Are we going to be Eunuchs after this life?

I don’t care, since 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, especially since the lack of it clears up SO many thorny issues in our history and former practices.

1 Ray

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

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship.

Doesn’t that mean to you they will live the same physically as we are here?

Not necessarily, James. 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.

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

I’m not making any Truth claims here. I’m just saying it makes MUCH more sense to me if there isn’t sexual reproduction as we know it here and now in the there and then.

Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

…

*hands over ears at Ray* la-la-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you …..

Hey, the promise of eternal sex is the POINT of being good in this life, or at least so I thought. I surely hope you’re wrong, Ray, because otherwise, I will feel incredibly cheated and lied to by God.

“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.

Although I agree with Ray that our canon is silent regarding the process of creating spirits, I think our bodies will be resurrected with genitals and we will be able to use them to have sex if we want to, in whatever kingdom we are in. Maybe we won’t want to for some reason, but I think the nerves, muscles, skin, etc. will all be in place regardless of kingdom, and any statements to the contrary are speculation (as, of course, is my statement).

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 had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there”

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

Either way, interesting topic James!

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.

Diving into the ‘smoothie doctrine’ and the whole Fielding Smith/McConkie/Fielding McConkie doctrinal continuum’s rather rigid ideas regarding race, gender and destiny are a sure sign of the loon.

“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.

A couple of quick comments. Doctrines of Salvation was the edited teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith. Your picture is of his father, Joseph F. Smith. Also, the bit about the TK and suicide, Joseph Smith never said that.

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).

#12:
Also, the bit about the TK and suicide, Joseph Smith never said that.

While I’m unaware of any reliable record that Joseph Smith said such a thing, it’s certainly a pervasive bit of folklore. In any case, we simply don’t have the evidence to prove that “Joseph Smith never said that.” We can only say that we’ve found no documentary evidence to support the claim that Joseph Smith said that.

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.

Nick Literski said: “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.”

Not to be too anal about the accuracy of your simile (no pun intended), but wouldn’t be a more accurate to say: “‘all them gays’ won’t feel like they’re ‘missing out on eternal hetero sex. For the most of us, that would be like being force-fed canned cat food, after a diet of sausage and Rocky Mountain oysters”?

Also Nick, hate to say it, but if you didn’t like “hetero sex” you must have been doing it wrong too.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist either.

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?

If I’m remembering correctly, the “continuation of seeds” doctrine was most likely referring to polygamous marriage. In which case none of us will be getting any unless we have more than one spouse.

In any case, I agree with Flight of the Conchords: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-EirgfhjjI

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.

This was the first time I came to MM and laughed out loud simply by looking at the picture of the post. So long as I am built like Ken there, I will be be fine.

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.”

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)

As for sex after life, It seems McConkie disagreed with Smith (his father-in-law) in that all resurrected beings would have genitalia. McConkie felt genitalia would not be used for sex except in the celestial kingdom. As for me, I will stick with Ecclesiastes.

“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?” There are two kinds of church leaders: those who make pronouncements on all kinds of things they shouldn’t (speculation + authority = pronouncement) and those who disagree but tolerate them (and don’t contradict them). In David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, this phenomenon is mentioned twice: once in conjunction with the BRM Mormon Doctrine debacle, and once in conjuction with Joseph F. Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny. Neither book is considered “canon,” and both are full of errors and speculation, yet neither has been publicly contradicted by the hierarchy (although there have been private disagreements and even private correction. Doctrines of Salvation clearly falls into that camp of non-canonical work as does Miracle of Forgiveness, incidentally. Frankly, it casts some doubt on the host of footnotes and helps in the scriptures, also done by BRM with Daniel Ludlow. Useful? Sure. But questionable by association, IMO. Now I have spoken heresy, to be sure.

On a serious note, I think we should all give Joseph Fielding Smith a little credit for having the forsight to prefacce his absurd (highly understated btw) theory with “I take it that..(fill in the blank with ridiculous hypothesis)…”. We can never walk away from this comment confused as to whether President Smith was speaking as a Prophet, or a man. It would be nice if all of the other supposed forms of embarrassing speculation were accompanied with such a disclaimer.

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.

Alma 11:43-44

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.

NO WAY!!!

