Tricky question: Is there sexual relations in heaven?

[Anonymous]

Well it’s not always a bad thing.

If I work extra hard at rehab I can walk again.

For example.

Rob4Hope wrote:

If we know FOR SURE the outcome, then make the promise and build the hope. If we don’t know, then make sure those who are being given the line know it might work, but there are no guarantees.

I agree with this, but I also think that when people make the promises they sincerely believe that they know for sure and can thus make the guarantee. I know I sure felt that way when I was more orthodox. For me it’s far more challenging to retain hope when there are no guarantees.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Well it’s not always a bad thing.

If I work extra hard at rehab I can walk again.

For example.

Rob4Hope wrote:

If we know FOR SURE the outcome, then make the promise and build the hope. If we don’t know, then make sure those who are being given the line know it might work, but there are no guarantees.

I agree with this, but I also think that when people make the promises they sincerely believe that they know for sure and can thus make the guarantee. I know I sure felt that way when I was more orthodox. For me it’s far more challenging to retain hope when there are no guarantees.

The whole topic of this thread?….I struggle with this particular issue BECAUSE it is a carrot hung out for some, and for others it is just a dead promise. It has been fascinating to see the differences with regards to how this topic played out.

If sexual relations are not needed for children, then it changes the entire scope of things as I have been taught my whole life–another shift in the narrative. We have a HF and a HM…or so we are taught; but, they don’t have sexual relations and we weren’t born?….we were somehow formed or created out of the pool of celestial muck? ….or generated by some ethereal power separate yet eternal with god?

In every walk of this planet with VERY few exception, being a father or mother implies something sexual happened. To father a child, or mother a child, beyond the idea of “raising” them, involves sexual relations–this is how we use the words. I concede there are exceptions, like Fankenstein being the father of his monster, but those exceptions are not that large. There is also the exception of us being the children of Christ when we know he didn’t father us; however, at the same time, we are taught by Christ to pray to “my father and your father”.

There is a doctrine taught by JS that i’ve read (and would like to see a reference if someone can dig it out) that Christ was conceived by Mary and God in the old fashioned way. True of false, JC is considered the literal offspring of God. When I was younger, I use to marvel about this, and for years I simply felt that somehow HF (and I am not trying in any way to be disrespectful here) got his sperm into her without the sexual act. At the time, it was unthinkable for me to consider there was anything sexual. Since that time, I have read things that open up the possiblity, though I don’t necessarily like it.

Anyway, the point here is that the ideals of Father and Mother have specific connotations. To discount that as a cosmic lie, or a cosmic misunderstanding that has not been corrected or clarified by LDS authorities, is another VERY BIG PROBLEM.

Basically, the idea is: “There is no sex in heaven, we are not the children of God, and he just formed us. He likes us to call him father because that is better and more personal than being called ‘creator’ or ‘organizer’, and all that. But, other than him forming us, we have no personal relationship to him other than we were all scooped out of the same celestial sludge.”

Now, why the LDS faith pushes eternal marriage is utterly baffling to me, because in this life, the ONLY thing you can have in marriage and not outside without breaking moral laws (as taught by virtually all christian churches) is sexual relations. We get married for sex…I believe this. We can have deep and exclusive friendships outside of marriage, but inside?….only one thing makes that a different relationship than all others.

And, since many of you believe sex is NOT something that happens in heaven, then WHY eternal marriage that is supposed to last into heaven? And, if we are not offspring from God, then why should we have any desire or intention of calling him father instead of “head scientist”?

Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

The whole topic of this thread?….I struggle with this particular issue BECAUSE it is a carrot hung out for some, and for others it is just a dead promise. It has been fascinating to see the differences with regards to how this topic played out.

If sexual relations are not needed for children, then it changes the entire scope of things as I have been taught my whole life–another shift in the narrative. We have a HF and a HM…or so we are taught; but, they don’t have sexual relations and we weren’t born?….we were somehow formed or created out of the pool of celestial muck? ….or generated by some ethereal power separate yet eternal with god?

….

There is a doctrine taught by JS that i’ve read (and would like to see a reference if someone can dig it out) that Christ was conceived by Mary and God in the old fashioned way. True of false, JC is considered the literal offspring of God. When I was younger, I use to marvel about this, and for years I simply felt that somehow HF (and I am not trying in any way to be disrespectful here) got his sperm into her without the sexual act. At the time, it was unthinkable for me to consider there was anything sexual. Since that time, I have read things that open up the possiblity, though I don’t necessarily like it.

