Tricky question: Is there sexual relations in heaven?

[Anonymous]

We talk of eternal increase and creating spirit children. That, obviously, is the driving force behind the idea of sex in heaven.

I don’t know and don’t claim to know, but there are three things that drive my own thoughts about it:

1) From a purely scientific, biological standpoint, things reproduce like things – of similar substance. Perfected, physical bodies wouldn’t reproduce imperfect, non-physical, spirit bodies – at least, not through a sexual, gestational process.

2) I loathe the idea of women being pregnant eternally. End of discussion for me.

3) In the past, sexual intercourse was the only way imaginable for people to imagine children being created. Now, we have the ability to have kids without that fundamental aspect – and we can conceptualize the creation of children without any sexual component, at all. Given that reality, I think the only reason to hold unto the idea of sexual relationships in the next life is that we enjoy them so much in this life and want them to continue.

Also, there can be male and female identity in Heaven without needing to have sexual relationships. Losing that component of mortality would solve SO many issues and make our theology incredibly powerful. Intimacy can exist without sexuality, and intimacy is the key for me.

[Anonymous]

It is all 100% speculation. Like all things pertaining to heaven we just do not know. No one as of yet has been able to present verifiable evidence of what goes on in heaven. So I think heaven can be whatever we would like it or need it to be. Sex would nice but more I hope there is peace and quite. Friends and family. Things to do and things to learn. Heaven would be earth without all the distractions and guesswork.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

It is with interest I have read the posts to this thread. Most are of the opinion that sexual relations will not exist in heaven. This is VERY interesting to me in that it changes a fundamental dynamic if true, spilling into all kinds of other topics.

I was once asked a question by a licensed sex therapist: “What is one thing you can have in marriage you can’t have any other place without breaking moral law?” The answer, which I arrived at after close to a month of very careful thought, reduced to a single thing–sexual relations.

Now, lets suppose that sex does NOT happen in the next life as many have suggested. If this is the case, here are some additional questions:

1. After the children have been born, does it not make sense that sexual relations no longer have an eternal purpose in this life?…and would it not make sense to simply do away with them? This is an argument I have heard used in many a marriage by one partner to justify rejecting the other, and consequently, marriages have ended over it. But it appears no real abuse has happened–one spouse can refuse another on the religious grounds that since sex doesn’t happen in the next life, after the children are born, there is no reason to continue in this life. We are, after all, taught to prepare for the next life as a fundamental tenant of LDS theology, right? So, this actually opens up a justification, on religious grounds, to do what Paul called “Defaud[ing]” your spouse by refusing them sexually.

2. Why is polygamy, polyandry, or any other relationship offensive to engage in, since it will not include sex in the next life anyway? Why not everyone marry everyone else, since there is no sex and consequently, no one will be sharing anyone with another in that way?

These questions are not meant to be inflammatory, but they naturally follow in my mind with the supposition that sex is not something in the next life.

If I understand correctly, the primary problem with the LGBT issue revolves around sex, does it not? The church doesn’t have respect for such relations. It doesn’t make sense to me, in the context of no sexual relations happening in the next life, why LDS authorities take issue with SSM in this life. There would be no Eternal Consequences that I can think of, since children in the next life don’t come from sexual relations, and if not created that way, why the ban on such marriages in this life?

Can I say I have become confused by the responses on this thread? I am not surprised by them, but I am confused. I hope you will keep going with posts, and perhaps help me understand your perspectives more.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, any answers about this are based mostly on speculation or hearsay anyway so I wouldn’t put too much stock in a specific outcome either way especially in the case of the claim that sex supposedly only exists in the Celestial Kingdom or possibly only the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and in any lower levels of heaven you will supposedly lose your sex organs. It seems like such a crude example of the Church relying on the old carrot-and-stick motivational model that I have a hard time believing this is anything more than a man-made attempt to manipulate people, tell people what they want to hear, etc.

