Rampant speculation about gay members

[Anonymous]

Right, I hope this doesn’t get me banned.

But suppose that at some point in the future (100-200 years?) the Church has radically changed its stance on homosexuality. Imagine that gay couples can not only get married everywhere, but also go get sealed in the Temple for time and all eternity. Articles in the Ensign and New Era talk about how to carefully choose the right same-sex partner/spouse, and the importance of keeping chaste until you get married, how God’s plan is still for us to only share sexual intimacy within the bonds of marriage. At BYU you can take classes on having a successful gay marriage, and it has become common for gay missionaries to be paired with companions of the opposite sex to avoid temptation.

Going further: imagine either that

Polygamy is completely refuted as having been a mistake and a false practice, and pairings of whatever type are expected to be strictly monogamous,

or

Temple sealings include group marriages.

Possible? Or just too :wtf: bizarre and not worth talking about? But in all the discussion about gay members of the Church I think this is a scenario that is going to have to be brought out and examined sooner or later, if it hasn’t already been in some fringe groups.

[Anonymous]

Riceandbeans,

I think those are all questions that will and are coming up just due to the changing nature of society.

My 13 year old son asked me Sunday afternoon if a gay LDS Elder would be paired with a sister or another Elder. This is something that never would have occurred to me at his age. Never. But the world is different than it was then and issues are addressed publicly that then went unspoken.

I told him it would be very shocking to me if the church ever paired missionaries in that way and explained that all missionaries had covenanted to keep the same law of chastity so whatever type of feelings one has for a companion should be irrelevant compared to the responsibility a missionary has to teach the gospel. I explained that it’s no different than having a companion you find intolerable. Missionaries should always choose to let their love of the Lord override their personal inclinations if they threaten to interfere with the work. At least that’s how I felt when I was in a difficult companionship.

Still, though, I have to marvel that this even occurred to him.

[Anonymous]

I think all the of the scenerios you mentioned are very feasible and possible to see happen in the church in 100-200 years.

gay temple marriage – yep

polygamy disputed as a mistake – yep

group sealings in the temple – yep

All of these things could happen – none of them would surprise me.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

All of these things could happen – none of them would surprise me.

+1

[Anonymous]

If there is one thing members of our church are good at, it’s at rationalizing dramatic shifts in policy. There would be a couple brief reasons given by the GA’s for these shifts in policy, and then members at large would come out with a torrent of reasons why it happened that are perfectly acceptable. Many would rely on divine revelations, “we don’t understand why”, and I bet we could even find scriptures that justify the shift in policy if we tried.

Just look at how peopel rationalize the priesthood ban, plural marriage, and other parts of our history. The same would happen over a shift in policy like this.

Now, there are some members whose faith might slip and who could not accept this, but I think the number will grow smaller and smaller as shifts in our society show greater tolerance and charitable love for people with same sex tendencies, and as laws become more favorable to same sex individuals.

[Anonymous]

I believe in the concept and principle of continuing revelation. I’m open to lots of things happening that would shock many members.

[Anonymous]

Grrrr, I just spent too much time crafting a response only to have lost it, and now I’m not willing to let it drop. So this post will probably be hasty and garbled.

I’m replying here even though this bears on the polygamy and chastity threads.

It is inconsistent and unprincipled to oppose polygamy and support gay marriage. But I would love to be proved wrong in my perception that there still are many who do just that.

If homosexual activity really is against the purposes of human sexuality as the CHI states, then it sure would be helpful to have a definitive systematic breakdown of just what the **** those purposes are, instead of a patchwork interpretation of scattered scriptures that amounts to a vague “for reproduction – but not only that, also for emotional bonding between husband and wife.”

If the main purpose of sex is for reproduction, then things are simple, and any sexual enjoyment anyone manages to get within the Law of Chastity is gravy for the lucky few.

If the purposes of human sexuality include a Divine intent for expression, fulfillment, satisfaction, then the Law of Chastity is an unjust restriction and should be abandoned.

If the purpose of human sexuality is for emotional bonding between committed partners then the institution of marriage needs to be radically restructured ASAP to accommodate as many polyamorous permutations as people can possibly commit to – and there may be more of these than we can even imagine right now.

The second proposition obviously appeals to the affluent post-industrial world, but that doesn’t automatically make it right. The first entails much suffering for those whose other human needs are met, but that doesn’t automatically make it wrong.

And the third is how I have heard some speculate that the Celestial Kingdom really will be. (If so, we should all cut Brother Joseph a lot more slack.)

[Anonymous]

and if sexual orientation (not maleness and femaleness) and sexual activity (not intimacy) are only mortal constructs, the entire paradigm and discussion change fundamentally

We really do know so little about so much. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Regarding Cwald’s comment, I do not see the church simultaneously pronouncing polygamy wrong, and affirming gay marriage. If gay marriage becomes acceptable, and group sealings become acceptable, then there will be no reason for polygamy to be denounced.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

and if sexual orientation (not maleness and femaleness) and sexual activity (not intimacy) are only mortal constructs, the entire paradigm and discussion change fundamentally

If that were the case I think a lot of women would be quite relieved. I know I would.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Regarding Cwald’s comment, I do not see the church simultaneously pronouncing polygamy wrong, and affirming gay marriage. If gay marriage becomes acceptable, and group sealings become acceptable, then there will be no reason for polygamy to be denounced.

Yep. It would have to be one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

and if sexual orientation (not maleness and femaleness) and sexual activity (not intimacy) are only mortal constructs, the entire paradigm and discussion change fundamentally

I am not totally convinced that gender even exists in the eternities.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I am not totally convinced that gender even exists in the eternities.

I’m not, either, and I’m not sure “biological sex” exists, either – but that certainly is heterodox. I’m sure “intimacy” exists, and I’m sure “sociality” exists, and I’m sure “love” exists – and I really don’t care about gender and sexuality after death.

[Anonymous]

I just did a post on Intersexuals, which is pertinent to the discussion about gender. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2012/04/29/gender-for-intersexuals/

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

I just did a post on Intersexuals, which is pertinent to the discussion about gender. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2012/04/29/gender-for-intersexuals/

troublemaker! don’t confuse religious ‘truth’ with the facts.

[Author]

Posts