: there is only a single thing that distinguishes marriage from any other relationships as far as the LDS faith is concerned (IMHO)…and that is sexuality. So, if you subtly attack sexuality because it is not “spiritual”, or is not needed in the next life, or is for only having children and no other purpose–then you subtly are attacking marriage.
For years (and I wish this wasn’t true for me…but this is a truth), I have felt the church lies about the importance of marriage, or at least the definition of marriage. What matters to the church is you have a signed document on the wall saying you are married,…but whether you love each other in ways other than spiritual, spend any time, or live in separate states and once every 5 years send an e-mail letting the other person know you are alive is of no consequence. I do not believe the LDS faith really believes that marriage is that important as long as you are at least married, because they attack the foundation of marriage in subtle ways, including but not limited to silence on the sexual topic in marriage. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and I don’t know how to reconcile it.
Lest we all miss the mark, divorce in the LDS faith is alive and well,…making progress (speaking of the USA) just like the rest of the country…. And what SWK said years ago — the #1 cause of divorce is they didn’t get along sexually– is still happening. I just struggle to understand how the problem with marriages falling apart because of sex are solved by increasing spirituality. Its like telling a drunk that his problem is he just isn’t wearing the right clothing.
I would hope there is something even better than sex in the afterlife! Really, sex is such a basic animalistic thing, surely a perfect resurrected body can experience even greater things that lift us above the animals. journeygirl wrote:I would hope there is something even better than sex in the afterlife! Really, sex is such a basic animalistic thing, surely a perfect resurrected body can experience even greater things that lift us above the animals.
Hi Journeygirl. It is interesting you see this as animalistic. I really understand your perspective actually. And, then, for example, Holland pushes things all the way to the
ultra sacredside. Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments wrote:
Second, may I suggest that human intimacy, that sacred, physical union ordained of God for a married couple, deals with a symbol that demands special sanctity. Such an act of love between a man and a woman is–or certainly was ordained to be–a symbol of total union: union of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything. It is a symbol that we try to suggest in the temple with a word like seal. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said we perhaps ought to render such a sacred bond as “welding”–that those united in matrimony and eternal families are “welded” together, inseparable if you will, to withstand the temptations of the adversary and the afflictions of mortality. (See D&C 128:18.)But such a total, virtually unbreakable union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess–their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams. They work together, they cry together, they enjoy Brahms and Beethoven and breakfast together, they sacrifice and save and live together for all the abundance that such a totally intimate life provides such a couple. And the external symbol of that union,
the physical manifestation of what is a far deeper spiritual and metaphysical bonding, is the physical blending that is part of–indeed, a most beautiful and gratifying expression of–that larger, more complete union of eternal purpose and promise.I’m not saying who is right and wrong here…..but I am just aware of the stark contrasts that happen. Journeygirl,I understand your perspective totally. From Holland’s perspective, the sexual act has been made so ultra spiritual and “religious”, it makes for an argument I also understand to NEVER engage–it is just too sacred.
These extremes are quite interesting, and quite baffling.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.