Arguments for and against sexuality in the next life have been used, IMHO, as a whipping post for manipulation in a LOT of areas. In some instances it is a motivation for CK life and eventual pleasure there. Examples would be: “If you don’t live the law of chastity here, you will be seperate there, and never able to have sexual relations. So, you better control yourself NOW.” and “If you are LGBT and just live the LOC, everything will be fixed there, and you will be able to have normal (whatever that means) heterosexual relations.” This last argument, which I have heard, is most offensive to me…In virtually each case, the idea is to eliminate the experience on this side of the veil. It is the old “pleasure problem” I’ve brought up before. DA,…your statements make sense, and I understand this side of things…From what you Heber and DA have said, both are in agreement we know very little about that side. And, it is interesting that there is so much speculation about sexuality over there…Question to expand a little on this thread: if there is no sexuality on the next side of the veil, why then is marriage essential for CK exhaltation?

If you really think about it, the fact is that temple marriage directly benefits the Church itself in more ways than one and possibly more than any other single LDS doctrine. For example, the idea that families can be together forever is currently one of the Church’s favorite selling points to try to explain why people should want to be practicing Mormons in the first place (I.E. supposedly only they have the authority to deliver this promise). On top of that it’s probably the primary reason that Mormons typically marry other Mormons (82% in a recent Pew survey) more than any other Christian sect of similar size or larger so it basically helps foster family ties to the Church and probably makes it more likely that their children will adopt the same LDS traditions as well. So I think that’s why it’s no surprise that the Church puts so much emphasis on the supposed importance of temple marriage.

To me it sounds more or less the same as if the Church were to claim that all dogs and cats automatically go to heaven but only faithful and obedient Mormons will go to heaven so you better believe and do what we tell you if you ever want to see your beloved pets again. Basically it sounds good in theory as long as you actually believe you are going to make it to heaven so I can’t blame people for wanting to believe in something like this that is more comforting to them than the alternatives. However, what bothers me about this is seeing the Church basically act like they supposedly have a monopoly on this promised outcome and leveraging it to get people to conform to things like tithing, full-time missions, time-consuming callings, etc. Most of all I don’t like the idea of making relatively costly sacrifices in this life mostly for the sake of promised future blessings or punishments that could easily never be delivered for all we really know.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Most of all I don’t like the idea of making relatively costly sacrifices in this life mostly for the sake of promised future blessings or punishments that could easily never be delivered for all we really know.

I get this completely.

[Anonymous]

I think you make sacrifices and try to become Christ – like to enyer heaven because that is the right thing to do. Not to get promises in the next life like eternal families, 44 virgins, mansions, worlds to rule or sex. Whatever rewards are there, they are there and likely better than I can imagine. Those will follow but the reason is not for reward but to become my potential and learn what it is I should learn.

To me, that is what all church doctrine is based around.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

That’s one way of looking at it. The other way, I better make sure to get sex out of my system now while I still can. If we live long enough doesn’t a waning libido take care of this little problem for us? How many octogenarians still have regular sex. ( :sick: ) And yet old people continue to have reasons to stay together.

Well, I don’t know about now, but Story Musgrave recently turned 80, and his youngest is under 10, so stuff was obviously working not that long ago.

[Anonymous]

NightSG wrote:

nibbler wrote:

That’s one way of looking at it. The other way, I better make sure to get sex out of my system now while I still can. If we live long enough doesn’t a waning libido take care of this little problem for us? How many octogenarians still have regular sex. ( :sick: ) And yet old people continue to have reasons to stay together.

Well, I don’t know about now, but Story Musgrave recently turned 80, and his youngest is under 10, so stuff was obviously working not that long ago.

Is it seen as a benefit to loose desire in our bodies?

From some of the posts above, I get the impression many feel sexuality is a nuisance, and we would all be better if we could just eliminate the desire in the first place.

I was always of the opinion that if I could, I wanted to be sexually active until 2 days before I died,…and those 2 days I would be unconscience, so it wouldn’t matter anyway. And, FWIW, I am NOT talking tongue and cheek here,…I’m completely serious.

Do we really have solid doctrine that what happens in heaven is better than sex, and somehow this makes sex not desirable (or less desirable) there? This seems like a dangling carrot idea, leading us forward on promises of something grand and better than–but what is that? What is the doctrine, true or not, that directly supports this?

I once asked a friend, then my siblings, eventually my parents–never getting a good answer ever–the question: “Why do I want to go to heaven?” They would say: “Oh, because you get to have worlds, you get to know everything, you get this and that.” I was always perplexed, and they couldn’t address that. You see, I don’t know what it is like to have worlds. So, why would it be so bad if I never got worlds?—I wouldn’t miss anything because I had no concept of what that was like in the first place. What about knowing everything? So, I could be a know-it-all, literally? And this will produce eternal joy for me?

