Are we going to be Eunuchs after this life?

“I don’t think there will be “sexual relationships” in any kingdom after life”

Really? Standard Mormon theology, written above, says otherwise. I for one an looking forward to having this , err, capacity and seeing people like Madonna and Hugh Hefner miss out. (Oh, and all them gays who protested in front of the LA Temple also missing out!)

“we know absolutely NOTHING about the actual mechanics of creating spirits – nothing. Our canon literally is silent regarding that process.” Yeap! in the Godmakers process we are maybe pre-teens now, we know something’s going on but aren’t there yet.

I think there is sex in the afterlife. We LDS are not really alone in surmising this, though I’ve never heard other Christians say it. Hindu beliefs include the gods having sexual relationships, and one of the ways a mortal can relate to a god (or to God) is as a lover. (Some others are as a worshipper, friend, parent, child, or pet. Wouldn’t it be awesome to be God’s lap cat?)

We haven’t been told what direct revelations have been given on the subject, but I feel confident that, whatever the mechanics, we do have sexual relationships in the Celestial Kingdom, of an elevated selfless type.

I think it’s best not to emphasize it, because it’s the kind of thing people like to latch on to and be either scandalized by or pruriently interested in. Maybe when we can get over those tendencies, we’ll be told more about it.

If we already don’t need sexual intercourse to create children in mortality, I can’t see why we believe God is limited to that manner of creation. Think about that; it really is stupendously limiting to say God must use a process we don’t even have to use anymore.

Why does God have body at all?

If we already don’t need ears to hear in mortality [think cochlear implants], I can’t see why we believe God is limited to that manner of hearing.

If we already don’t need feet to walk and run [think those flexible orthotic blades], I can’t see why we believe God is limited to that manner of locomotion.

I could go on until God is just a robot that we will be able to build in the not so distant future.

“Why does God have body at all?”

An inadvertently good question, Last Lemming. I think God has a body because it is Him. When we are exalted, we may not need membrane in our ear to recognize the movement of air waves, or nerves in our eyes to register visible light, or vocal cords to manipulate the air around us, but all these things will be part of us, so we may use them or not, as needed. Heavenly Father may not need a physical body to exercise his power (whether procreative, creative, or other), but that does not mean he is not a physical being.

Initial rant: “Gender” is not a function of sex organs, but rather a social construct which on this planet has varied wildly by culture and timeframe. Notwithstanding the misuse of that term in the “Proclamation,” we are talking about “sex” here, not “gender.” That said….

#1:
I don’t think there will be “sexual relationships” in any kingdom after life, as we commonly define and engage in them here. Sex in the afterlife makes no sense to me…

Then Ray, my friend, you’re not doing it right! (couldn’t resist–grin!) Seriously though, sexual intimacy can be a source of great joy, and as demonstrated in the above quotations, it has many purposes other than reproduction. The deity of Joseph Smith created mankind “that he might have joy,” so it seems inconsistent IMO to suggest that sexual intimacy will be limited to mortality.

#3:
Also, we know absolutely NOTHING about the actual mechanics of creating spirits – nothing. Our canon literally is silent regarding that process.

To be fair, Ray, “your canon” is literally silent on a whole host of doctrines which were regularly taught in LDS circles for 150+ years. It’s a bit of a dodge to say on the one hand that “every word” from a prophet or apostle is “scripture” (recognizing the proviso “spoken by the spirit,” which is pretty much taken for granted in LDS circles, when it comes to these officers), but on the other hand anything that causes discomfort isn’t “official,” “canon,” “scripture,” etc.

#5:
I for one a[m] looking forward to having this, err, capacity and seeing…all them gays who protested in front of the LA Temple also missing out!”

Trust me, CarlosJC, “all them gays” won’t feel like they’re “missing out” on eternal hetero sex. For most of us, that would be like being force-fed canned cat food, after a diet of filet mignon and lobster.

#6:
I think the nerves, muscles, skin, etc. will all be in place regardless of kingdom, and any statements to the contrary are speculation…

Everything else in LDS “canon” would suggest that the “TK Smoothie” is a false doctrine, considering how many scriptures go on about every hair of the head, etc., etc., being restored to the physical body at resurrection. I’ve never encountered any LDS scripture that creates an exception for “naughty bits.”

#7:
Wouldn’t it be awesome to be God’s lap cat?

Umm…only if deity feeds his cat filet mignon and lobster (see above).

In answer to the question posed in the title of this post, I can’t answer the question of whether YOU all will be eunuchs in the next life, but as for me and my house, we are doing everything possible to ensure that we do not endure the eternal shame of a TK Smoothie in the afterlife.

