Disclaimer: This may be offensive to some people. I will talk about hetero and homosexuality in relation to understanding a ‘celestial sexuality’ and whether one of the current views can be applied to paedophiles.
Firstly, I should apologise for another post of sexuality; but I guess this is what happens in a sexually repressed culture, we talk about it (see Michel Foucault: The History of Sexuality). One of the unresolved problems I have with Mormon doctrine is how we view and understand sexuality. It does not make a lot of sense to me.
Faithful Dissident has argued that love is essential to healthy human beings and argued that if people love each other there is nothing wrong with this. The exceptions however were incest and sex between a child and an adult. What separates these issues out as being inherently evil? I think 50 years ago the same might have been said about homosexuality. The problem for me is that sexuality has a history and in other times sexual relations between people have had different values .
Jeffrey R. Holland has said that heterosexual “human intimacy is a sacrament” in that it is “one of a number of gestures or acts or ordinances that unites us with God and his limitless power” . But what is the place of homosexuality in the next life? One item of reasoning on this is that the Church’s current position on Homosexuality (that those with these desires will be changed in the next life) does not take into consideration the fact that these individuals may not want to be changed. Gustav-Wrathall’s excellent article outlines a touching account of dealing with this issue in the Church. Much of his argument I cannot disagree with, except when I think it through to its logical conclusion.
For if I apply this same logic to other sexual situations I am left with some uncomfortable conclusions. For example, there is wide literature (see the APA) that sexual orientation is not chosen and that it is the result of a mixture of environmental, social and genetic factors. Therefore the argument that people are born this way is equally applicable to some people who are sexually attracted to young people, or even children. Will God honour their sexual preferences? Or if we are all adults will they be left with no sexually satisfying relationships? If you reject the idea that God will accept this form of lifestyle, upon what basis do you do that? Can this same logic be applied to heterosexual or homosexual preferences as well?
I want to be very clear here. I am not suggesting in anyway that homosexuals are paedophiles, nor am I claiming that their sexual preferences are in anyway comparable with sexual abuse. Nor am I advocating paedophile behaviour. I just want to understand what makes sexuality divine and I am not convinced by the above argument. I am merely suggesting that the logic some have applied to justifiying a celestial homosexuality can be applied to other forms of sexuality that are not as socially acceptable. Moreover, for those involved these feelings could be just as natural as heterosexual or homosexual desires. I am unsure on all counts. I just don’t know.
Have I mis-understood what is implied in this argument? Is what I am saying wrong? What is the logic of celestial sexuality?
1. Plato, The Symposium, (London: Penguin Books, 2005).
2. Jeffrey R. Holland, Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments in Morality, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992) 162.
3. John Donald Gustav-Wrathall, A Gay Mormon’s Testimony in Sunstone, April 2006, (Salt lake City: Sunstone Education Foundation) pp. 52-7.