The bottom line for me is the more I thought about it, the ONLY thing I would desire in heaven is to be happy. Nothing else really matters. This fits with what JS said: Joy is the purpose and design of our existence.

Well, the general idea many seem to have is that spirit children, and lets not forget Adam & Eve (who I was taught were literal children of Heavenly Parents,…and for that matter, food [which JC ate himself as a resurrected being] had the purpose of being used by our heavenly parents resurrected bodies to organize the children in HM womb–I was taught this in an institute class, and it makes pretty good sense to me) has the purpose of being used to create life in our bodies. So, if children are created somehow in a test-tube, does that, if true, negate sex as well? And, in this life, is sexuality not associated with joy?

Here is a spin-off question that relates. We have on record that Jesus Christ ate food as a resurrected man. Wait?….does a resurrected body require food or it will deteriorate and starve? Doesn’t seem likely to me, so my speculation is we will not need to eat once we are resurrected.

But Jesus ate food.

Question: if food is not required, then why eat? Why engage in an activity that had no purpose other than to show apostles he had a body?

It appears to me that the biological function of being able to consume food still exists in a resurrected body. Can we now stretch that so far as to say the biological function of sexuality is stripped from the same body? If it exists and doesn’t necessarily have a function other than it can be done, does that mean NO ONE EVER will have sex, even though they have the ability?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Harold B. Lee

A spirit, Abraham says, is an organized intelligence. This is the first beginning we have in our understanding of what a spirit is. It is an organized intelligence that lived as a spirit before this world was. (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p.28)

There is something that is not created or made. The scriptures called it “intelligence,” which at a certain stage in the pre-existence was organized into a “spirit.” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p.74)

Quote:

Joseph Fielding Smith

Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:127)

If the Lord declares that intelligence, something which we do not fully understand, was co-eternal with him and always existed, there is no argument that we can or should present to contradict it. Why he cannot create intelligence is simply because intelligence, like time and space, always existed, and therefore did not have to be created. However, intelligences spoken of in the Book of Abraham were created, for these are spirit children of God, begotten sons. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:125)

Quote:

Joseph Smith

But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself–that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits.

Quote:

Church authorities have indicated that spirit birth was not the beginning. Spencer W. Kimball, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote, “Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, Salt Lake City, 1969). Marion G. Romney, of the First Presidency, speaking of people’s divine origin as children of God, stated, “Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit beings” (Ensign 8 [Nov. 1978]:14).

So, two things.

1. Spirits are made from a pre-existing, co-eternal substance. Therefore not produced by the body of celestial parents, but is perhaps transmuted in some fashion.

2. There is no indication that anyone but God himself was around when this happened, but celestial sex seems to be a later development, perhaps a holdover from Brigham Young and Adam-God.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Most of all I don’t like the idea of making relatively costly sacrifices in this life mostly for the sake of promised future blessings or punishments that could easily never be delivered for all we really know.

This comment from DA really rang true for me. I have had this thought many times. Faith is the first principle of the gospel and is one of the main tenents of just about any religion. And so much abuse has happened to people because of it (People’s temple, for example). It reminds me of a shoe salesman who, when I raised an objection about the shoes not feeling right, said “Once you get them home and start wearing them around they will feel right”.

Of course, by that time I couldn’t return the shoes as they will have been worn. I am also starting to wonder what’s so bad about evidence before you plunk town 10% of your income or dedicate 15 hours a week for the rest of your life. What if — just — what if — you die and find the faith ladder has been leaning against the wrong wall??? The more I experience life, the more I believe the odds are better that there is no ONE right way, and that good living will be honored no matter what religion we belong to.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Is it seen as a benefit to loose desire in our bodies?

It depends on the desire and it depends on the person. Someone that wants to quit smoking may want to lose the desire to smoke for instance. When it comes to sex… I bet most people wouldn’t want to lose the desire but *expletive* happens. I view that as a part of aging, being humbled by our deteriorating bodies. Different bodies deteriorate in different ways. A lot of people have spent a lot of money on pills so they don’t have to lose that aspect of their lives. Obviously it’s important.

