When my wife, FlameRetardentMormon, and I discuss the afterlife, the conversation usually gravitates toward nuanced doctrines like whether you can eat as many cheeseburgers as you want without getting fat, and how great it will be to fly around like Peter Pan. I’m an afterlife stick-in-the-mud, I think, in that I believe “heaven” doesn’t simply mean all your dreams come true. In my mind, things will be better, what with sin and death having been done away, but there will still be a few cold hard realities to deal with regardless of our personal dislike for them. I might sheepishly suggest to my wife that it may be considered wasteful to swim in a sea of chocolate pudding–even in heaven–but I don’t want to destroy her faith in a better world.

Heaven, unfortunately, may have its disappointments. Take, for example, the matter of sexual orientation. Will everyone be changed to straight in the twinkling of an eye? When those malignant melanomas wither up and disappear, will there also be an amorous swelling of hetero affections in every formerly gay heart? This would be a disappointment to some, but a great relief to me. I’ve noticed some disagreement on the topic, and I’ve wondered who is doing the magical thinking about the afterlife–those who believe things will all go straight in the afterlife, or those who believe things will be just the same?

I wonder this partly because there seems to be a partisan division between the two camps of thought–those who believe homosexual desire will extend into the afterlife are generally those who are living a homosexual life now and believe the brethren are wrong about the topic in some way or another. This is just my unmeasured personal observation. On the other hand, those who believe the afterlife will be full of hot straight sex (read: me) might be indulging in the “all your dreams come true” view of heaven after a life of faithful sacrifice.

Well, here’s my case for same sex attractions being a mortal condition only. Elder Wickman has stated fairly emphatically on the official church website:

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

Elder Holland said recently in his interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons:

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty? These conditions will not exist post-mortality.

A few Ensign articles over the years also imply without explicitly saying so, that same gender attractions are limited to this life. But, a couple general authorities and scattered implications in official church publications do not make doctrine. I would say, however, that these opinions are presented matter-of-factly enough that the authorities in question seemed to be unaware of any dispute and to believe there was no need for further justification. It’s as if they consider the point obvious enough from the scriptures and other doctrines of the church not to require great elaboration. I believe this is true.

The plan of salvation has families at its core. Procreation is essential to our ultimate progression from child of God to exalted being, and our procreative abilities–physiological, anatomical, emotional, psychological, attractive, and otherwise–are indispensable in the ideal destination. The Proclamation on the Family says: “We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.” It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to me to assume that the means of creating spiritual and mortal life in the hereafter are divinely appointed as well. I take that to mean there will be no Great Fertility Clinic in the Sky?, but that for all those who qualify for exaltation, minds and bodies will be brought to conform with all characteristics essential for procreation in terms of God’s divinely appointed methods. The way I imagine celestial reproduction, this necessarily includes attraction.

For those who opt out of exaltation, I suppose there could be a persistent strained effort toward romantic same-sex relationships if they so choose. Having a perfected reproductive system (and therefore a hormonal and physiological response suitable for reproduction–straight) may not change the patterns of desire established throughout our life. Some believe that Alma’s words, “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world” imply that gay feelings won’t change after the resurrection. But this confuses the chosen (behavioral) and unchosen (inclination) aspects of being gay–a distinction made clear by many church authorities. For that matter, this scripture seems to be referring to our attitude toward repentance, not just any old feeling we might have.

I don’t think God can take away our free will, that much I can agree with. I actually wrote on this topic once before:

I think the biological components of same sex attraction–the actual neurological pathways and genetics and brain imprinting–will be “healed” in the resurrection to be consistent with the actual purpose of the reproductive system. The psychological aspects like emotional ties and relationships I’m not so sure about (which is one reason I think chastity is an eternal true principle). Ties to men loved during mortality will no longer be supported by physical attraction nor sanctioned by legal or divine authority. A life of love and common experiences will end when we’re set to whatever our eternal jobs will be. But the emotional ties will probably remain, and to that end gays will have inadvertently created an eternal situation ironically similar to the temporary one I’m in now–one in which they are not fully sexually compatible with the person with whom they’ve shared their life. I imagine this might be an instance in which my imagined explanation of why gay love is ultimately wrong applies… of why gay love is good, but not good enough.

