“Is queerness eternal?” This titular question is a question that is perhaps one of the biggest facing Mormonism today and very close to me personally. I’m ace (if you’re a new reader, repenting lapsed one, or otherwise missed that post in May you can read it here, and again, happy to chat about it if you have questions/concerns/thoughts/whatever) and classify myself under the Queer umbrella. I’m using “queerness” here because I think it is the most inclusive word for the LGBTQIA community and allows for all sorts of identities and individuals to be included in the conversation. It also reflects a fluidity of identity that I think is important and gives individuals a little more flexibility and leeway to express a variety of orientations/feelings/etc. Not to mention the older usage of queer as “weird” or “strange” or “curious” that I dig. And I’m all about reclaiming words that have been used as slurs and making them positive (I am a Mormon, after all). I know not everyone loves the word and so in personal interactions try to be respectful of that.
This question seems key to me because the way we respond to queerness in mortality will shift somewhat depending on whether we believe it is eternal or not. It’s been fairly established recently-ish that homosexuality (and I think, though obviously not necessarily, by extension other varieties of queerness) is not a choice and a somewhat inherent part of some people’s mortal experience. But does this necessarily mean that it is an eternal part of our identity? I’m not sure. It feels as much a part of who I am as any other facet of my identity.
We believe that we existed prior to coming to earth, that some pieces of our identity were formed, that we carried with us some attributes and personality traits. At least, that feels culturally established, I’m not sure if there are clear scriptural or other statements supporting those beliefs. However, we do have the quasi-scriptural “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, which argues some things about our eternal identity here:
“ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
I could complicate some of the ideas here, but I think for our purposes today, we can interpret these lines more or less as they are standardly interpreted. Namely that gender is a piece of our identity that was with us before this life, is with us here on earth, and will remain with us after we die (I think this is pretty open for sympathetically responding to trans* individuals, but again, not quite the focus of today). Does this mean that race is an eternal piece of our identity? Sexual orientation? Hair color? Body type? My sense of humor? Taste in movies/food/books/etc.?
I’m not sure what sets something up as an eternal characteristic and what’s just a characteristic. BUT sexual orientation feels eternal to me—that’s not to say that there’s not a fluidity there, but I don’t think that fluidity is going to be more or less than it is here. So take that for what you will. It feels right to me (tastes good to use some of Joseph’s parlance) that sexual orientation is a part of our eternal identity.
All I have to support that is the idea that gender is eternal in some sense and that relationships matter and what I feel about my own identity and what I’ve heard many other queer folk express about themselves. So what does this mean?
This is where things get messy. It seems far more difficult to support the theology of the Church of an exclusively heterosexual heaven, if you embrace eternal, varied sexual orientations. Then not only are you arguing that some people should remain alone and unmarried throughout mortality (which is just a blink of an eye as Alex Boye croons), but that those individuals will remain alone and unmarried throughout eternity (at least unmarried to someone to whom they are sexually attracted). The argument is not just that they should be single throughout this life, but that they should stay that way throughout the eternities—forever separated from a person that they love.
Or in my case, the implication that I will die, have the veil removed, and suddenly have some raging desire for sex is just weird and strange and bizarre. Like doesn’t that seem like a kinda backwards thing to do to someone? “Hey, Conor, let’s not have you feel sexual attraction for your entire mortal experience, which is all about your body and figuring out how all that works, but once you’re dead and don’t have that body anymore, I’ll just give you all that lifetime of missed sexual attraction, ok? That won’t mess with your spirit at all.” Sounds like some extreme, horrific version of puberty.
Not to mention that it feels like I’m broken and missing something and need to be fixed. And none of those are pleasant feelings. And don’t resonate with the spiritual experiences I have had communing with the Divine about being ace. I’ve only felt love and acceptance and an embrace for my better understanding of who I am.
One way out of this mess is believing that there won’t be any sex in Heaven. Like, no one will feel any sort of sexual attraction—not to say that there won’t be love or romance or physical attraction, but that sexual attraction just won’t be a part of the picture because celestial creation is a totally different process and doesn’t require sex. That sounds fine/great to me, but I get that I am probably in a very small minority.
Another is believing that the Church is wrong about some things and that there will be a variety of queer relationships sanctioned by God in the eternities. If queerness is eternal, it seems the only reason this would not be the case is cruelty. Are there any other characteristics that cannot be lived without severe consequences? Regardless, if queerness is eternal we have a lot of work to do in figuring out a theology for these individuals. What is the best an eternally gay man or ace dude can hope for? Eternally being a ministering angel? Be in some sexless, marriage/friendship thing?