Anyway, the point here is that the ideals of Father and Mother have specific connotations. To discount that as a cosmic lie, or a cosmic misunderstanding that has not been corrected or clarified by LDS authorities, is another VERY BIG PROBLEM.

Basically, the idea is: “There is no sex in heaven, we are not the children of God, and he just formed us. He likes us to call him father because that is better and more personal than being called ‘creator’ or ‘organizer’, and all that. But, other than him forming us, we have no personal relationship to him other than we were all scooped out of the same celestial sludge.”

….

And, since many of you believe sex is NOT something that happens in heaven, then WHY eternal marriage that is supposed to last into heaven? And, if we are not offspring from God, then why should we have any desire or intention of calling him father instead of “head scientist”?

Just curious.

Regarding God and Mary, I stole this from the Internet instead of typing it out, emphasis to the author.

Quote:

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.” (JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121).

To illustrate more clearly that Brigham Young meant that Christ’s conception was actual physical sex, here is another of his statements:

“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD–was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson Manual “Gospel Living in the Home,” p. 16-17:

“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh…” (as quoted from ‘The Articles of Faith’ by James E. Talmage, p. 466).

“We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh….how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and make mystery of it?” (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, ‘Box Elder Times,’ Sep. 22, 1914).

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father.” (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).

Some other thoughts

Why do we say that faithful members who miss out on marriage in this life will be married in the next when the scriptures say otherwise?

Quote:

Spencer W. Kimball

It matters not how righteous they may have been, how intelligent or how well trained they are. No one will enter this highest glory unless he enters into the covenant, and this means the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

These are the words of the Lord. They were said directly to us.

“Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants [they may be worthy and righteous, but they are ministering servants], to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

“For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.” (D&C 132:6, 16–17.)

But elsewhere in the same talk….

To you women, we can only say we have no control over the heartbeats or the affections of men, but pray that you may find fulfillment. And in the meantime, we promise you that insofar as eternity is concerned, no soul will be deprived of rich and high and eternal blessings for anything which that person could not help, that the Lord never fails in his promises, and that every righteous person will receive eventually all to which the person is entitled and which he or she has not forfeited through any fault of his or her own. We encourage both men and women to keep themselves well-groomed, well-dressed, abreast of the times, attractive mentally, spiritually, physically, and especially morally, and then they can lean heavily upon the Lord’s promises for these heavenly blessings.

SWK, the importance of celestial marriage, 1976.

The answer is that our theologies, doctrines, folk doctrines and traditions are a jumbled mess. Cafeteria Mormonism is the only way people cope.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

SWK wrote: We encourage both men and women to keep themselves well-groomed, well-dressed, abreast of the times, attractive mentally, spiritually, physically, and especially morally, and then they can lean heavily upon the Lord’s promises for these heavenly blessings.

So SWK is saying if you are a beautiful person, God will bless you accordingly, as long as you don’t sleep around.

If you were born ugly, try hard, but don’t expect much. But .. consolation prize — You can be an angelic servant for beautiful people for all eternity.

My brothers used to say, “Beauty may be only skin deep, but ugly go clear to the bone”. I never knew God agreed.

[Anonymous]

Who is holding a carrot about this topic? Where is manipulation?

Don’t get too frustrated at the church because of things that are done by individuals sharing opinions and any hearsay, even if by leaders.

There is no doctrine on this matter and we can speculate and believe what we want.

None of our wandering thoughts will change the next life.

At some point I think we do as nibbler pointed out and find hope and things we have peace about and let go of the rest.

I don’t much care about sex in the next life because it feels too based on primal needs of this world which I hope all go away. If I embrace some needs for eternity, it likely brings other things and I may not want those.

Either way, you can believe whatever you feel right about and find hope in. No one can prove you wrong. The church isn’t manipulating me if I don’t let it.

[Anonymous]

Ideas can be used manipulatively, but deeply held beliefs expressed sincerely is not intentional manipulation.

I believe our leadership believes what they teach – that they are not intentionally lying or manipulating.