Yes, for those who are really set on the prospect of swimming in a sea of chocolate pudding or keeping their same-gender orientation into the next life, there is still hope. I can’t say my skeptical take is official doctrine, because there is no doctrine on the subject in the strictest sense. It’s not doctrine in the sense that principles taught in the scriptures are doctrine, or statements given in General Conference over the pulpit by President Hinckley and preceded with the words, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” are doctrine. But I think my conclusion follows pretty clearly and necessarily from the plan of salvation. If there’s another reasonable way to view it, I haven’t managed to see it yet, but I do acknowledge that there is a lot about the afterlife yet to be revealed.

Leave a Reply

27 comments

  1. avatar

    Ron Schow

    -L-

    You wonder who is doing the “magical” thinking. Good question. My thought is that if something is broken it needs to be “fixed” in the next life. If gay people are healthy, they don’t really need to be fixed. Since the First Presidency statement mentions “respect” for those with attractions to the same gender, doesn’t that imply they don’t need fixing??? Maybe those who feel flawed get fixed in the next life and those who don’t stay the same??? Maybe one size does not fit all.

    If all the Brethren said the same thing then maybe you would have an open and shut case with all the Brethren on your side (the guys and gals with white hats) and all the bad people on the other (black hats). But President Hinckley (you remember on Larry King) says he doesn’t know if gays are born that way and some of the Brethren, you know, have said it is just a matter of “selfishness.” I could go on endlessly with different GA statements including those who call it “gender confusion???” but I won’t. My suggestion would be that only the Lord knows how to explain this…and there hasn’t been anything close to a comprehensive revelation yet.

    Furthermore, there are so many uncertainties to the next life, including the “chocolate pudding.” :) For example, can you explain to me about a temple sealing between a man and woman that is still in effect while the two of them are married to different people in this life? That happens all the time. That may seem very clear to someone not effected by it personally. And, are single ministering angels in the celestial kingdom exalted? How do they fit in with your “Great Fertility Clinic in the Sky?” Are they attracted to anyone, or to everyone? Somehow reducing the next life so that it is about nothing more than “Fertility” doesn’t really appeal to me. I have five children and 12 grandchildren I love dearly with more expected, but a life of creation, I believe, is not just about having babies. I personally enjoy writing books and making films and some of my kids are wonderfully creative with music, with finance, with health care, in teaching, and with humor, etc.

    I frankly think people will continue to believe what they prefer to believe and they will find reasons that make sense to them. But, no, it is not just a matter of dividing up all those who have an opinion and then the ones who agree with you are declared the one’s on the side of the GAs. It is much more complex than that.

    What I don’t understand is why all those who experience same sex feelings can’t be a little more kind to those facing the same challenge. Why, of all, people do those in a marriage who understand the persistent challenge of SSA want to so emphatically announce how the Lord will punish and “fix” those who don’t marry, despite the fact that those thought to need fixing are “respected” by the Brethren.

  2. avatar

    -L-

    Wow, such a fiesty response, Ron! You don’t need to “go on endlessly” with the GA quotes, but if you could provide one that contradicts what I’ve written here, that would be a start.

  3. avatar

    For me, it’s not even so much an issue of whether the GA’s are backing me up, although I do think that the comments they have made recently do back up my feeling on this. I’ve actually ALWAYS thought that the afterlife would be void of homosexual attraction. Sure, I could be wrong, and I suppose we’ll all see when it’s all said and done – but it makes sense to me that being resurrected with a perfect body would mean that my perfected body would come complete with all of the natural affections that I think it was designed to have.

    Ron, I agree with you that there is more to creation than having babies – but procreation / engendering spirits / etc., seems to be a logical part of it. The eternal design of that process, the way I see it, begins with a man and a woman, and their natural desires to be a part of every eternally creative process.

  4. avatar

    Ron Schow

    -L-

    I will try to clarify what I think contradicts what you have written. As I wrote above, it seems to me, that when the First Presidency expresses “understanding and respect,” it does not carry the message that they think there is a flaw that needs to be fixed in the next life. Aren’t you saying gays need to be fixed?

    “We of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.”

    This is more than a trivial matter in my mind. I don’t think it is good for people to look at themselves as being flawed when they are not. Maybe God intended people to be this way; even wants them to be. Maybe this is something like having white and black people which is quite wonderful. Diversity has value.

    Furthermore, if gays are “born that way” I think that would mean it is not caused by “selfishness.” Most gays know they are male or female so they are again deserving of respect and not “gender confused.”

    What I’m saying is we don’t have a really clear picture here. Nor do we have a situation where the Brethren are all saying one thing.

    I felt this statement by you suggested the Brethren are all in agreement when you said that others…

    “..believe the brethren are wrong about the topic…”

    I’m not saying they are wrong, I’m just saying even they don’t agree on the issue.