I don’t have any answers, but I do have thoughts and feelings. I feel eternally ace, queer forever. And it feels like a violence to me to suggest that I won’t always be this way (tip: probably don’t tell your queer friends that eventually this “trial” or whatever you call it will be taken away and that then they’ll suddenly be straight and happy and all that jazz). It strikes me that most conversations about Queer Mormons depend on answering this question. So let’s chat.
Conor Hilton 
If you take me and resurrect the good, but leave the undesirable in the grave. You haven’t resurrected me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES.
LikeLike
You’re supposed to answer the question you ask in the title, not leave me with more when I finish reading. How am I ever supposed to know everything with people like you around?
I love this post. Problem is, I’m about where you are. I think “most conversations about Queer Mormons depend on answering this question,” but I don’t think anyone’s answer gets close to satisfying everyone. I suppose that might be good in some ways — each person needs to feel their way through this question, communicate with the divine, talk to others, and try to find what feels right.
But many people feel the question is already answered — that queerness is a temporary trial here on earth and heterosexuality is the eternal state for everyone. So the conversation is a non-starter in a lot of places. How do we grapple publicly (or semi-publicly) with the issue while honoring the church’s basic position?
Oh, and I, for one, am inclined to think that queerness is indeed eternal. But I’m interested to see what that means in the end.
LikeLike
I’ve never been very good at answering questions without asking a few more.
Agreed on the lack of single satisfactory answer, but I think grappling with the implications of the various possibilities is good for people on all sides (condemning homosexuality/queerness has much higher stakes if it is an eternal characteristic and likewise using it as such a defining aspect of identity if it is only a temporary/mortal facet of identity has troubling implications).
Yeah, I’d probably agree that most default to the “temporary trial” position, but I’d like to see those people engage in dialogue with queer Mormons and think about what that really means. And to develop a more rigorous defense for that position (how do we know what is or isn’t eternal about our identity? is everything labeled a “sin” a temporary/mortal thing? will we not take any of that with us? what’s the point of experiencing queerness on Earth if it’ll be taken once we die? etc.). Yes, the question of public grappling is a complicated one (I think you can believe that queerness is eternal AND stand by the Church’s position, though it strikes me that doing so feels far more cruel and less justifiable, which should probably cause some self-reflection). I’m not sure how to do so. I don’t think the Church is sure either (and seems to have lost any sense of public grappling that may have existed in earlier, more intimate days).
Definitely interested in the implications (theoretically and personally, obviously).
LikeLike
I love that you so calmly and comfortably suggest concepts and pose questions that would make so so many Church members explode to even consider. I’ve actually never considered that someone would feel that being queer was an essential part of their eternal identity, that they wouldn’t want it to be changed upon death or resurrection. Shame on me.
I think that those on the outside need to realize that everyone’s path is unique and that we truly do not know much about what post-mortal life will be like, so we’re in no position to exalt or condemn. I mean, we never are, but certainly not on things so complex and personal and doctrinally murky. I guess the problem is that most Mormons don’t think this doctrine is murky at all, when it actually is.
As for those who are queer themselves, for what my heteropinion (lol) is worth, I think the answer is to be authentic to yourself and your conscience, and then believe that God knows you, knows your heart, and will take care of you, whatever that means. It’s about trusting that what God wants for you will make you happier than what you think will make you happy; one of the very hardest things to do, queer or otherwise. I personally hope that you’re right, that you will be able to remain queer, but I believe that if that isn’t the case, that it won’t be as sad as it seems now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for reading and commenting Greg. And thank you–I try to calmly and comfortably explore whatever ideas feel needing of exploration.
Absolutely with you on the need to understand how little we know of the life to come. I think that sort of humility about what we do/don’t know is an essential aspect of learning and treating others with the love that we are called to do.
Agreed with the difficulty of trusting that whatever God wants for us is the best thing possible. And yes, I try to remain open to other possibilities than the ones that seem most likely to me currently and definitely believe in a loving God that will do whatever is best for me and everyone else (including my queer brothers and sisters) and that there’s so much that is possible that it would be foolish for me to demand a certain outcome, when the reality could be something I haven’t even considered yet. Good words here, Greg.
LikeLike