Also, in some way, each and every one of us manipulates others, including people we love. Refusing to cast the first stone is an important concept, and it is vital to internal peace.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

And, since many of you believe sex is NOT something that happens in heaven, then WHY eternal marriage that is supposed to last into heaven? And, if we are not offspring from God, then why should we have any desire or intention of calling him father instead of “head scientist”?

Just curious.

Simply because my marriage is about more than sex and I believe we can be “offspring” without it being sexual reproduction. I don’t know how God created the universe, but I believe He did. The Big Bang seems plausible to me, and as was mentioned in another thread by someone else I am inspired by watching Cosmos – I believe I am “star stuff.” There are other plausible explanations for how the universe was created and there are likely ways it could have happened that our finite minds can’t even begin to imagine. Likewise, I believe evolution is a plausible explanation for how man came to be on the earth. In my mind evolution is very likely how God did it. Others have different opinions and explanations and that’s fine. I could be wrong on the Big bang and evolution, and if I am and come to further light and knowledge at some future date (or some other non-linear way of reckoning) that’s great. For now I see through a glass darkly, then I will know – as we all will (I hope).

Speaking as a member, not as a mod, you asked the question Rob. People have offered their opinions and you clearly have your own opinion. That’s great – we can have our own opinions here and not have to try to convince you we are right and vice versa. People can only say the same thing so many ways. You believe there’s sex in heaven, I don’t. I still love and respect you because bottom line is we just don’t know – “but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”

[Anonymous]

Hi Rob4Hope. I just want to say before I start this response that I don’t want to be misinterpreted as being disrespectful or tearing down your concerns or questions. I’ve read a lot of your posts and gained a lot from them. It’s not my intention at all to pick them apart and I hope that I don’t come off that way.

Now that that’s been said, I was taught in seminary that when we are resurrected, we will NOT have bodies of flesh and blood, but will have bodies of flesh and bone. This was pulled from Doctrine and Covenants. I don’t remember the verses but I can pull them up later. Anyway, this teaching that we will not have bodies of flesh and blood was in the manual. This said to me that there wouldn’t be sex in heaven, at least, not the way we have sex in this life. After all…without going into specifics, well, without blood, it just wouldn’t work. Joseph Fielding Smith also taught that resurrected bodies will not have blood.

So there’s that.

Of course, as I got older I learned about Brigham Young’s forsaken teachings of women being eternally pregnant and men having a wife for each planet and while that doesn’t necessarily imply sex it felt very wrong :sick:

Personally, if there is a heaven the way we construe it to be, and we have no sex drive, I don’t think we’ll miss it that much. Maybe there’s something greater. The point is, if it’s heaven we’re talking about, well, I think we’re going to be pretty happy with what we have. If sex isn’t an option, then I doubt there will be a sex drive in people, although my idea of heaven is extremely limited. It’s similar to how some people imagine heaven being a place where they can continuously eat delicious food without feeling full whereas others don’t want to have to eat ever again and hope that need is taken from them in heaven. Maybe we won’t have the need or desire to eat in heaven and will look back at all of our revelings in food as ridiculous and unnecessary. Maybe we will get that feast. I don’t know.

Now, on to some things you’ve said:

Rob4Hope wrote:

Basically, the idea is: “There is no sex in heaven, we are not the children of God, and he just formed us. He likes us to call him father because that is better and more personal than being called ‘creator’ or ‘organizer’, and all that. But, other than him forming us, we have no personal relationship to him other than we were all scooped out of the same celestial sludge.”

Interesting. I don’t see a sex act as a qualifier for being the children of God. I don’t understand why intercourse (the way we understand it and practice it in this mortal world) would be the necessity to distinguish us as children of God versus just being pulled from celestial slush. I don’t see how an act of sex gives him anymore personal connection to us than if he created us through another way, perhaps even a higher form of what “sex” is. For all we know there’s an amazing way where husband and wife touch hands and “Poof!” there’s another child and both the process and outcome of this is fulfilling for both. Perhaps the complexities of how spirit children are created are too complicated for us to understand–I lean towards this belief.

Also, I was told as a young girl on Sunday that a General Authority (no idea who) had once told one of my teachers that sex was the only reason why men get married and stay with their families. Without a sex drive, they wouldn’t be loving fathers and respectful husbands. They’d just up and leave. What a sad thing for an impressionable young girl to think…and does a number on the psychology of women in the church. That the only reason a man would entertain having me as a life partner and raising children with me would be for sex? That basically God had to invent a biological instinct to get men to value us women enough to enter a life union with?

