Fifthziff

I don't think those are the best words to describe what he is really trying to say which is to be spiritually minded. Spiritually minded is different than the autonomic nervous system or "instinct" per se. These are familiar words but not exact and can cause confusion, I think it is best to describe them as spiritual promptings or listening to the Spirit or being spiritually minded.

In my opinion they are related. In our current condition, we are dual beings, the carnal and the spiritual body together. The carnal mind clouds the spiritual and is a "veil" to our understanding as well as not being in the presence of God (could be a presence of mind - spiritually minded). There may be moments in life that we are more spiritually minded and then the veil is thinner. When we die, the veil is lifted because we leave behind the carnal mind, the body, the brain. The "forgetfulness" is a function of us not having the capacity to access our spiritual minds with the limited ability of the human brain (carnal body) that we are using right now. When we finally enter into Gods presence again with a perfected physical body (brain) then we will not have the "veil of forgetfulness" clouding the access to what we have learned during our spiritual development before coming here.

In my opinion, the human brain is wired to be self centered, survival minded, worried about our own well being and those around us the most. This is part of the main test we face in this life to choose to love our neighbor as our self or not. If we make it to the Celestial Kingdom, those individuals will have mastered the ability to have 100% empathy for everyone else around them. This is how they will all share in the accomplishments of everyone and their glory will be eternal as they take on the glory of others achievements. We are told that God's glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. This means that God is 100% empathetic to that achievement as if He is doing it Himself, therefore it adds to His glory. The result of being 100% empathetic to others is the ability to take on all that God has done in the past and receive all that will happen, then we can be eternal beings without beginning or end. The test is to see our underlying character, do we like the mortal self which is self centered, dealing with whatever is in front of his or do we prefer to be spiritually minded and can extend ourselves beyond our own limited experience, literally incorporating others experiences into our own. Or do we want to be like Satan who could not share his glory with anyone but himself. That is the test. Empathy is the center of that test.

I believe Adams Transgression to be all the things that come as a result of adam's transgression, i.e. - living in an carnal body. For example, I don't think the apostles will be punished for falling asleep while Christ was in the Garden of Gethsemane. They tried to stay awake but because of Adam's transgression their body was not able to stay awake. Their spirit was willing but the body not able. So the things for which the spirit is willing but the body not able, we will not be punished for. Another example would be if a person blurted out a profanity because they had some physical ailment that caused such a thing, like Tourette's or even Alzheimer's etc. a person would not be punished for "Adam's transgression" - an imperfect body.

I'm sorry, maybe I am missing something. Where are you seeing that God will look upon their souls with sadness and sorrow when they are in spirit prison? I am not seeing that scripture reference.

I agree. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that it is as a result of the Fall of Adam and Eve that we have the bodies we have and all their associated carnal passions. Why do people in the Church, people that know the Plan of Salvation, still believe that if a person was born a certain way that that is how God intended it to be as opposed to that particular drive is produced by having a body that is fallen and could go against and even opposite of what that person's spirit would want. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Being "born that way" is not an excuse or an argument for anything that goes against the spirit. Like Elder Bednar said; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies." .... so, yeah, don't use the excuse that God made me that way, then one would be saying that God created the natural pull of sin, corruption and death. That only comes from not really understanding what happened as a result of the Fall to each of us.

Its not that He created a plan that way or could He do it another way, that is just the way it is. It is one of those facts that eternal glory depends on others. Gods work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. His glory depends on us. If we want to have what he has then we must learn to live that way in which we are love God (God's lifestyle, way of doing things etc) with all our heart and mind and we love our neighbor as our self. These are commandments that depend on others. That is the heart of our gospel. Christ could not be Christ without suffering for our sins. He could not be a Savior if he did't save. Satan wanted to be independent. He didn't want to share glory, or give glory to anyone. Our glory can be eternal if we share glory for another's accomplishments. That can only happen, though, if we love others as our self, perfectly. That is a truth that God cannot change.

Thank you. Yes that is great. In discussing the Physical DNA, that article says "It also has some influence on your personality and your emotional and psychological makeup." I think that is the issue some people don't grasp, is that even personality (which includes attractions) is made up of our physical DNA, not just our spirit self. And it goes on to say that the reason God made our bodies and our Physical DNA different (as opposed to "spiritual DNA") is; "Yet our different talents—physical, intellectual, and otherwise—allow us to benefit one another and appreciate one another in different ways. Most importantly, our differences can help us learn divine qualities of patience, compassion, and love." We all know the discussion of why there needs to be opposition in all things while in this life. It is interesting to read that some of that opposition is created by the difference between physical DNA and spiritual DNA. It also states in that article that God is who created the differences, the differences were not developed by choice, He gave us those differences; "God makes people genetically diverse for His purposes. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, then of the First Presidency, taught that it belongs to “the genius of God” that He created “every man different from his brother, every son different from his father” (“Four Titles,” Apr. 2013 general conference [Ensign or Liahona, May 2013, 59])."