  5. avatar

    -L-

    When I said in my post that gays don’t deserve understanding or respect, are selfish, and are just “gender confused,” I misspoke. In the future I’ll try not to let my writings so thoroughly contradict what I believe. [hee hee]

    My view is quite simple, Ron: the reproductive system is flawed when it doesn’t work. I’m not assigning any moral culpability to that, just making a value neutral observation. Someday, thankfully, our bodies will all be restored to a perfect level of function. I suspect that the parts of the reproductive system we control consciously will come around if we allow them to, and the parts that we don’t control consciously will come around whether we like it or not.

    I’m still waiting for an example of one of the brethren not saying the same thing or not agreeing on the issue. Choose any of the many examples you have, and please share.

  6. avatar

    Ron Schow

    -L-

    OK …I’m sharing :)

    You’ve chosen to ignore my other examples. Try this one.

    Elder Faust

    “The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.”

    —Sept 1995 Ensign

    Pres Hinckley, Dec 2004

    When asked if gays are “born that way” said “I don ‘t know. I’m not an expert on these things. I don’t pretend to be an expert on these things.”

    By the way. I don’t recall seeing the following words in print from any of the Brethren. Can you give me a direct quote, with a date?

    Gays are a situation where “the reproductive system is flawed”

    This is, of course, how you summed up your position. “My view is quite simple, Ron: the reproductive system is flawed when it doesn?t work.”

  7. avatar

    -L-

    Nowhere in this post have I suggested that a person is or is not “born that way”. I’m not following how that’s relevant, unless you’re just counting any statement by any general authority about any aspect of homosexuality to be an indication that there is disagreement among the brethren. I’m looking for specifics indicating any of the brethren do not believe homosexual attractions are limited to mortality, as that is the topic I’ve introduced here.

    And you will notice that I have not attributed to a general authority the self-evident statement that a reproductive system that doesn’t work is flawed. That piece of brilliant common sense is all my own.

  8. avatar

    Ron Schow

    -L-

    Thanks for engaging in some lively discussion. :)

    I will add nothing more just now except I like the last words of your interesting blog that prompted all this, and they seem to fit.

    You said..

    “If there?s another reasonable way to view it, I haven?t managed to see it yet, but I do acknowledge that there is a lot about the afterlife yet to be revealed.”

  9. avatar

    Since the First Presidency statement mentions ?respect? for those with attractions to the same gender, doesn?t that imply they don?t need fixing???

    Uhh, no. Not at all. I think it’s a stretch to claim that the brethren’s assertion that homosexuals deserve “respect” in any way insinuates that they don’t feel that homosexuals are in need of repair in the afterlife. Indeed, we as humans are all in need of repair, and likewise, all deserving of respect. I’m positive the brethren would similarly explain that blind men deserve respect, or that women who can’t bear children deserve respect. Would that assertion indicate a lack of a need for healing in order for resurrectional perfection? Of course not. The concept of “respect” and the concept of a need for healing are fundamentally unrelated.

  10. avatar

    How ’bout we don’t assume everything we know today is everything we know tomorrow? How ’bout we don’t pretend the General Authorities aren’t in total agreement on this topic. How ’bout we don’t assume we know anything about creativity and reproduction in the Celestial Kingdom? How ’bout we don’t assume Ron is attacking you, L? How ’bout just addressing Ron’s assertion?

  11. avatar

    -L-

    Who’s assuming what now? Who’s pretending what? Who’s attacking who? What are you talking about? :-)

    What assertion would you like me to address? I thought I had already covered everything related to the post topic. I give my argument for what I believe is the only sensible position on sexuality in the afterlife, acknowledge its limitations and the possibility of future clarification, and observe that all information I’ve seen in church publications and from general authorities agrees with my position. The only evidence I can find that there is dispute among leaders of the church on the issue of sexual orientation after mortality is people saying so (but providing no examples). By all means, if you would like to contribute some examples, go ahead. ;-)

  12. avatar

    Ron/Playa,

    Are you kidding me? You naysayers are fooling yourselves if you believe that two guys are going to get it on and magically reproduce spirit children in the next life. That has been blatently preached over the pulpit in General Conference. Stop trying to justify your own desires for a same-sex marriage by falling back on the mormon version of the race card of “well, the brethren haven’t revealed *everything* yet.” That’s just ridiculous. You can’t ever expect to gain salvation if you are never willing to follow the rules as they are. If you are always waiting for the rules to change tomorrow, you’ll be dead and will never have put your faith in God. Then where will you be?