Our church culture is messed up when it comes to gender roles and sexuality, but that’s for another thread.

But anyway, I disagree with sex being the point of getting married, or the reason we get married. Not trying to say that what you implied is the same thing that was taught to me as a young girl.

Again, hope I didn’t come off disrespectful or aggressive.

[Anonymous]

Everyone, thanks for the responses. University,…I just read yours, and you are not offensive, and neither is anyone else. After this post, I suppose if others want to post, that is fine, but I feel like this thread has been hashed. Maybe time to lock it down.

Let me do my best to clarify some specifics.

First, about sex and marriage. I submit that in my mind, the defining characteristic of marriage–the thing that makes it different than any other relationship that exists — is sexuality. Let me give some examples.

I have a sister, for example, who has been sick in her life. I’ve cradled her, touched her lovingly, stroked her tenderly, spoke to her at extremely deep emotional levels. With her I have had deep and profound intimacy. I have, however, never broken moral law with her. I share this example because I know that deep intimacy does NOT make a relationship uniquely individual, and neither does marriage. Can you all not have such relationships–deep emotional intimacy with someone, without breaking moral law? I have, with men as well…and guess what, didn’t break moral code.

What about money? Can you merge your money with someone without breaking moral law? Yep.

What about marriage? Can you be married to someone and remain non-sexual, without breaking moral law? The only moral law you would break at this point (leaving the LGBT out of it for argument) is to be sexual OUTSIDE of marriage. But what if you never engage in sex inside of marriage? Does this marriage instantly appear unique or somehow special? This is where it gets a little tricky,…doesn’t it. And, why is that I ask?

I submit that what makes marriage uniquely individual is that in marriage, all sexual intimacies are reserved ONLY for the partner. As Elder Holland would call it, sexuality is “The sacrament of marriage.” It makes marriage different than any other relationship there is. So, if you take sexuality out of marriage, or at least the commitment to reserve this ONLY for your partner, then I believe the marriage looses something. It is the one single act I am aware of that makes it just special and unique. That is my perspective of why it is so special, and why marriage is defined and rarefied, made unique, by it. That is my perspective on that.

I would love examples of what in marriage besides sexuality makes it the most unique and individual relationship there is. This reserving yourself for your partner exclusively in a sexual way, is the one moral imperative that sets marriage apart like no other relationship. And, it keeps things inside of defined moral law.

Second, the idea of resurrected people and sexuality. Let me spend a moment here.

The idea has been put forth about spirit and blood, the differences if you will. We know a great deal from the NT about JC and the resurrection. For example, we know that Jesus ate food. Now, I personally believe that a resurrected body doesn’t need to eat–if it doesn’t eat, it will not starve. But, JC retained the ability to eat in his body. This indicates to me he had teeth, a mouth, a throat, a stomach, and they worked to deal with food.

Jesus also had the ability to speak. In the NT, he spoke to his apostles. So, he probably still had lungs and the ability to blow air across his vocal cords or whatever he had, make sound, and articulate that sound with speech. Does a resurrected being need to speak?…probably not, but he retained the ability. He also had feet and could walk: he walked with his disciples along the road to Emaus.

Jesus even had the amazing ability to retain the marks of his wounds–the holes in hands and feet, and the spear wound in his side. This means he could even retain, probably if he chose (and choice is important to this argument), marks that he had while he was mortal.

So, you have this resurrected being who has the ability to breath, speak, eat, talk, walk, be touched, hear, see, and a few other things. As i pointed out above, there may have been a better way for him to do these things as a resurrected being. Because JC had spirit and not blood at this point of his life, did that somehow negate anything else in him? We know he still looked like a man. We know he had all these other abilities. And, in scripture we are taught that everything will be restored to its proper and perfect frame. So, does this mean that in a perfected and perfect frame, a resurrected male doesn’t have his nether parts?

I’m sorry, but this is a pretty big stretch. It would be just as big of a stretch to say a resurrected woman looses her feminine characteristics such as breasts.

It is established that JC had a lot of his abilities left, and whether they were needed or not, he could use them as he chose. He ate. He walked. He talked. He somehow took air into his body and spoke. He cried in other scripture, so had water in his body. How else would there be tears?