The discussion stems from this statement. Even our prophet states in a recent article "Your body; A magnificent Gift to Cherish" on lds.org " Our Creator put appetites in our bodies to perpetuate the human race and fulfill His great plan of happiness. Thus, we have appetites for food, for water, and for love." I suppose I am using the word "appetite" as synonymous to "attraction" for the purpose of this discussion. Maybe that is where we are not connecting in this discussion. The prophet also stated in that article; "Part of that testing is to determine if the appetites of your body can become mastered by the spirit that dwells within it." So, if we relate appetites to attractions, we can say that God put attractions in the body and part of the test we face is to see if the spirit can master the attractions the body generates. I also like what he says here "Please note: A perfect body is not required to achieve a divine destiny. In fact, some of the sweetest spirits are housed in frail frames. Great spiritual strength is often developed by those with physical challenges—precisely because they are challenged. Such individuals are entitled to all the blessings that God has in store for His faithful and obedient children." So, if the challenge from the body is a certain appetite (attraction), that, in and of itself, is not a sin, it is just a challenge. Maybe that helps?

I think Christ would disagree with that statement as He did say, "Forgive them for they know not what they do". Also, think about what sleep walking or sleep eating is. A person is not aware of what they are doing but they are attracted to food and eat food. There is no awareness of this until after the fact. There are many examples of people doing things they are not aware of. Think about what happens when a person is severely intoxicated, kills someone while driving under the influence of alcohol or something else. Again, I was not talking about the response to the thought, that is simply called behavior. I am just talking about the original thought. When Eve took of the fruit she first thought about it and then she acted. If all she did was think about it, there would have been no transgression. As Elder Bednar and others have said, Satan tempts us through the passions of our mind and body, whether we follow the inclinations of the body or the spirit is the test we face. That being the test, we all face carnal thoughts. The carnal thought alone is not a sin but if a person becomes carnally minded, that becomes a sin. I think that is what you are talking about, the process of being born with carnality, in the flesh and then becoming carnally minded. The process of becoming carnally minded though starts with having agency between our own original carnal thoughts (from the body - i.e genetics) vs spiritual drives (i.e - light of Christ and later Gift of the Holy Ghost etc.) If one chooses the carnally driven passions originating with our human genetic drives over the spiritual ones then we become carnally minded.

It seems you want to discuss behavior related to this issue, where I am not discussing behavior. I have no disagreement with all of your above discussion about behavior except the idea that the original tendency is somehow generated by a set of behaviors before it reveals itself. I agree with your discussion about behavior except the notion that the propensity towards same sex attraction is somehow related to what the person did, to initiate it (I am not talking about magnifying the propensity). Yes it is altered and either magnified or suppressed by behavior but the thorn in the flesh, so to speak, is something a person is born with or not but will all have thorns, some are different than others. I may have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism that I will never know unless I foster it by starting to drink alcohol. And even if I became an alcoholic with that propensity I can overcome the behavior but what I am trying to say is that the propensity for alcoholism would remain, even if I overcame being an alcoholic. This is similar to same sex attraction. A person is born with a certain hormonal, brain anatomy etc. What one does with that is the behavior part that I am not talking about. Just the fact that the anatomy remains until death just like the thorn in the flesh couldn't be removed unless a person be exalted above measure during this life. The challenge is supposed to be there. Christ overcame all passions of the body. He overcame very basic passions including hunger but that doesn't mean he didn't feel hunger from then on out. It was still there, I am sure, while in mortality.

Yes it does say in the quote that same sex attraction is not a sin. The quote also used the words Human experience, so that is why I used it as well but I dont think there is much of a difference. What I am saying is that there is no sin in having same sex attraction. That is all I am saying. Again, the LDS quote said that just because a person has same sex attraction (not "had" or resolved, meaning ongoing same sex attraction) does not keep them from entering the temple. The reason I am saying this is because in previous posts there was a suggestion from others that the reason same sex attraction develops is as a result of poor choices or sins. Blindness in the scriptures is used metaphorically many times to represent the passions of the body. Yes, we are supposed to relate those two concepts together. If one reads the scriptures as literal events there would be a lot missed.