    I think the comments on this post were supposed to be attached to something over on sunstone.

  13. avatar

    If you’ve heard of Sunstone you are probably on a watch list.

  14. avatar

    Ron Schow

    Max

    I’d say this is the wrong place for YOU to be talking about MY salvation. I spent 7 hours yesterday helping put on a church dinner for the sisters in our branch, We fed about 55 and I was the 2nd one there and among the last 3 to leave. My branch president/bishop think I’m a good guy, regardless of what YOU think.

    Playasinmar….thanks for throwing me a little support…

    The issue -L- wants us to focus on is whether two of the Brethren (Elders Wickman and Holland) have suggested SSA will be gone in the next life. They have. He keeps asking if we know of any Brethren who have said the opposite. I don’t, although, I believe our doctrine suggests that if we don’t get rid of certain habits in this life they might go with us and have to be resolved in the next life. So there is a related question. Is this a bad habit, a kind of selfishness, that has to be removed by good behavior or is it like not having children, some kind of physical malfunction the Lord will fix.

    So far as I know, the Wickman and Holland statements are in a class of their own. They are brand new on the scene. I think one reason for that is up to now the usual thought has been SSA is in the category of sin and can be removed by repentance. However, the recent statements like the “understanding and respect” statement from the First Presidency has moved us away from simply looking at SSA as sin. Also, there is a move away from thinking that SSA can be resolved by therapy or marriage.

    Consistent with all of the above, I’ve been responding to -L- by saying, basically, OK we have these two new statements by Wickman and Oaks, but they are brand new; we don’t know what they are based on such as scripture, and there is a long pattern of inconsistency and changing ideas about SSA within the Church.

    I’ve said, “only the Lord knows what causes SSA/homosexuality and only He knows the final outcome.” To me, it is important to focus on the broad picture, even though -L- wants to just focus on this tiny part of it and these two new statements.

    As for offspring in the next life, I’ve said nothing about two guys having children in the next life. I’ve talked about a broader definition of “eternal increase” than just thinking in terms of babies/spirit children. I’ve also talked about what it means to be a ministering angel in the celestial kingdom. That whole concept intrigues me and I wonder if it relates to the gay issue.

    I think there is a WHOLE lot about the next life we don’t know, and it is premature to conclude we have ALL the answers or even total clarity on this one question, just because we have a couple of recent comments that frankly don’t give us many specifics.

  15. avatar

    Ron Schow

    Whoops…….

    I meant Wickman and Holland in the 4th to last paragraph of my last post…sorry

  16. avatar

    -L-

    Ron, you crack me up.

    “The issue -L- wants us to focus on is whether two of the Brethren (Elders Wickman and Holland) have suggested SSA will be gone in the next life.

    …To me, it is important to focus on the broad picture, even though -L- wants to just focus on this tiny part of it and these two new statements.

    …it is premature to conclude we have ALL the answers or even total clarity on this one question…”

    Please don’t mistake my request that comments be relevant to the topic at hand as ignoring the “broad picture” of homosexuality. Welcome to a blog that isn’t planning on shutting down after this post. The issue here and now is whether SSA will be gone in the next life. Conjecture, indignant opposition, quotes from other GAs on the topic… are all admissible. Any and all opinions are invited on this topic, just not rants about unrelated aspects of homosexuality.

    Minimizing the available information and the common sense I’ve used in my arguments with an appeal to the unknown just perplexes me. Why ignore or minimize these direct statements? Is it because you personally disagree or find the idea distasteful? Why should it even be an issue?

    One reason I object to minimizing the obvious information we do have is that such a characterization of the situation fuels the indignant cries of those who believe there’s no hope, there’s no end to the sacrifice, there’s no justice, gays really are an eternally unappreciated class of people. This is, of course, ridiculous, and the inconsistency of such a conclusion with the gospel of Jesus Christ is also a strong argument for the view Elder Holland and Elder Wickman have presented as de facto.

    I have repeatedly acknowledged in the post and the comments that although nobody has yet presented me with a rational alternative to my view, we’ll learn more later and there’s a remote possibility of clarification that will surprise me. In the mean time, please help me understand why you’d rather argue for a pessimistic view of the afterlife that has no support from the leaders of the church.

    “…recent comments that frankly don?t give us many specifics”

    Could you look over those quotes one more time and tell me how they could be any more specific and unequivocal?