Rob4Hope wrote:

It is with interest I have read the posts to this thread. Most are of the opinion that sexual relations will not exist in heaven. This is VERY interesting to me in that it changes a fundamental dynamic if true, spilling into all kinds of other topics.

Rob4Hope wrote:

From some of the posts above, I get the impression many feel sexuality is a nuisance, and we would all be better if we could just eliminate the desire in the first place.

I think there’s a difference between saying that sex isn’t required in order to keep the eternities churning along and saying that sex will not be allowed. If resurrected bodies have all the parts who or what is going to stop people from having sex? Maybe the argument is that resurrected bodies don’t have all the parts. If the resurrection ensures that not so much as a hair on our heads is lost (Alma 40:23) then I’ve got to assume that the resurrection will also look out for my netherbits. I mean, if the choice was down to losing a few hairs (of which I’ve lost many and have somehow coped) and losing the netherbits…

Maybe the question isn’t “are people allowed?” so much as it is “will people still want to?” because I think that’s the only thing that is going to hold people back. If they want to they will, if they don’t they won’t and that determination probably comes down to the individual.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Do we really have solid doctrine that what happens in heaven is better than sex, and somehow this makes sex not desirable (or less desirable) there? This seems like a dangling carrot idea, leading us forward on promises of something grand and better than–but what is that? What is the doctrine, true or not, that directly supports this?

If you think about it we don’t have solid doctrine on much of anything. We don’t even know how to properly teach about mortal life sex, what makes you think we’ve got it all figured out for the afterlife.

Rob4Hope wrote:

I once asked a friend, then my siblings, eventually my parents–never getting a good answer ever–the question: “Why do I want to go to heaven?” They would say: “Oh, because you get to have worlds, you get to know everything, you get this and that.” I was always perplexed, and they couldn’t address that. You see, I don’t know what it is like to have worlds. So, why would it be so bad if I never got worlds?—I wouldn’t miss anything because I had no concept of what that was like in the first place. What about knowing everything? So, I could be a know-it-all, literally? And this will produce eternal joy for me?

The bottom line for me is the more I thought about it, the ONLY thing I would desire in heaven is to be happy. Nothing else really matters. This fits with what JS said: Joy is the purpose and design of our existence.

Gotta be careful with joy and happiness. They are both relative.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Well, the general idea many seem to have is that spirit children, and lets not forget Adam & Eve (who I was taught were literal children of Heavenly Parents,…and for that matter, food [which JC ate himself as a resurrected being] had the purpose of being used by our heavenly parents resurrected bodies to organize the children in HM womb–I was taught this in an institute class, and it makes pretty good sense to me) has the purpose of being used to create life in our bodies. So, if children are created somehow in a test-tube, does that, if true, negate sex as well? And, in this life, is sexuality not associated with joy?

If we’re talking joy in the afterlife and it requiring having spirit children I’m going to say for the afterlife what I’ve often said for this life. I don’t want babies so much but I wouldn’t be against adopting a bunch of filthy rich 30 year olds.

Everything is speculation. That’s the joy of being human, the only mental walls we have are the ones we erect (pun?) ourselves. The theology has heaven being the place where we have billions of spirit children, eventually reboot the Matrix, and do it all over again. What if earth is the place where life is born and intelligences are first organized? If you shed the concept of the preexistence it can change the game dramatically.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Here is a spin-off question that relates. We have on record that Jesus Christ ate food as a resurrected man. Wait?….does a resurrected body require food or it will deteriorate and starve? Doesn’t seem likely to me, so my speculation is we will not need to eat once we are resurrected.

But Jesus ate food.

Question: if food is not required, then why eat? Why engage in an activity that had no purpose other than to show apostles he had a body?

Because he wanted to.

Rob4Hope wrote:

It appears to me that the biological function of being able to consume food still exists in a resurrected body. Can we now stretch that so far as to say the biological function of sexuality is stripped from the same body? If it exists and doesn’t necessarily have a function other than it can be done, does that mean NO ONE EVER will have sex, even though they have the ability?

Stretch away!