Interestingly, D. Michael Quinn found documented evidence showing that President Young supported Bishop Warren S. Snow’s cruel mistreatment of the young man:

“In the midsummer of 1857 Brigham Young also expressed approval for an LDS bishop who had castrated a man. In May 1857 Bishop Warren S. Snow’s counselor wrote that twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis ‘has now gone crazy’ after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow’s action, Young said: ‘I feel to sustain him…’In July Brigham Young wrote a reassuring letter to the bishop about this castration: ‘Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,’ the LDS president advised, ‘and it will soon die away among the people.’ “(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2,
pages 250-251)

http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/M/ea_161853mormon_c.htm

#25 – Awesome. After all that wrangling, one little comment on a totally different topic did more to validate a fringe theory than over 200 comments that actually addressed it.

There’s probably a good lesson in there somewhere.

Gender is not mortal, as defined in the Family Proclamation. It does not state we will be “ITS” if we don’t keep our second estate. We are made after God’s own image, male and female.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Resurrected bodies can eat, although they may not have to.

It would seem inconsistent that all other body parts are the same, except genitalia is only a mortal body part.

Alma 40: 23 The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.

If every hair of my bald head will be restored, that’s the least of my worries if more important things will not be restored. It seems pretty clear ALL THINGS will be restored (phew).

It is very difficult in the mortal sphere to imagine what we will want in the celestial sphere.

I like to sleep and I like to drink soda, I just don’t know if that will really be my biggest desires in heaven when other possibilities present themselves.

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?

Just for the record, I have never argued for any idea that states an incomplete resurrection. I reject those out of hand – for too many reasons to even try to enumerate here. Also, Nick, I have never argued against intimate relationships in the hereafter. At the most basic level, I just don’t think what will exist in the hereafter will involve the processes of impregnation and gestation as we know it here – that we won’t be engaging in sexual intercourse in order to create spirit children.

I hope that is clearer than my first comments, even if others still disagree. As I said, I really don’t care – and it’s all speculation, imo. I’ll be with my wife; I’ll be happy; I’ll be involved in the creation / growth / progression / whatever of spirits. However that works is fine with me.

Just to throw a wrinkle into the conversation, those who insist “sex” will continue because its an integral biological part of who we are here need to account for that specific justification relative to all manifestations of sexual desire in this life – not just heterosexual ones. It’s more than a little inconsistent to make that claim about heterosexual inclinations while denying the exact same claim as a justification to believe homosexual inclinations will continue in the hereafter.

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:

I think your confusing the issue, we are talking about heaven here – not hell.

KG McB:

“If every hair of my bald head will be restored, that’s the least of my worries if more important things will not be restored. It seems pretty clear ALL THINGS will be restored (phew).”

Well said.

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.

After reading the comments to this post, I just can’t understand how people outside mormon culture could ever conclude that mormons are strange or that the church’s doctrines are crazy. Even if what JFS said is true, this discussion is an utter waste of time. Does anyone honestly think that participating in this post has made them a better or more spiritual person? We can’t figure out how to treat other people civilly, but we’ll pin down whether or not we’re going to have genetalia, if and when we get to the Celestial Kingdom. I think it’s hilarious that, when begged by B.H. Roberts to produce some refutation of serious questions as to the veracity of the Book of Mormon, the brethren can’t come up with a single response. And that goes directly to the spreading of the gospel. Meanwhile, the prophet is writing treatises about the state of sexual reproduction in the next life. Even if this information is true, it has absolutely no bearing on anything going on in the here and now.

I think you’re confusing the issue, we are talking about heaven here – not hell.

#34 –

Doug, even if global warming is accurate here on earth, Hell is freezing over.

“Resurrected bodies can eat, although they may not have to.”

Excellent point, as it goes to all sorts of other things.

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?

This website is very boring and so scholastic. Won’t someone please throw out something interesting and controversial?

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.

Well seems my comment disappeared. Just wanted to add that I also cracked up reading some comments here. Nick, I liked reading what you said, although I must add that unfortunately you will also miss out on gay sex unless God changes things to allow SameSex Exaltation of course.

#23 Hawkgrrrl:

Its interesting what happened with those books. Many have taken a lot out of context like JFS mainly rejecting the evolution of intelligence (but he did note that more species have disappeared to argue against it and more). Kimball’s claims are also taken out of context a lot, especially the one on rape and whether someone permits or agrees to it, I think he was saying something else overall but he did add that mistakes in the book are his and not the church’s. And what happened with BRM and McKay is worth exploring more especially since, I think, from memory Moyle and Peterson were the committee members? can recall now exactly but it wasn’t McKay himself who pointed out the errors, or no?
Could all make a good post or several.

Re: #33 Scottie

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

#30:
Gender is not mortal, as defined in the Family Proclamation.