  17. avatar

    Ron Schow

    -L-

    OK. I have read the two quotes again, as you asked. Both men seem to believe SSA will not be a post-mortal condition. Neither one explains why they believe it, so far as I can tell. Did someone told them? Did they get an answer to prayer? Did they read some scripture?? it is not clear to me why they believe it. I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve ever heard it or heard it stated in so many words. As noted earlier, I think that is because homosexuality has so often been seen as sin, not a condition which is unchosen. But if you want me to concede that both men believe this I agree they do.

    So why do I resist the idea? Why do I prefer to believe that only God knows? Before I explain, let me say that if the idea is of some comfort to you or others, I think it is fine for you to believe it. If you want to believe that, you shouldn’t pay any attention to me.

    As I noted in an earlier post, it seems possible to me that some will be changed in the next life and some won’t. I’ve tried to say in a number of ways that I believe the cause and the final outcome are related. I’ve said that if selfishness is the cause, maybe such SSA won’t just naturally go away. Maybe you have to get over the selfishness for it to disappear. I don’t believe it is caused by selfishness but you may, based on a recent post!!!

    I think the main reason I continue to question these two new statements is that they seem so new and so unsupported by any explanation. I also have believed for a long time time, supported by our doctrine, that our ways of living that become ingrained here will go with us to the next life. But perhaps the main reason for my resistance is that I’ve spent a lot of my energy for nearly two decades speaking with and writing about men and women who thought the feelings would go away when they went to therapy or got married, as church leaders told them. We seem to finally be making some headway and the brethren are recognizing this is a “core characteristic of a person” and not subject to easy resolution. Just when we are making some headway on that issue this seems to me to be another speculation which is a way to avoid the real issue that SSA is something the Lord meant to be part of this life and part of our total existence period.

    Actually, I have the impression that these feelings have some noble purpose and those who receive them have a gift. That would take a while to explain, but I honestly do. I guess that is why I hope that for those who want to keep the feelings that they won’t just disappear in the next life.

    So I’ve done as you asked (read again) and answered your question about why. Maybe now you will engage some of what I’ve been saying. Do you understand why I believe the cause questions and the outcome issues are related? Do you understand why I feel there are many uncertainties, even with reference to the two new statements?

  18. avatar

    FoxyJ

    I’m not very clear why the distinction between something being a sin and something being a mortal condition that is unchosen needs to be made, because we have been taught that both are things that will be corrected or fixed in the afterlife. Things that are sin will require some sort of repentance or action on the person’s part, while those that are not of their choosing like mental or physical disability will not. The Lord has stated that all things will be made perfect, both those that are the fault of the person who has them and those that are not. So I don’t think that making the distinction between homosexuality as chosen or not is really all that relevant here.

    What is relevant is whether or not homosexuality is the sort of inherent characteristic that will be eternal or not. Since the Lord makes it pretty clear throughout scripture and through modern revelation that man and woman are to cleave together, I would think that it is not.

  19. avatar

    FoxyJ

    Just to clarify, I do think it is important that the rhetoric used to describe homosexuality has shifted from “sin” to “unavoidable mortal condition”. Despite the fact that we are commanded to love the sinner, people tend to be more compassionate to those who they perceive are not at fault in creating their own condition. You can see the same thing with the way mental illness is perceived, both in the church and in the world at large. It is also affirming to those who are homosexual within the church to know that their desires are not sinful in and of themselves, because sin requires some sort of active repentence, and I really don’t think that repentence is going to magically make gay people straight.

  20. avatar

    -L-

    Ron, I hope you will at some point write out your thoughts on why you believe SSA is a gift and share it as a blog post. I imagine an interesting discussion might follow.

    …the brethren are recognizing this is a ?core characteristic of a person? and not subject to easy resolution…. a way to avoid the real issue that SSA is something the Lord meant to be part of this life and part of our total existence period.

    I’m under the impression that the brethren have established a position that homosexuality is a condition and not a “core characteristic.” Again, can you provide any examples of the brethren holding the view you’ve suggested (I’m really interested, not just trying to be antagonistic)?

    In terms of how the cause of homosexuality and the outcomes are related, I see that one must believe that the cause of homosexuality pre-dates birth in order to believe homosexuality is an eternal characteristic, but the reverse is not true. Homosexuality extending from the beginning of life right up until death says nothing at all about the periods before birth and after death. Also, holding the position that homosexuality is only a mortal condition implies neither that it is socially or genetically caused, nor that it necessarily started at birth or afterward. I see it as an interesting, albeit extraneous, issue.