If he had all of these abilities, how can it be said that he absolutely had no ability to be sexual if he chose? There seem to be only two possibilities: 1) he was resurrected without the parts; 2) he made a conscience decision to NOT engage those parts, but this was his choice.

I say that #1 is false.

I say that #2 comes down to a choice.

The arguments above have moved around a little. Spirit children is a sticky area…I don’t really know about this, and I concede I don’t know. Pregnancy? and would pregnancy be negated because we have spirit in our body instead of blood? I don’t think that is a valid argument because we have on record that a resurrected being can pass through walls of solid structures: Jesus visited his apostles in a closed room. If a resurrected being has this amazing ability which is virtually beyond comprehension, then can we say with clarity that such a being can’t be a parent in the old fashioned way? I don’t know one way or the other. I concede I don’t know this.

However,….this thread is: “Is there sexual relations in heaven?”

I believe all of the necessary parts are contained in a resurrected body. I have not heard a single argument above that persuades me otherwise. I am convinced that a resurrected body retains a myriad of capabilities, many of which are arguably not needed, but still retained. So, I submit that it comes down to choice: if a resurrected couple wants to be sexual, they have the ability. And, they are married, so they have made an eternal covenant to retain that part of their relationship exclusively for each other.

That is as clear as I can present myself at this point. To everyone who disagrees, we will have to disagree…and I’m OK with that.

Anyway,…I have enjoyed reading the MANY differing responses to this thread. I don’t believe I will post again on this one. I feel like it got hashed enough.

[Anonymous]

I guess the topic is dying but…

I’m not so sure I agree with the notion that sexual organs won’t function because the resurrected body has no blood. That could pretty much be said of any body part. The brain won’t function because there’s no blood, the heart, etc. It’s hard to conceive how a body with no blood operates because that’s all we currently know. I’d lump that one in with “we just don’t know.”

Rob4Hope wrote:

I don’t think that is a valid argument because we have on record that a resurrected being can pass through walls of solid structures: Jesus visited his apostles in a closed room.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful with this but how much stock can be placed on that record or any record for that matter? There are records of Jesus’ childhood where he curses a child for bumping into his shoulder as the child runs by. The child immediately dropped dead. Jesus later curses the parents of that child with blindness when they showed up to complain. IIRC Jesus just dares Joseph to do something about it when Joseph tries to tell Jesus he did something wrong. Check out the Infancy Gospel of Thomas when you get a chance. It’s like the plot from the Twilight Zone episode called It’s a Good Life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a record. We’re quick to toss out the fantastically bad portions of the records because they don’t mesh with what we’d like to believe about Jesus but we could just as easily toss out the fantastically good portions of the records. One record is just as plausible or implausible as another. Perhaps that’s the subject of a different thread.

First things first. I’d like to resurrect. Once I have that under my belt I’ll begin to worry about other things under my belt. 🙂

That would be telling wouldn’t it. I resurrect, experience that great sense of euphoria that there even is an afterlife, then after a few moments look to my left and to my right to make sure no one is watching, and part my robe to make sure everything is there. Look skyward and give a big :wave: :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

I think that some people want to say there is sex in the afterlife to affirm that sex is good and of God (so honey, stop being so frigid!!!) Others the opposite.

And who knows DJ – maybe the big bang was the big O that created our universe out of several other parallel universes.

[Anonymous]

university wrote:

Also, I was told as a young girl on Sunday that a General Authority (no idea who) had once told one of my teachers that sex was the only reason why men get married and stay with their families. Without a sex drive, they wouldn’t be loving fathers and respectful husbands.

I think that is a TERRIBLE thing to tell young women. I think that is an absurd comment (perhaps revealing the mind of the person who said it, makes me think they are closet pervert or something…or at the very least…incredibly stupid and unintelligent).

I would never let my daughters think such a thing and then after marriage feel pressured to please their husband or else he’ll leave. That’s awful. I would much prefer my children having a healthier view of sex and life and marriage and self-identity.

Our church does a crappy job teaching sexuality and identity. It’s so taboo it is avoided…then when cracked open to talk there is crazy-nut-job things thrown out there…then closed shut to leave young people wondering all kinds of things. All the more reason parents need to be direct and open with their kids about stuff before marriage. (And also…the same reason this past Sunday stake standards night was skipped by my kids because I don’t want them exposed to crazy comments I don’t trust mormons to give my kids).