It doesn’t matter how the “Proclamation” defines gender. If the “Proclamation” said that cows had five legs, would you accept that in spite of the fact that the rest of the English-speaking world knows that a cow has four legs? “Gender” is a social construct, and it varies wildly between cultures and time periods. The “Proclamation” is clearly referring to biological sex being eternal. Just because some ecclesiastical officer misuses a term, doesn’t change the definition of the term.

#32:
I just don’t think what will exist in the hereafter will involve the processes of impregnation and gestation as we know it here – that we won’t be engaging in sexual intercourse in order to create spirit children.

Thanks, Ray. That’s different from how I read your original statement.

#35:
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.

To the contrary, I think Mormonism properly elevates mankind, rather thand diminishing deity. That’s one of the most elegant, beautiful aspects of the religion taught by Joseph Smith.

#41:
One’s gender is not determined by sex organs…Gender is also an essential characteristic of the spirit prior to birth.

ARGH….So right, and then so wrong. You’re correct that gender is not determined by sex organs. Aside from the chromosomal defects you mentioned, sex organs determine one’s biological sex. If a spirit has sex organs (and Mormonism would seem to indicate that such is the case), then a sex is eternal. “Gender,” on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with sex organs. Gender is a social construct of what a particular society, at a particular time, considers “masculine” or “feminine.” By definition, “gender” cannot be eternal, no matter how badly an ecclesiastical officer misuses the term.

#42:
Kimball’s claims are also taken out of context a lot, especially the one on rape and whether someone permits or agrees to it…

You can’t “permit or agree to” being raped. Rape is defined by the absence of permission or agreement.

I think Mormonism properly elevates mankind, rather thand diminishing deity. That’s one of the most elegant, beautiful aspects of the religion taught by Joseph Smith.

Amen, Nick.

CarlosJC – “And what happened with BRM and McKay is worth exploring more especially since, I think, from memory Moyle and Peterson were the committee members? can recall now exactly but it wasn’t McKay himself who pointed out the errors, or no?” McKay was irritated at BRM’s presumption in writing a book with the title Mormon Doctrine without clearance from the FP. Peterson and Moyle were assigned by McKay to go through and identify errors. They found 1,067 errors that they then reviewed with the FP. Yes, there’s a good post in there for sure, although a few have posted on it already on MM.

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

I’ve heard that Pres. Kimball was the inspiration behind Yoda. Does anyone know whether Joseph F. Smith was the inspiration behind ZZ Top? Also, does anyone know why the Church prohibits us from serving as temple workers if we have facial hair that emulates the former Pres. Smith?

Lice – or cooties

Dear all,

I have rushed through most comments as I am on my way for the school run. This might stick in my mind and I hope I will not inadvertently drop words such as ‘sexe’ or ‘genitals’ in my reports today.
Not even mentionning 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), I wish, in a passionate moment, to mention sexuality.
Sexuality is not a competition. Indeed, it is a mean, but, hey, come on!: it is a great blessing. In these special moments with a partner that you love (and who loves you), the feelings go beyong the pleasure of the senses and reach into higher spiritual realms.
Sexuality is the most powerful desire of human beings (unless, like Paul the Apostle, you decide to remain chaste and then it is mostly out of your mind). It is programmed within the chemistry of our bodies. It is encoded into what we are: we are sexual beings. Since life is a test and a mean to gain a body of flesh as a receptacle for our spirits, sexual desires are a necessary part of our learning to master the flesh (same goes with our stomachs and minds). Do Gods use other means for perpetration of their posterity? All I know, from my smart cultural store, is that Sylvester Stallone, in Demolition Man, is deeply frustrated when Sandra Bullock explains him than in their technology advanced world (he had been in a cryogenic jail for many years) sexe is done through sitting down one in front of another and think about it!
Because of these powerful desires, and their sacred potential, these things have to be done within the limits our Father has set for us. Then, in the eternity, we may enjoy ourselves because we lives according to the plan of happiness. Not living within this plan will bring sorrow. I don’t imagine a process of punishment by castration by loving beings in the afterlife, I believe in the principle of a resurrection according to righteousness if we have been righteous, and less righteousness if we have been less so. Joseph Smith also said that (forgive my poor translation from the French) “It is at the time of resurrection that there will be much sorrow and gnashings of teeth”, when many will realise that they haven’t fulfilled the measure of their creation, have lived in a way that cannot fulfill their nature. Our choices in mortality will be reflected in our individual resurrection and will determine our sanctity here and there.
It is preferable to read and ponder D&C personnally, but it seems to me that the Lord and his prophets have been clear.
There is something special and unique in sexuality, and the fact that plural marriage will be an attribute of the Gods is another point on which eternal exaltation will be based: the blessing to enjoy intimacy in a greatly spiritually enhanced manner.
Got to go, kids are wondering what is taking me so long…and I can’t tell them!

