posted
I want to be the Queen Bee of a hive. Lots of drones to keep me happy, lots of workers to do the tough stuff.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Rabbit is completely right about this. Separate the legal from the moral considerations completely. Make legal rights be contingent on legal responsibilities.
My ideas about the moral side of this are not set. I am not sure what I think. Probably never having been married is one reason for my lack of understanding. But I can clearly see the advantages of polyandry. I think two, or perhaps three, husbands would be the perfect number. I also like Heinlein's lineal marriages in tMiaHM. It does seem like making a real partnership, becoming one flesh, with one person being as difficult as it is, then more spouses would only multiply the difficulties. But I have no doubt that some people could manage it, and be blessed thereby.
I feel like it may be true that in our embodied state here on earth, we simply don't have the time and resources of attention and love that would be necessary to do that well. That in able to be a really good wife to one man, it may be I must forgo trying to be that for two. In heaven, things may be different. But what I feel sure is true is that there is no inequality in heaven. If men can have more than one wife in heaven, then I'm sure it's true that women can have more than one husband.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it a Mormon belief that there are different degrees of heaven depending on what one believed in life?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aka, assuming (improperly, of course) that you are coming from an orthodox Christian viewpoint (though not necessarily an Orthodox Christian one, if that change in captialization makes sense), Jesus explicitly says that people will neither marry nor be given in marriage in heaven. My own interpretation of that is that we will all be so intimately unified in heaven that the concept of Marriage would be so universal as to be pointless-- it would apply to everyone, not any particular pair.
If dkw is around, she could maybe give us a different take on the idea... but to my inexperienced eye, the standard Christian heaven is a large group marriage where everyone is too occupied with ecstasy to bother about sex.
I know Mormons, obivously, view this a bit differently, and know next to nothing about other religious views.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't seem to follow, unless every religion that lays down different rules for genders on Earth is wrong. Doesn't it follow that if a god requires different things of different genders on Earth than that god will in heaven as well? Unless souls are genderless. In which case religions that teach that those that die married live on married forever ought to support gay marriage because genders are only a fleeting thing and all souls are equal.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a mormon I am not sure how to view sexual identity. One thing that stands out in my study of psychology, physiology, and molecular biology is the concept that gender is a continuum and not a stage.
Meaning we are all concieved female, and then at one point, a certain hormone kicks in, if you are male, and STARTS to develop male sexual organs.
Now, if all goes as traditionally thought of as well, then you get a male baby. But a lot of times development stops on that continuum and you have a range of people that have both genders, one primary gender and one secondary gender, or one expressed gender and one hidden gender.
There are plenty of cases where if there is a question (it is often easier to make a girl) to a definative gender, then hormon therapy and a little *snip* Snip* will "fix" the problem.
That being said, I have a problem believing that there are male and female spirits in the spirit world (pre or post life) without allowing for transgendered spirits. Any thoughts on how Mormons justify that?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't know. I think that spiritual gender must not correspond exactly with the gender of physical bodies, because of exactly what you note. Physical bodies don't always fall neatly into one or the other.
The verse about there being no marriage in heaven, is by we LDS interpreted as meaning that marriage must take place here. But what is bound on earth by God's authorized representative remains bound in heaven. So we do believe marriages and family ties still exist after death.
As for there being no sex in heaven. How can it be heaven with no sex? I mean really!
Seriously, I think there is a spiritual counterpart to everything in physical existence. That the material is a sort of shadow of, or substrate for, the spiritual. So, just as our bodies will be perfected, so will our marriages and family relationships, including sexual relationships. That we will have learned by then how to achieve all these things with perfect love and joy, and with complete innocence and purity.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I reconcile a lot of uncertainties by realizing that we are, as spiritual beings, very limited as yet. There is so much that we can't fully understand yet, because of our lack of development. I do believe completely in eternal progression, and I know that I, for one, have a long long way to go before I could be considered at all Christlike. So I try not to sweat overly much about stuff I don't really understand yet. I hold all these things in abeyance. I make provisional decisions, using my best judgement, and trying always to pick the most loving path. To me it's clear that love is the primary thing. So I'm working hardest on that right now. Maybe in a few aeons I will be able to give my full attention to these other questions, and have more to say about them. Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: As a mormon I am not sure how to view sexual identity. One thing that stands out in my study of psychology, physiology, and molecular biology is the concept that gender is a continuum and not a stage.