On the church website it says; "People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple." and also "We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience. The Savior Jesus Christ has a perfect understanding of every challenge we experience here on earth, and we can turn to Him for comfort, joy, hope, and direction (see Alma 7:11–12)." So, there is no sin that has to take place to have that challenge in life, it is a part of the HUMAN experience, as stated by the church. If there was some sin involved in creating same sex attraction then nobody with same sex attraction could attend the temple, one would have to have those sins resolved. Obviously, having same sex attraction is not as a result of what the person did any more than the blind man being born blind.

I guess I have to take a step back then. I guess I assumed most people would say that the way a person's brain is wired occurs via "genetics". Yes there are errors, mutations and other factors that occur that change the wiring of the brain but these are all "natural" processes. So, when I am saying "genetics" I am really referring to all the natural processes that relate to development of personality, thought process, attractions, likes, dislikes, that are not based in a random choice. If attraction is based on a random choice then why isn't the number of same sex attraction closer to 50%? As far as your last statement goes, "As far as genetics go, (spiritually speaking) it could be argued that all of our natural tendencies are to do good, and that all evil is a learned behavior of the flesh...we are children of God after all." I would not use the word "genetics" to suggest that has anything to do with our spiritual nature. I am only using the word genetics to describe the process of being conceived in sin. In other words, genetics is the process in which Adam and Eve were able to have mortal posterity and allow us to come into a fallen state. How you see it depends greatly on how far one thinks we have fallen from our previous existence. Only a little bit fallen? then yes we would mostly have the propensity to do good. Or are we greatly fallen beings right now. I think the prophets would suggest that we have fallen a long way. “I have learned in my travels,” the Prophet Joseph Smith observed, “that man is treacherous and selfish, but few excepted” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 30; hereafter TPJS). “Men have been ever prone to apostacy,” President John Taylor pointed out. “Our fallen nature is at enmity with a godly life”

The mortal experience is different than any other state of being in that we are "dual beings" while mortal. We have thoughts and desires that come from two different sources, the human brain and the spirit. Even at death, what remains is the persons thoughts from their spirit being but no longer will they have the thoughts and desires driven by the human brain other than those things that have been "incorporated" so-to-speak into their spiritual nature. In other words, even in the spirit prison they may have things to resolve, the natural man habits that they have taken on in their spiritual being will remain and these are the things those people will have to "repent" from while in the spirit prison, discussed in D&C 138. But even in the spirit prison, those people will not have novel or ongoing influences from the human, fallen brain that are only there during mortality. This is why having an understanding of what it is to be a dual being while in mortality, that it is literally two different and often times opposing thought patterns and desires is an important part of our gospel. Upon resurrection a person becomes 'one' being and therefore at rest.

Interesting, a fact sheet that is 14 years old. Here is another random article, pulled up in 2 seconds; " January 31, 2017 Prevalence of Celiac Disease in the U.S. Appears to Have Plateaued Bruce Soloway, MD reviewing Choung RS et al. Mayo Clin Proc 2017 Jan But interest in gluten-free diets continues to grow. Increasing numbers of people in the U.S., many without diagnosed celiac disease, avoid dietary gluten. To assess trends in the prevalences of diagnosed and undiagnosed celiac disease and to determine how many people without celiac disease avoid gluten, researchers analyzed data from recent CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Between 2009 and 2014, respondents were asked if they had diagnosed celiac disease or if they followed a gluten-free diet; serum samples were analyzed with a highly sensitive and specific two-stage IgA assay for evidence of celiac disease. Prevalence of historical or serological celiac disease was 0.7%: 1.0% in non-Hispanic whites and 0.2% in others. Celiac disease was more common in women than in men (0.9% vs. 0.5%) and equally prevalent in children and adults. Overall prevalence of celiac disease did not change during the three biennial study periods, but the prevalence of undiagnosed celiac disease decreased from 0.6% in 2009–2010 to 0.3% in 2013–2014. The prevalence of people without celiac disease who avoid gluten increased from 0.5% in 2009–2010 to 1.7% in 2013–2014, with a greater overall prevalence among women than men (1.4% vs. 0.8%)." Interesting how the prevalence of the number of people that avoid gluten has increased even though the prevalence of Celiac disease hasn't increased. (not sure why this is an LDS gospel discussion)

