Boinking in the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -01-02.gif[/img]

[Guest]

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -01-02.gif[/img]

+1

Looks like Barbie never should have told Ken that he could finally have his way with her.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

Joseph Fielding Smith: Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 2 wrote:
Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection.

A question arises as to whether this was doctrinal or not. Perhaps this was just speculation from the men of the Smith family gathered in the parlor after a hearty Sunday dinner, while engaging in a rather good round of tale spin. Or maybe the Telestial and Terrestrial residents will indeed find themselves without genitalia. This would stand as strong encouragement for Mormons to stay on the straight and narrow for an eternity of amatory action later on.

Your input is needed on this perplexing issue.

JFS forgot that we are now living in a Telestial kingdom with genitalia in tact. Sometimes we fallible humans aren't able to connect the dots within our own beliefs.

This certainly relieves Mormons from your aforementioned encouragement to stay on the straight and narrow.....hey, what a great play on words, Moksha!!

Blessings,

jo

[_Fence Sitter]

JFS could not envision a time when mankind would be able to reproduce without engaging in intercourse.

Why do we even assume God enjoys/needs to engage in the physical act of sex?

I wonder if the fear & disgust Mormons have regarding sex is a result of believing that their God might be boinking someone? Maybe this is why we don't talk about heavenly mother.

And we wonder why other religions finds Mormonism strange.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Why do we even assume God enjoys/needs to engage in the physical act of sex?

Sex is also a medium for bonding and socialization, in both hetero- and homosexual contexts.

Is god a social being? There's no reason to assume that a social, anthropomorphic god would not engage in sexual activity in all of these contexts...assuming such a being exists to begin with.

[_Fence Sitter]

Why do we even assume God enjoys/needs to engage in the physical act of sex?

Sex is also a medium for bonding and socialization, in both hetero- and homosexual contexts.

Is god a social being? There's no reason to assume that a social, anthropomorphic god would not engage in sexual activity in all of these contexts...assuming such a being exists to begin with.

Assuming such a being exists, what is it that distinguishes him from us? If he has all our needs and wants what is left for the divine?

[_moksha]

Enjoyed this quote from Brother Nibley:

As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature...His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal...and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem...The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing...to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210).

This hoopla by the band of sistrum-shaking sisters got me thinking about a poem by Vachel Lindsay:

II. Their Irrepressible High Spirits

Tame quilt-makers with a whoop and a call
Danced a waltz in their Helaman Hall. And laughed fit to thrill, and shook the town,
And flirted with the RMs and laughed them
down
With a fer sure, fer sure, fer sure,
Varoom....
THEN
I SAW THE JELL-O, CREEPING THROUGH
THE CRACK,
CUTTING THROUGH THE CAMPUS WITH A
BRIGHT GREEN TRACK.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Assuming such a being exists, what is it that distinguishes him from us? If he has all our needs and wants what is left for the divine?

Do we have any empirical information that suggests human "needs and wants" are antithetical to divinity? We have a certain amount of speculative literature that suggests this might be the case (depending on which ancient books you invest your faith in) but nothing more than that.

I think the problem we're running into is that we're trying to use a rational construct to shed light on an irrational (i.e. supernatural) being. Again, assuming such a creature exists to begin with.

[_Fence Sitter]

Do we have any empirical information that suggests human "needs and wants" are antithetical to divinity? We have a certain amount of speculative literature that suggests this might be the case (depending on which ancient books you invest your faith in) but nothing more than that.

I think the problem we're running into is that we're trying to use a rational construct to shed light on an irrational (i.e. supernatural) being. Again, assuming such a creature exists to begin with.

I agree and yet so much of what we as Mormons hope for is a continuation of those human aspects that may or may not be part of a divine being. We spend our lives working toward goals we don't understand. The Mormon concept of eternal life is one big long Stepford wives episode.

[_LittleNipper]

Dwelling on an unknown one has no control over, concerning things that have no consequence, is a moral waste of time and energy.