Love.

Got to go, kids are wondering what is taking me so long…and I can’t tell them!

Instant classic line – and instant classic name.

Nick, “Rape is defined by the absence of permission or agreement” Yes certainly, I agree. Kimball was talking about something different, I think.

Hawkgrrrrl, I’ll read that again tonight; I remember it differently, that others pushed their agenda aga8inst BRM by going to Mckay but then my memory may be failing.

Homie “….sexe is done through sitting down one in front of another and think about it” well, as a man thinketh…

#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.

Lest we forget, gender has the following historical definition:

GENDER

That which designates the sexes.

2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the
feminine, as, man (q. v.) sometimes includes women. This is the general
rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which
must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the
feminine, the latter is not in general included. 3 C. & P. 225. An instance
to the contrary, however, may be found in the construction, 25 Ed. III, st.
5, c. 2, 1, which declares it to be high treason, “When a man doth compass
or imagine the death of our lord the king,” &c. These words, “our lord the
king,” have been construed to include a queen regnant. 2 Inst. 7, 8, 9, H.
P. C. 12, 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 17, Bac. Ab. Treason, D.

3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the
feminine never includes the masculine, that according to this rule if a man
were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the
legacy, but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be
included. Poth. Introd. au titre 16, des Testaments et Donations
Testamentaires, n. 170, 3 Brev. R. 9. In the Louisiana code in the French
language, it is provided that the word fils, sons, comprehends filles,
daughters. Art. 3522, n. 1. Vide Ayl. Pand. 57, 4 Car. & Payne, 216, S. C.
19 Engl. Com. Law R. 351, Barr. on the Stat. 216, note, Feme, Feme covert,
Feminine, Male, Man, Sex, Women, Worthiest of blood.

Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

In actual use, cf

gender bias
n. unequal treatment in employment opportunity (such as promotion, pay, benefits and privileges), and expectations due to attitudes based on the sex of an employee or group of employees. Gender bias can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

The problem with gender, as with many words, is that there are some who have decided that they either need a word with a different meaning and are using the word for that (and thereby feel that they should be entitled to exclude others from the legal or historical meanings of the word) or there are those who are trying to remake meaning, including the word.

I would note that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act clearly does not protect transsexuals, and thereby could be thought of using gender the way the Proclamation on the Family uses it and not the way Nick is using it. On the other hand, any reason one might discriminate against transsexuals can be treated as discrimination for failure to follow sexual roles and thereby becomes actionable, which would support Nick’s use of the word. (Yes, the public law class I just taught is bleeding over into my posting).

I’m back to sleep. I was home asleep, having called in sick when I got a mandatory call, turns out the company has decided that anyone who is sick is to get a call telling them to stay home and recover. This posting was just enough to put me back to sleep.

cf: the fact or condition of being a male or a female human being, esp. with regard to how this affects or determines a person’s self-image, social status, goals, etc.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/gender

One possibility (as long as we are speculating) that has not been discussed is that we shall all be resurrected with all our parts, but some of those parts could atrophy from lack of use. Thus, the real question is, what so resurrected beings do? Unless you are married, I don’t see anyone getting any action – at least none that involves those bits.

If we want to know what we will have, we first have to know what we will be doing. For those of us who have spent years unmarried, that is not an idle question!

#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”.

Here’s a link to a similar discussion at MADB, in case anyone is interested.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=30428&hl=post-mortal+gender

Contrary to a couple of replies above, I think it’s fine to wonder and discuss something like this, when you consider what eternity might or might not be like for you depending on your kingdom assignment. Personally, I’m hanging my hat on Alma’s statement that the resurrection will be a complete restoration, with gender in all of its features and implications wholly intact (Alma 40:23, noted above). And, despite the justice of God, being the loving Father that He is, I think He would not want to deny the pleasures of intimacy to those who were “the honorable men of the earth.” However, I can see him making the rapists wait a few millennia.

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)

Why is it a picture of Joseph F. Smith when you are quouting Joseph Fielding Smith from Doctrines of Salvation? Just curious.

“quoting”… is what… I meant.

Seems to me that years ago I read that Joseph actually said we could hardly wait to die to get to even the TK, not that we’d want to kill ourselves to get there. And doesn’t that make a lot more sense?

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.