gay marriage, male wombs, and Mormonism

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to wonder, again: If the LDS notion of "Celestial Perfection" is contingent upon the individual member's own definition, then why shouldn't a homosexual afterlife be a possibility?

What is your source for this doctrine?

What is the counter against my claim? Is there some doctrine stating that "perfection" cannot equal homosexuality? I'd be interested in seeing that.

Countering your claim is easy, from an LDS doctrinal perspective,

In that case, have at it. If it's so easy, that is.

but I'm still wondering where you get the idea that our exaltation is somehow personally and subjectively constructed?

Is there some "objective" notion of Celestial Perfection which gets described in the scriptures? If so, I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

There cannot be a homosexual exaltation for the same reason, conceptually, there can be no intelligible thing such as "Gay" marriage: the Gospel of Jesus Christ precludes homosexuality as a condition of exaltation.

But we don't know that, as per the doctrine of continuing revelation. Moreover, the subjectivity of Celestial Perfection allows for the possibility of a homosexual perfection, as it were. If the Gospel allows for polygamy as a condition of exaltation, I really see no reason, from a doctrinal perspective, why homosexuality cannot also be allowed.

Now, another question. If homosexuals can have their own "designer heaven", what about transsexuals, dominatrixes, pedophiles, and people into animals, sado-masochism, and incest? Where do you draw the line, especially if genetics are at the root of all these fetishes and proclivities?

I would imagine that they get to choose. There have been other threads on this topic before. Usually they ask questions like, "If you are a male, do you get to determine your goddess wife's breast size?", etc. The virtually universal conclusion is: "It's different for everyone." In other words, each person will have a God-sized subjectivity, in which each person's inner-most desires are fully realized in Celestial form.

One facet of the doctrine, I think, is inarguable: We are all assured that exaltation entails "perfection." So, who gets to determine what "perfection" means? Is this written down in the scriptures somewhere? Please feel free to cough up a reference. In the meantime, it seems clear that those who achieve God status can alter reality as it suits them.

[_Mister Scratch]

In it (as you can read in the link), these LDS authors assert that: "It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit” (LDS-SS, p. 11) In other words, they lay the blame on family dysfunctionality. (I guess...) In any case, it seems quite clear that they are treating it as a form of "illness."

You can't save your point here scottie, so cease the attempt. Your interpretation only works within a throughly medicalized, and especially Freudian framework, but nothing above leads to that conclusion. Family dynamics, and "dysfuntionality" are not medical terms or concepts and need not be understood as such. There are other psychotherapeutic modalities that use these term quite without the medical connotation of "illness'.


Grade: F

A) That's not scottie's post.

B) This is an "official" LDS document offering help for "Individuals with Homosexual Problems". The basic argument behind all this (lest we forget) is that the LDS Church doesn't regard homosexuality as an "illness". I've yet to see any real counter to contrary evidence that's so far been provided.

C) I wonder if the BYU "experiments" operated according to this "throughly [sic] medicalized and especially Freudian framework." If they did, then whoops! there goes Coggins's claim right out the window.

[_Coggins7]

A) That's not scottie's post.

B) This is an "official" LDS document offering help for "Individuals with Homosexual Problems". The basic argument behind all this (lest we forget) is that the LDS Church doesn't regard homosexuality as an "illness". I've yet to see any real counter to contrary evidence that's so far been provided.

C) I wonder if the BYU "experiments" operated according to this "throughly [sic] medicalized and especially Freudian framework." If they did, then whoops! there goes Coggins's claim right out the window.

A. That's not scottie's post.

B. Family dynamics, relational problems, and "dysfunction" imply no medical connotation of mental "illness". Show me the text in said documents in which homosexuality is mentioned as a "mental disorder" of some kind. Right, its not present.

C. Stop drinking all that fluoridated water, its sapping your precious bodily fluids (the real cause of homosexuality!).

[_JAK]

Homosexual couples can't eternally increase. So goes one of the common LDS rationales against gay marriage. Could the development of the male womb remove this all-important barrier? Or, alternatively, will it just intensify the bigotry due to how "unnatural" it is?

That homosexuals cannot “conceive” is irrelevant in the larger view. At most, the percent of homosexuals is 5 to 10%. The human race is hardly endangered by the percentage of homosexuals.

As for “unnatural,” don’t you really mean unusual or a minority? Maybe not. Is killing in war natural? Is obesity natural. We have a far greater percentage of the population (in the USA) which is obese than is homosexual.