To the topic of Sexual relations in heaven, I think Rob did a good job summing up his position. And I respect that. Great input from everyone.

nibbler wrote:

I don’t mean to be disrespectful with this but how much stock can be placed on that record or any record for that matter?

I think that plays a HUGE role in this discussion. Well said, nibbler. That is probably a whole other thread in and of itself. But…it is pretty significant in our forming speculative beliefs off of the kinds of documents we have as scripture.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

First things first. I’d like to resurrect. Once I have that under my belt I’ll begin to worry about other things under my belt.

I suppose this is part of my issue. I am not convinced of a literal resurrection. I hope for a continuing on in some form of awareness after death. I hope that in my state of awareness I am permitted to associate with others. For me it would be a hell to be aware and be alone. IF I resurrect THEN these other issues become interesting questions but for now they are too removed from my present condition to worry about.

LookingHard wrote:

I think that some people want to say there is sex in the afterlife to affirm that sex is good and of God (so honey, stop being so frigid!!!) Others the opposite.

This makes sense. If DW was convinced that living in a sexless marriage was somehow living a higher principle then this discussion would suddenly become EXTREMELY relevant to my current condition.

university wrote:

Also, I was told as a young girl on Sunday that a General Authority (no idea who) had once told one of my teachers that sex was the only reason why men get married and stay with their families. Without a sex drive, they wouldn’t be loving fathers and respectful husbands. They’d just up and leave.

FWIW, I believe that there is a grain of truth in this statement but it has been distorted into an overly broad generalization that is presented as an absolute. First, I believe that sex and sex drive is one of the primary reasons why many young men get married. Next, I believe that sexual intimacy helps create and reaffirm a bond and that this bond is helpful in keeping marriage partners happy, loyal, loving, and respectful. I understand that the importance of sex may vary for individuals and couples but I believe that my statement would hold true for most.

In this day and age sex is no longer only available in marriage. In fact the group of individuals that have sex most often are those living together but not married. If sex were the only reason for young men to get married then there would be large swaths of the population not getting married. It just seems to me as a false assertion on its face.

OTOH, I also believe it would be a mistake to discount the sexual aspect. It can be a powerful driving and motivational force.

Just my $.02 🙂

[Anonymous]

university wrote:

Also, I was told as a young girl on Sunday that a General Authority (no idea who) had once told one of my teachers that sex was the only reason why men get married and stay with their families. Without a sex drive, they wouldn’t be loving fathers and respectful husbands. They’d just up and leave.

We’re inherently lazy though; without a sex drive we wouldn’t leave, because we wouldn’t have a reason to be anywhere else, either.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Ideas can be used manipulatively, but deeply held beliefs expressed sincerely is not intentional manipulation…I believe our leadership believes what they teach – that they are not intentionally lying or manipulating…Also, in some way, each and every one of us manipulates others, including people we love. Refusing to cast the first stone is an important concept, and it is vital to internal peace.

I don’t see how believing the idea that the Church supposedly has a monopoly on marriage in the afterlife makes it any less manipulative. If anything it seems like believing in this promise and the threat of losing out on this are real would make relying on this as a convenient way to get people to conform easier especially if Church leaders are convinced this is for people’s own good. I don’t believe that Church leaders sit around talking about how to intentionally trick people for the sake of collecting tithing or anything like that but I do think they continue to put so much emphasis on temple marriage more than many other traditional LDS beliefs largely because they feel like that is one of the best ways to achieve the results they want to see (long term obedience and belief in the Church).

That’s what I have a problem with because we are talking about something that is absolutely not a given fact but instead it involves a major leap of faith and trust in scriptures, prophets, etc. that have already proven to be less than reliable time after time. Personally I don’t have a problem with the idea of sex, marriage, etc. in the afterlife in theory but to be honest I think if these possibilities actually turn out to be the case then they will most likely not be exclusive to Mormonism or depend on ordinances, temple recommends, etc. administered by the Church and the claim that the Church is needed to provide this promised outcome really just sounds like a rather crudely implemented all-too-human selling point to excercise control over people.

[Author]

Posts