Maybe this goes along with what DA was saying, maybe not, but what’s stopping us from making our mortal life what we want in the afterlife (besides lots of money and perfect health of course)? Stop waiting until some future event like death happens and start living the hoped for life now. I guess it all depends on what your hopes are, hopes are relative. Still it would be nice to think that we are currently living our ideal afterlife and the afterlife is just a transition into more of the same except without that pesky death and illness thing.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

If the resurrection ensures that not so much as a hair on our heads is lost (Alma 40:23)

I’m just glad it specifies the head. After all, if I don’t have to worry about cold toilet seats anymore, I can do without the butt hair.

As for Jesus eating, maybe He just likes food. After all, wouldn’t most people’s concept of heaven include junk food you can’t get fat from?

[Anonymous]

NSG…..oh my h3ll. I laughed so hard when I read this I spilled my morning beverage!!!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Let me be much more clear and precise than I have been so far:

I have no idea if there will be sex after this life. What I believe deeply is that there won’t be pregnancy or gestational birth. In other words, if there is sex, I believe it won’t have anything to do with procreation.

I would love it if perfect sex happens after death. I have never characterized sex as a “nuisance”. I just don’t base my view of Heaven on needing sexual intercourse – and I reject completely and unequivocally the idea of “giving birth” in the next life.

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of doing something because you like it. Period.

I know some people who like Golf. I personally don’t, but they do. So can they go play golf in heaven because they want to,…and no other reason? Is God “anti-Golf” because it isn’t the “best” or “better” choice, or whatever reason you want to discount it? Because its a waste of time?…(oh wait, time doesn’t exist there). It’s a waist of energy?…(oh wait, there is no shortage of infinite energy). Running out of reasons here to discount it…..

Can 2 people who are married (I suppose heterosexual to be LDS legal) and have the parts choose to engage those parts making whoopie because they like it?

When we get into discussion about things not existing in heaven because they are not productive, or whatever the argument is, it makes me hate the idea of going to heaven. How boring….nothing but work, work, work, and the environment there seems so sterile that there isn’t anything just for fun? Does God ever laugh? Does he ever play? Oh no….he’s GOD. His dignity, His poise, His position, His power,…all of it is just so high and noble that for him to play can’t be,…right?

And this idea that heaven is for children,..or “childlike”. Wait?…children play. THEY PLAY! In fact, if you prevent a child from playing, you will damage that child–it is necessary, even essential in their development. So, we go to heaven, are suppose to be “childlike”…and we don’t play because, hey?…it ain’t godlike or dignified?

This whole topic of sexual relations in heaven goes way beyond sex–it involves having pleasure (which includes play if you ask me)–for the simple sake of having fun. Period.

It doesn’t make sense to me that we would be resurrected with all of our parts (and I do believe this), for them to become utter obsolete with no purpose whatsoever. And, anecdotal evidence suggests that play is a BIG part of heaven,…even essential. For example, I have read several NDE books, and one of the things that is listed in the most joyous societies there is laughter and play. It is intrinsic to life there–people play and have fun. They also work,..but THEY HAVE FUN TO…for the purpose of having fun.

But not sex,…oh no. That is not dignified…it is just plain carnal,… (I’m talking tongue and cheek here)…we have to “mortify the flesh” (like Calvanists teach) because having passions and desire of this nature is carnal.

If their ain’t no fun in heaven, including no sex because it is toooooooooo carnal, I ain’t going. I wouldn’t belong there. I like to laugh. Sometimes I actually smile. I can’t stand golf,…but I might want to run. In fact, I have a goal….I ran in highschool and I was terrible at it: my lungs felt like the would catch fire. When I am resurrected, I want to run 100 miles at a full sprint… I want to feel whatever is in my veins pump through my body. I don’t really care what is going on in my body so long as I can feel it. I want to feel my legs pound lightning fast on the ground as I move forward. I want to feel my body rise up and meet the challenge,..and I want to feel it. Why?…BECAUSE I DO!

Some may say:…Oh, you will not be interested in that because you will be so much above that sort of thing. Well, maybe I don’t want to be “above that sort of thing.” If I don’t get to run and have that dream come true because it is above where I am, then I think I choose to be damned and be at a lower place. I want to choose what I get to enjoy, what I get to experience, and what I get to feel. I would rather be damned and have those choices then in ‘heaven’ (whatever that is) and have things denied me because I am so high and mighty.

[Author]

Posts