Was Mozart (the composer) natural? Was Picasso (the painter/artist) natural? Is Tiger Woods (the golf pro) natural?

People have so many hang-ups on issues of sex or sexual orientation that what they see as “unnatural” in that, they don’t see as unnatural in some other venue/area such as the few examples I gave.

The fact that homosexual couples cannot reproduce is irrelevant to the issue of “natural.”

Sex is natural. The response is the same whether it is had with a person of the same sex or a person of the opposite sex or through masturbation.

Attempting a medical operation surgery that would turn a male into a female capable of carrying a pregnancy (artificially induced) to term would be a medical first. I don’t think it has been done. Further, I don’t think the percentage of males who want to have a baby registers on the “meter.”

Artificial limbs are not “natural,” but many war veterans have them and cope and function well with an artificial leg or arm or even hand.

As for “Mormonism” there is a long list of doctrinal shifts in the very short spam of that particular religious group. “Unnatural” is relative to frequency and circumstances under which a particular phenomenon occurs.

JAK

[_Coggins7]

In that case, have at it. If it's so easy, that is.

I already have. The Gospel precludes homosexuality within the concept of exhaltation. This follows, of course, from the fact that the Gospel preclueds sin within the context of the exalted state. No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.


I said:
Quote:
but I'm still wondering where you get the idea that our exaltation is somehow personally and subjectively constructed?

Is there some "objective" notion of Celestial Perfection which gets described in the scriptures? If so, I'd be interested in seeing a reference.

D&C 88:17-39

D%C 76:50-70

The general requirements are very clear, as is the nature of those attaining this glory. Homosexuality, being a gross violation of the Law of Chastity, cannot be a part of this level of existence (nor, of course, can any who die in their sins without having been washed in the blood of the Lamb of God while in this life, if that opportunity was extended).

But, this is all well understood doctrine.


I said:
Quote:
There cannot be a homosexual exaltation for the same reason, conceptually, there can be no intelligible thing such as "Gay" marriage: the Gospel of Jesus Christ precludes homosexuality as a condition of exaltation.

But we don't know that, as per the doctrine of continuing revelation. Moreover, the subjectivity of Celestial Perfection allows for the possibility of a homosexual perfection, as it were. If the Gospel allows for polygamy as a condition of exaltation, I really see no reason, from a doctrinal perspective, why homosexuality cannot also be allowed.

Your just playing word games again Scratch, for the sake of the pose. This is why I don't every stay with you for very long

I said:
Quote:
Now, another question. If homosexuals can have their own "designer heaven", what about transsexuals, dominatrixes, pedophiles, and people into animals, sado-masochism, and incest? Where do you draw the line, especially if genetics are at the root of all these fetishes and proclivities?



I

would imagine that they get to choose. There have been other threads on this topic before. Usually they ask questions like, "If you are a male, do you get to determine your goddess wife's breast size?", etc. The virtually universal conclusion is: "It's different for everyone." In other words, each person will have a God-sized subjectivity, in which each person's inner-most desires are fully realized in Celestial form.

One facet of the doctrine, I think, is inarguable: We are all assured that exaltation entails "perfection." So, who gets to determine what "perfection" means? Is this written down in the scriptures somewhere? Please feel free to cough up a reference. In the meantime, it seems clear that those who achieve God status can alter reality as it suits them.

Your New Age revamping of the Gospel is clever, but banal.

Fin

[_Mister Scratch]

In that case, have at it. If it's so easy, that is.

I already have. The Gospel precludes homosexuality within the concept of exhaltation.

Where? CFR.

This follows, of course, from the fact that the Gospel preclueds sin within the context of the exalted state. No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

What about the homosexual who was obedient during his/her mortal life? *That*, at base, is what I'm getting at.

D&C 88:17-39

D%C 76:50-70

There is nothing in these passages stating that an obedient, exalted homosexual cannot opt for a "gay" Celestial Perfection.

The general requirements are very clear, as is the nature of those attaining this glory. Homosexuality, being a gross violation of the Law of Chastity, cannot be a part of this level of existence (nor, of course, can any who die in their sins without having been washed in the blood of the Lamb of God while in this life, if that opportunity was extended).

Completely beside the point. This only applies to those who fail to meet the standards of entry into the CK in the first place. My argument is that an obedient and worth homosexual can choose to live a gay life in the Celestial Kingdom. There is nothing in LDS doctrine to contradict this.

But, this is all well understood doctrine.