So you're not familiar with the proclamation on the Family? That's a big surprise for a self described Faithful Mormon like yourself.
Fugu- yes, we believe that only those who go to the Celestial Kingdom will have marriage after death, and that the highest sub-degree of the Celestial Kingdom you have to be married to progress. Because eventually (not necessarily right away) such people will have spirit children of their own. A lot of days I am not entirely certain I have the desire or the guts to face that.
On which note, if there is equality in heaven, the men will catch up on labor and delivery pain? Just joshing anne kate and kat.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You paint a beautiful picture have heaven, pooka. Rows of men screaming from the pain of childbirth and women lined up to get kicked repeatedly in the nuts.
Sign me up for that ride!
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka It is obvious from: "So you're not familiar with the proclamation on the Family? That's a big surprise for a self described Faithful Mormon like yourself. ": that you don't believe I am a faithful mormon. That is ok. I am. (<---didn't mean to plagiarize .
I never said I was not aware of the proclamation. I am aware of the proclamation, THAT is my point. The proclamation is an example of where I find a discrepency between the authority of the church and what I feel is right.
I have not vested enough faith in the institution of the church or the leadership to the point I can make myself believe everything that is published in the church name has no faults.
To me the proclamation stands at odds with my understanding of biology. My mistake was in assuming other mormons felt the same discrepency. I had already assumed you felt the discrepency and was asking how you came to terms with "we all have a gender in heaven" and "gender is a continuum."
Do other faithful mormons believe that our spirit is either male or female, and if development stops at a certain stage, the ressurection will "fix" it? Or, are there mormons who believe that there is a continuum of gender in the spirit world? Or are there other beliefs with regard to spiritual gender. I wanted a feel for how mormons make that work in their own minds.
For me, I think that either there is no gender in heaven (which makes sense to me intellectually, but does'nt feel right) OR that gender is a continuum, and someone who doesn't fit into the Male/Female role, will have a spirit that reflects their body (which feels right but doesn't sound right).
But I do not think it is right or feel it is right that we are either Male or Female and our spirits will relect our TRUE gender and the resuurection will fix us. In Taiwan, and other asian cultures, transgender is seen as a blessing. For me to call that "wrong" doesn't sit well with me.
Hence, my desire to see if I was the only one who felt the way I do, or if having these thougths places me at too much at odds with churhc doctrine.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you're NOT the only LDS person that feels the way you do about this issue. However, I still think it is a pretty radical position to take, based solely on scripture. Add modern statements such as the Proclamation, and it's downright unorthodox.
I think it is safe to say that Mormon doctrine is pretty clear on the existence of exactly two genders, both in the pre-mortal life and in the eternities after death. It begins with "Male and Female created He them" and goes straight through "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord," and on and on from there.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are sincerely looking for a place to discuss this with other LDS, the Cards have the www.nauvoo.com forum.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I like the fact that we're discussing it here, too. I am a a faithful Mormon, and I too think that something is uncertain in the continuum vs. exactly two thing. Because it's not a question that directly applies to my situation, I don't feel it to be a major difficulty for my own self, though I really do look forward to the church accepting gay and transgender members. I think we're missing a lot of worthy and wonderful people right now, and I don't think that situation will last forever.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think it's fine for here. There are just more Mormons over there, and if you're looking for a range of reactions, it would be helpful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dallin Oaks said that a lot of things will be fixed in the ressurection, but you never can be sure, so do your best and have faith. That's a paraphrase.
By saying there are exactly two genders does not mean that the most exaggerated and stereotypical features of gender are the eternal ones. If you think of the continuum that does exist culturally, picture the outer ends and the middle part as being normalized to the middle of each side.
I think many homosexuals are hyper-gendered more than transgendered. Coming from my theory that it's more about excluding the opposite sex than including your own. But I don't know how this got turned into a gay thread.
edit: I removed the last paragraph, but I don't think anyone read it.
posted
I'll chime in with my quarter. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I've had some thoughts, I'll share.
I think legalization of gay marriage legitimizes polygamy from a strict generalist logical point of view. "consenting adults will do as they are want to do..." with the obvious caveat that a polygamous society (historically speaking) is a patriarchal one where women don't get much of a say in the arrangements.
acknowledging that age of consent/good-decision-making is fairly arbitrary in our laws and difficult to legislate, it's hard to accept an argument against polygamy for consenting mature adults.
the logic of social interaction isn't the difficulty, it's the definition of the terms involved. ... I think.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
