The June 1

[creekster]

I can see how SSM could be seen to strike at the heart of LDS cosmology. But I've always been puzzled by the notion that our theology requires us to believe that all sexual relationships in this life are ultimately intended to mirror those of exalted beings. The D&C makes it pretty clear that only certain relationships--i.e., those sanctified in a temple--will be in force after this life and will give (some of) us the potential to divinely mirror the lives of our Heavenly Parents. One could argue on the basis of scriptural evidence that it is perhaps an ideal to be aspired to and not necessarily a social norm to be enforced (that's not to say that there couldn't be other good reasons to enforce such norms--that topic has been revisited ad nauseum on this board and elsewhere else).

So, I guess I can see how our highly sexualized theology sets us off from other Christian denominations in some respects. But when you recall that only those in the highest kingdom within the highest kingdom will enjoy the full gender-specific fruits of exaltation, doesn't that suggest that many--perhaps a majority--of other social and sexual relationships will not necessarily be invested with eternal significance?

So you would have most of us give up on ourselves now, and just get it over with?

[Harry Tic]

So you would have most of us give up on ourselves now, and just get it over with?

I've already resigned myself to an eternity of friendship w/o benefits.

[creekster]

I've already resigned myself to an eternity of friendship w/o benefits.

What? Was it over when the Germans bombed pearl harbor? It ain't over until we say its over!

[Bruiserstone]

I can see how SSM could be seen to strike at the heart of LDS cosmology. But I've always been puzzled by the notion that our theology requires us to believe that all sexual relationships in this life are ultimately intended to mirror those of exalted beings. The D&C makes it pretty clear that only certain relationships--i.e., those sanctified in a temple--will be in force after this life and will give (some of) us the potential to divinely mirror the lives of our Heavenly Parents. One could argue on the basis of scriptural evidence that it is perhaps an ideal to be aspired to and not necessarily a social norm to be enforced (that's not to say that there couldn't be other good reasons to enforce such norms--that topic has been revisited ad nauseum on this board and elsewhere else).

So, I guess I can see how our highly sexualized theology sets us off from other Christian denominations in some respects. But when you recall that only those in the highest kingdom within the highest kingdom will enjoy the full gender-specific fruits of exaltation, doesn't that suggest that many--perhaps a majority--of other social and sexual relationships will not necessarily be invested with eternal significance?

Only those practicing polygamy and polyandry with make the top kingdom?

[Harry Tic]

Only those practicing polygamy and polyandry with make the top kingdom?

Do you want a 2014 answer? Or an 1880 answer?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you want a 2014 answer? Or an 1880 answer?

Dang it, Harry. I have missed your posts.

[SeattleUte]

I can see how SSM could be seen to strike at the heart of LDS cosmology. But I've always been puzzled by the notion that our theology requires us to believe that all sexual relationships in this life are ultimately intended to mirror those of exalted beings. The D&C makes it pretty clear that only certain relationships--i.e., those sanctified in a temple--will be in force after this life and will give (some of) us the potential to divinely mirror the lives of our Heavenly Parents. One could argue on the basis of scriptural evidence that it is perhaps an ideal to be aspired to and not necessarily a social norm to be enforced (that's not to say that there couldn't be other good reasons to enforce such norms--that topic has been revisited ad nauseum on this board and elsewhere else).

So, I guess I can see how our highly sexualized theology sets us off from other Christian denominations in some respects. But when you recall that only those in the highest kingdom within the highest kingdom will enjoy the full gender-specific fruits of exaltation, doesn't that suggest that many--perhaps a majority--of other social and sexual relationships will not necessarily be invested with eternal significance?

Super weird post.

[Harry Tic]

Super weird post.

If you had approved of it, I would be worried.

[Commando]

If you had approved of it, I would be worried.

I believe he's mainly referring to the term "elsewhere else."

[Harry Tic]

I believe he's mainly referring to the term "elsewhere else."

Well, I can see how an infelicity like that could send someone like SU off the trail. I'm just glad Donut hasn't flayed me alive.

But I'm still interested in the question about how what was once pretty evidently an ideal state (theologically speaking) attained by only a few came to be regarded as (1) a norm for all members of the church and (2) a kind of general social norm as well that our political institutions should at least partially mirror. My sense is that we tend to conflate ideals and norms in ways that our theology doesn't necessarily support. Again, that's not to say that there might not be other good theological arguments to make against SSM. But I think we're sometimes careless in the inferences we draw from scripture.

Anyway, sorry for the threadjack (is there a name for the law that eventually all CS discussions will come around to SSM?). Carry on with your women and the priesthood and your excommunications and whatnot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, I can see how an infelicity like that could send someone like SU off the trail. I'm just glad Donut hasn't flayed me alive.

But I'm still interested in the question about how what was once pretty evidently an ideal state (theologically speaking) attained by only a few came to be regarded as (1) a norm for all members of the church and (2) a kind of general social norm as well that our political institutions should at least partially mirror. My sense is that we tend to conflate ideals and norms in ways that our theology doesn't necessarily support. Again, that's not to say that there might not be other good theological arguments to make against SSM. But I think we're sometimes careless in the inferences we draw from scripture.

Anyway, sorry for the threadjack (is there a name for the law that eventually all CS discussions will come around to SSM?). Carry on with your women and the priesthood and your excommunications and whatnot.

Yep. Lebowski's Law.

[SeattleUte]

I can see how SSM could be seen to strike at the heart of LDS cosmology. But I've always been puzzled by the notion that our theology requires us to believe that all sexual relationships in this life are ultimately intended to mirror those of exalted beings. The D&C makes it pretty clear that only certain relationships--i.e., those sanctified in a temple--will be in force after this life and will give (some of) us the potential to divinely mirror the lives of our Heavenly Parents. One could argue on the basis of scriptural evidence that it is perhaps an ideal to be aspired to and not necessarily a social norm to be enforced (that's not to say that there couldn't be other good reasons to enforce such norms--that topic has been revisited ad nauseum on this board and elsewhere else).

So, I guess I can see how our highly sexualized theology sets us off from other Christian denominations in some respects. But when you recall that only those in the highest kingdom within the highest kingdom will enjoy the full gender-specific fruits of exaltation, doesn't that suggest that many--perhaps a majority--of other social and sexual relationships will not necessarily be invested with eternal significance?

It's a surreal, hilarious experience to see people here cite science as they lecture me about my skepticism over the cliimate change bandwagon and then with a straight face engage posts like this. Mormonism is fucking weird.

[creekster]

It's a surreal, hilarious experience to see people here cite science as they lecture me about my skepticism over the cliimate change bandwagon and then with a straight face engage posts like this. Mormonism is fucking weird.

And you are a fruit of that tree.

The fact is that people are weird.

For one practicing the religion of kindness you are pretty aggressive about that post. (Feel free to remind me about the word of wisdom if you would like to help me with my religion)

[Harry Tic]

It's a surreal, hilarious experience to see people here cite science as they lecture me about my skepticism over the cliimate change bandwagon and then with a straight face engage posts like this. Mormonism is fucking weird.

I am puzzled by your puzzlement, SU. And I think that your last sentence sums up pretty much every post you ever make, no matter the topic or thread.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a surreal, hilarious experience to see SU cite logic and reason as he lectures us about Mormonism and then with a straight face engage discussions about climate change like a foil-capped, anti-science nutjob. SeattleUte is effing weird.