I like how Robert Millet describes the effects of the fall. I think if one understands the real effects of the fall, including what it does to the human brain, then we can appreciate statements like that, how "pathology" of any kind can be considered an enemy to God. Consider the idea that Christ spent a lot of time healing pathology. And we know the atonement is not just for sin but for all the suffering (physical pathology as well) resultant from the Fall. Robert Millet; "To say that we are not condemned by the fall of Adam is not to say that we are unaffected by it. Jehovah explained to Adam, “Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good” (Moses 6:55). We do not believe, with Calvin, in the moral depravity of humanity. We do not believe, with Luther, that human beings, because of intrinsic carnality and depravity, do not even have the power to choose good over evil. And we do not believe that children are born in sin, that they inherit the so-called sin of Adam, either by sexual union or by birth. Rather, children are conceived in sin, meaning first, that they are conceived into a world of sin, and second, that conception is the vehicle by which the effects of the Fall (not the original guilt, which God has forgiven) are transmitted to Adam and Eve’s posterity. To be sure, there is no sin in sexual union within the bonds of marriage, nor is conception itself sinful. Rather, through conception the flesh originates; through the process of becoming mortal one inherits the effects of the fall of Adam-both physical and spiritual."

These definitions are very vague. What we learn is based in our genetic and natural make up and capacities. We are obviously not born with our full capacities. They have to be developed. I think it is important to separate out the maturing process from "learned behavior". I believe these are two separate things at least for this type of discussion. What a person "grows up" to be is, at least in part, due to their genetic propensities. You are right, I can have a genetic propensity to be a great baseball player but if I never play baseball I won't become one. But if I wasn't born with the genetic "natural" ability to become a professional baseball player, no matter how much I try to acquire that ability, it may not happen. I have a hard time believing that a person who becomes attracted to the same sex is one who didn't have, at least in part, a genetic, "natural", design to go in that direction. We learn in the scriptures that we can fight off natural man. And we also learn it is in the lack of fighting off natural man that we stray from the correct path. It is in letting the natural man take over that we become the fallen state we find ourselves in when we are born into this world. We can live in this world without being of the world. To do that requires a lot of effort to not let natural tendencies win out.

If you suggest that attractions have to occur from nurturing alone, that there is no innate attraction, then you would have to say that occurs with heterosexual attraction as well. Is that what you believe? I'm sure there are cases one could find where a child grows up in a place without opposite sex around and when they finally get exposed to the opposite sex later in life there is attraction. I have not suggested this is one without the other, at least I didnt mean to say it that way. I am just saying that there is no reason to suppose that one's baseline attraction is not genetically encoded. I am not saying whether that could be altered to some degree, of course it can. If I am genetically predisposed to becoming an alcoholic but I never expose myself to alcohol, likely I wont become an alcoholic even though I have the predisposition.

So, my question is do you think attraction is nature or nurture based in your definitions or somewhere in between (I am not talking about the acting on the attraction, just the attraction alone.) If it is somewhere in between, to what degree is it nature or nurture. I would suggest that attraction, for the most part is not nurtured. At least the direction of the attraction, the degree of attraction could certainly be nurtured but whether a boy is sexually attracted to boys more than girls to begin with is nature, that boy was born with that in the wiring just as much as the next boy is born with the wiring to be attracted to girls even before he believes the attractions should exist, there is a period of development where young future heterosexual boys cant stand the idea of being around girls. They definitely aren't nurturing anything during that time.

An elevator can take you up or down, just depends on what button you push.

The perfection is in the form of restoring it to it's previous state. It is not a development from scratch. It is a return to the old way from the current fallen state of being. If I go back to Kindergarten for a year to learn some "lessons" and plan to go right back to post-graduate school after my year away, I wouldn't be planning on trying to qualify for college again. Once we have the veil lifted from us in this current state, I am sure our full understanding of genetics, world building, etc will come right back to us. It is the lessons based in obedience that we carry with us, that we have to learn. It is that measure of intelligence that will carry through to the next life, those based in faith and obedience that we didn't have a chance to learn about previously. These are lessons that can be learned during any era, regardless of the world's scientific development. We were matured spirits before coming here. All the "book-learning" has already been done.

Could you explain why you are suggesting an attraction is a behavior. From a religious standpoint, a behavior is based in either following carnal instincts (which may include both nature and nurture) vs. spiritual influences (which also may include both nature and nurture), choices are made somewhere on the spectrum between the two and acted upon. One can have a purely carnal instinct, an attraction, for example but not act on it, resulting in no bad "behavior".

The change in our bodies for the millennium will not just be extending life but the nature of the body will change, similar to what happened with the change in the bodies to Adam and Eve with the Fall. Their nature changed, their desires changed, primitive, animal instinct was introduced, Mosiah 16;3 "3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil."

Why was the blind man born blind? Same question.