My sincere prayer is that none of us have to lose what is now a tray-sure and a play-sure beyond may-sure.

This is another one of those things that the scriptures are silent on, and that skepticism should be followed where a general authority gives an opinion. It is clear enough from the scriptures that those that don’t make it to particular glories won’t procreate. Why speculate beyond that?

LOL TK Smoothie. I hadn’t heard the term before today. LOVE it.

As for mechanics, anatomies, physiologies, etc. of resurrected bodies I have no clue, and conjecture about them only leads to more speculation. Pretty soon, we all start sounding seriously kooky. I mean, just step back for a second and read through the comments on this post to get an idea about what I’m talking about.

So if eternity is all about families, how are families formed? Biologically on Earth, a family is formed by the joining of genetic materials from a male and female that develops into another human being. If we are indeed literally “children of our Heavenly Father”, we assume (correctly? I have no idea) that there is some kind of transference of spiritual genetic material (for lack of better imagery) from both heavenly parents to form each person living on the earth today. If our goal is to return to live with our Heavenly Father and Mother again as a family, then exalted eternal life’s goal seems to me to be the ability to continue this transferral of family “genes” to spiritual progeny in a paradigm of eternal growth (of the celestial family).

But there is another way humans build families that isn’t related to the biological act of procreation. It has theologically symbolic application, and indeed may be more powerful than flesh and blood (and genetics) for producing lasting, bonded relationships. It is the concept of adoption. Humans have devised a way of binding individuals not related to each other by blood into family units. This is particularly important for couples who cannot have children biologically for one reason or another. These adopted children may be sealed to these couples for eternity, despite the fact that they are not related by blood. Children who are abandoned or disowned may be adopted or inducted into the families of friends. Indeed, whether or not we are somehow directly related by blood to Abraham, we are all “adopted” into the House of Israel through baptism, and are therefore inheritors of the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. My point? humans are social beings, intent on building social and emotional ties to others regardless of whether those other individuals are related by blood. Even if, in the TKs, humans cannot “procreate” in some quasi-biological fashion, they will still be apt to forming familial bonds with one another, because that’s just what we do. Its who we are. Even if a person isn’t able to enjoy the blessings of the sealing ordinance to an earthly spouse, I suppose that they will still seek to make bonds with other post-mortal individual with whom they have contact. That is, unless the TKs are in fact solitary existences, wherein an individual has no contact with others. But I reject that, esp. if doctrines about CK people being able to visit TKers are true. Whether sexual relations exist in the heavens or not is really of no concern to me (although I do enjoy the sex here on earth) — the social and emotional bonds of human relationships will probably endure in every part of heaven, and therein families will perpetuate and possibly emerge.

To answer your questions:
“1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?”
I don’t know. In my current state, I would feel sad. But when I’m celestialized, who knows?
“2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?”
No. (see #6 above)
“3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?”
See Nick’s #13, above. Nothing in the scriptures or that has been repeated by modern-day prophets suggests that resurrection may exclude any particular body part.
“4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?”
The words would cease to exist…
“5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?”
I do not believe it is a doctrine, and yes, it should be jettisoned.
“6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasized it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?”
No.
“7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ? Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?”
I plead ignorance. I have not read “Doctrines of Salvation.”

Ray:

All of the sudden I don’t seem to have any problems with the Malay theory, I can live with that so long as you are wrong on your comments here.

What about all the promises to faithful single women that no blessings will be denied us in the next life??? I am now even less thrilled about my current celibacy.

On a related Body question, I’ve often heard that blood is a mortal thing in our bodies, and that when we are resurrected, blood in our veins will be replaced by a more perfect, eternal fluid, in which we will never get sick and never die.

Does anyone know of any sources to validate that?

This entire post is laughable. I used to ask questions on this site about the history of the church and what I found to be contradictions in things BY taught vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon and common sense. I was ignored or simply told that it didn’t matter. Yet, you people spend your time arguing back and forth about this absolute nonsense? In my opinion, you are embarrassing yourselves and the church.

Ray, this doesn’t happen very often, but I agree with you. Wow!

Doug’s theory; (at least as good as any of your’s ) Mormon theology tends to make God finite and human. Even though we give lip service to the all powerful, omnipresent, omnipotent stuff, we like to bring him/her down to our finite brains ability to understand. In truth, we don’t have a prayer of understanding and or conceptualizing such a being. So when it comes to mortal sexual relations, we tend to assume God is doing the same thing. It’s quite possible that the level of intimacy in the next world is so far above our brains ability to comprehend that sex in this life may seem like a very cheap substitute for what those in the next world experience. I believe that whatever that intimacy is, it will pervade all of God’s Kingdoms.

Again, just my two cents and worth what you’re paying for it.