Right. As is this:

D&C 76: 59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

ALL things, including, if s/he so desires, a homosexual exaltation.

But we don't know that, as per the doctrine of continuing revelation. Moreover, the subjectivity of Celestial Perfection allows for the possibility of a homosexual perfection, as it were. If the Gospel allows for polygamy as a condition of exaltation, I really see no reason, from a doctrinal perspective, why homosexuality cannot also be allowed.

Your just playing word games again Scratch, for the sake of the pose. This is why I don't every stay with you for very long

Still waiting for the evidence that exaltation is somehow "objective." If it were objective, that would sort of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? I mean, consider it: you've labored through your entire mortal existence in order to achieve Godhood. Well, if part of the struggle of your mortal existence had to do with homosexuality, don't you think you would use your Godly powers to enjoy such things in the next life?

One facet of the doctrine, I think, is inarguable: We are all assured that exaltation entails "perfection." So, who gets to determine what "perfection" means? Is this written down in the scriptures somewhere? Please feel free to cough up a reference. In the meantime, it seems clear that those who achieve God status can alter reality as it suits them.

Your New Age revamping of the Gospel is clever, but banal.

Fin

In other words: No real counter. I'm sure that it pains many of the more conservative TBMs to think that there might actually be gay Gods up there in the CK, just as I'm sure it pains them that some Gods might be liberal.

[_John Larsen]

I don't know about this artificial womb business. But it won't be long before an embryo can be created using the DNA of any two individuals irregardless of sex or even if they are alive. That doesn't fair well for the whole idea of linage.

[_Coggins7]

What about the homosexual who was obedient during his/her mortal life? *That*, at base, is what I'm getting at.

Now that you've finally been clear about your point, I'll be as clear as I can. The obedient Saint who nonetheless struggles with homosexual desires and feelings, but who does not act upon them, and lives the Gospel to the best of his ability in all other respects, certainly has no bar to exaltation.

However, I would question your use of the term "obedient homosexual". As Elder Oaks has pointed out, homosexuality is not something that is an inherent aspect of our being, but something attached to us here at some point. No one, in this sense, is a homosexual in the sense of an inherent, immutable characteristic. Homosexuality is a sexual practice encompassing various behaviors. Gay is an identity and a lifestyle, and this exists in a different dimension from the bare fact of homosexual feelings. Its an accretion, like many other preoccupations, addictions, or distortions of normal psychological dynamics that can occur in mortality.

One must keep in mind as well that we are judge not only upon our behavior, but upon the thoughts and intents of our hearts as well. It is, assuming that someone with SSA has been free from actual transgression, a matter of such an individual having made peace with his homosexuality or having been dedicated to a continued struggle--its as much a matter of where we are headed, or focused, when we leave this earth, as the point we have arrived at when we leave.

[_Scottie]

Coggins, since when does science have any bearing whatsoever on LDS belief??

Are you actually trying to say that LDS leaders will reserve judgment on the acceptability of homosexuality based on what science finds??

[_Mister Scratch]

However, I would question your use of the term "obedient homosexual". As Elder Oaks has pointed out, homosexuality is not something that is an inherent aspect of our being, but something attached to us here at some point.

Is this doctrine? Or is this merely Elder Oaks's opinion?

No one, in this sense, is a homosexual in the sense of an inherent, immutable characteristic.

Then how does the Church go about explaining the so-called "obedient homosexuals"?

Homosexuality is a sexual practice encompassing various behaviors.

It's not if one is obedient vis-a-vis current Church teachings.

Gay is an identity and a lifestyle, and this exists in a different dimension from the bare fact of homosexual feelings. Its an accretion, like many other preoccupations, addictions, or distortions of normal psychological dynamics that can occur in mortality.

All this seems beside the point. If one has these "feelings," or desires, then it seems reasonable, in terms of LDS doctrine, that these things can be realized in the next life, provided that one is obedient.

One must keep in mind as well that we are judge not only upon our behavior, but upon the thoughts and intents of our hearts as well. It is, assuming that someone with SSA has been free from actual transgression, a matter of such an individual having made peace with his homosexuality or having been dedicated to a continued struggle--its as much a matter of where we are headed, or focused, when we leave this earth, as the point we have arrived at when we leave.

Well, "where we are headed" is towards godhood, and, doctrinally speaking, after godhood, all bets are off. LDS doctrine clearly allows for homosexual gods. There is nothing in the Gospel which says otherwise. There is no scriptural passage which says, "Once you are a God, you're still expected to abide by such-and-such."