    I do find the notion that SSA is only a temporary mortal situation to be of comfort. However, I think it’s important not to let personal hopes or strong feelings of compassion cloud our reason. When all indicators are heading in a direction I don’t like, I think it’s important to remember my faith that all things will work for the best in the ultimate context of God’s plan. I’m certain you feel the same.

  21. avatar

    Ron Schow

    FoxyJ

    You said…

    “Things that are sin will require some sort of repentance or action on the person?s part, while those that are not of their choosing like mental or physical disability will not.”

    This is the reason for the distinction.

    I assume that some won’t repent and that will mean that some problems don’t go away. Is that the way you understand it?

  22. avatar

    -L-

    Despite the fact that we are commanded to love the sinner, people tend to be more compassionate to those who they perceive are not at fault in creating their own condition.

    I really like how you’ve stated that, FoxyJ. However, I think I still harbor some uncertainty on how it relates to my own homosexuality. I’ve wondered at times whether my own behaviors have contributed to my attractions to men. I don’t attribute all of my SSA to my own faults, nor would I extend my suspicions about this to anyone else who has SSA–but I can honestly turn up some evidence from my own introspection that selfishness and other character flaws have made this issue that much more complicated for me.

    Having said that, I don’t think anyone has cause or justification to fault people for their attractions. Even if those attractions are in some minor way a result of past mistakes, every person needs the opportunity to apply the atonement in their life and move past that with their current behaviors.

    :-) Thanks for your comments.

  23. avatar

    Ron Schow

    -L-

    Here is the quote on “core characteristic.” It was posted on the Church Website last August and this is mentioned in response to one of the early questions. “Gender/sexual orientation” is used by the brethren elsewhere in that interview and comes up several times.

    ELDER WICKMAN: We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There?s no denial that one?s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it?s not the only one….

  24. avatar

    -L-

    Ah. Good quote. And I see that I’ve misunderstood what you meant by “core characteristic.” I thought you intended it to mean something core enough to last outside this life, but this is clearly not Elder Wickman’s intent as this is the exact same interview from which my post’s quote affirming the finite nature of homosexual attraction comes!

  25. avatar

    Hmm.. I’ve a slightly different take on this one.

    I believe homosexuality plays an integral role in human development. It guarantees that childless couples will be available to care for abandoned children. (Think Scot & family.) Because parents get sick, have accidents, and more – for whatever reason, we have orphanages packed to the gills.

    Granted, society has shunned homosexuality for hundreds of years, so it’s function has not been fulfilled in recent times. Nature will find it’s balance though, and times are changing in that regard.

    When I actively believed in Mormon doctrine, I used to sit frequently with an old friend of mine and talk about the worlds we’d make in the afterlife. I think, -L-, that there would be so many wonderful and wildly different things to eat that your wife will completely forget about chocolate pudding. ;)

    In LDS afterlife doctrine – for those who never find a “mate” for whatever reason, there exists the concept of “ministering angel”. Beings who, without children of their own, are free to assist, care for and counsel others. Oddly enough, that closely matches the natural role that healthy homosexuals play here on Earth. (I have my own little theories on why unhealthy homos are that way – but I don’t think now’s a good time for that.)

    I’d be happy enough with my partner in the afterlife serving in a support role.

    But then, nowadays, I’m not so sure about the whole afterlife concept altogether. ;) If I’m wrong, I’ll find out later – and that’s fine by me.

    If God’s gonna go and “fix” my homosexuality, then my partner and I can be roommates and play the telestial equivalent of video games together. Or whatever. Make it so. He’s more than just my “lover” – he’s also my best friend.

    I personally believe the General Authorities are experienced and wise men. But I leave it at that. I don’t believe God talks to them any more than you or I, so the words they say are just that – the words of men. They’re smart and successful old snappers – and picked for church leadership for that reason alone.

    I hereby lay this shiny new dime on the table and place my wager that the church will allow full membership benefits to same-sex couples sometime between now and the year 2100. The men who lead the church were all around middle-age when blacks were accepted into the priesthood. I think they’re just not ready to embrace homosexuality – they’ve already come a long way.

  26. avatar

    Hmm.. did this thing eat my comment, or do they just not show up right away?

    testing.. haha

  27. avatar

    -L-

    WordPress has a spam filter that (apparently) isn’t particularly good. I don’t know why, but your comments were stalled en route and placed in the spam bucket until I got around to rescuing them. Sorry!