If we are created in in image of God, male and female, then it doesn’t make sense that resurrected beings are without genitalia. If Adam and Eve were created in a Celestial state before the fall, it would make sense that resurrected Celestial beings would have bodies similar to that state, but they would now know the difference between good and evil and would, as the Book of Mormon teaches, have the desire to to good continuously. So, if sexual relations exist in the next life, I would assume any element of lust associated with them would be overcome. The command that desire will be to your husband or wife was given after the fall, so what happens to desire in a Celestial state? Will our earthly notions about what is attractive and what is not attractive be irrelevant?

James, I have to agree with Nick L. on this. One’s gender is not determined by sex organs. Removal of the naughty-bits doesn’t remove one’s male-ness or female-ness. Except for a few rare chromosomal abnormalities (XYY, various forms of hermaphroditism, chimeras, mosaicism, etc.) one’s male-ness or female-ness is in every cell of the body as an XX or an XY pair of chromosomes.

Gender is also an essential characteristic of the spirit prior to birth.

JFS’s speculation about whether the naughty-bits are included in the resurrection of non-exalted beings is one of those “interesting” subjects. But the over-arching doctrine is that, and it seems very clear or easy to deduce from other generally accepted doctrine, _if_ there are to be physical sexual relations among resurrected beings, then _only_ exalted beings get to “do it,” because only exalted beings will be married after the resurrection. They are the only ones _not_ living “singly and separately”.

I don’t know if JFS meant to imply that the bottom two rungs of the CK are “smoothies” too, but we can deduce from the doctrine of them being “single and separate” that the bottom two rungs won’t be having sexual relations.

JFS’s last sentence that you quoted may seem to _imply_ a “genderless” society in the Terrestrial and Telestial. But, that would only be true if one concedes the point that lack of naughty-bits means lack of gender.

“Also, the bit about the TK and suicide, Joseph Smith never said that.”

CES instructors are currently encouraged to disclaim that quote about the TK whenever it’s brought up. Our local CES director said the quote comes from the journal of one insignificant member who claims JS said it, and it never appeared in any journals, notes, minutes, or transcripts of the many others who officially or otherwise documented JS’s sermons/talks. If you get the search words just right, and scroll through many pages, you can find the one and only source somewhere on the web. I don’t have it bookmarked.

Re: #33 Scottie

Now that’s just bitchy!! ….the nails are out and ready…….

if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there
He never said this

#50 “Not even mentioning the scriptures which are quite specific as to the loss of physical attributes in inferior worlds (’neither men nor women’, ‘will be angels unto the gods’…in D&C)”

Are you referring to this one? If so, it says nothing regarding the loss of “physical attributes” in the TKs. (I don’t think “cannot be enlarged” means what you think it means).

D&C 132: 16-20, 37
16 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, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 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.

#50 – I know this doesn’t apply because you mentioned your kids. Even so, I can’t get the image of Danny Devito from Twins out of my mind when he looks at Arnold S. and says “you’re a virgin”.

47 David and 8 Adam F

As far as I’m aware, there is no record of Joseph Smith ever saying this… anyone else know?

Read 22

This seems to be the earliest account of what Joseph Smith possibly said: “Br. Woodruff spoke. . . . He refered to a saying of Joseph Smith which he heard him utter (like this) That if the People knew what was behind the vail, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there, but the Lord in his wisdom had implanted the fear of death in every person that they might cling to life and thus accomplish the designs of their creator. (Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, ed. by A. Karl Larson and Katherine M. Larson [Logan, Ut.: Utah State University Press, 1980], vol. 1, pp. 465-66.)”

If Smith said this, he seems to have said “veil” not “telestial kingdom”. As for the telestial kingdom quote, Eldred Smith said: “I cannot for a minute conceive the telestial being hell, either, because it is considered a heaven, a glory. The Prophet Joseph Smith told us that if we could get one little glimpse into the telestial glory even, the glory is so great that we would be tempted to commit suicide to get there.” (March 10, 1964, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964, p. 4)

“quoting”… is what… I meant.

Brother Pratt said, “… Mutual comfort… In [THIS] world of toil and sorrow.” There are scientific studies showing how intercourse helps with stress and other negative feelings. First, the Earth in her paradaisical glory will not be a world of sorrow, but one comparable to Eden’s Garden. That’s only a part of her evolution: imagine when she evolves to her crystalized Celestial state!
Second, we are mortal beings and as such have a duality: our identity vs. The desires of our body. Intercourse helps quench the body’s desire. That will no longer be a burden for us to carry in the next stage of life! Those who are Celestialized will have certain responsibilites, while the Terrestrial will have theirs. It all evens out.