Church attitude towards Gays.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What I'm getting from this discussion is that homosexuality could be caused by certain genetic factors, which would be passed from one generation to another.

What type of sexuality, as expressed in this life, is not caused by genetic factors (at least in part)?

*Note; I didn't say "gender".

And btw, "genetic factors" are rarely directly passed on without change from one generation to the next. This is part of the corruption we live in.

[mhsmd]

We're still supposed to have our distinct character/personalities. I'd assume that would mean some matches would be a lot better than others. We're equal...not the same. And I'd like to believe we still have choice. Arranged marriages are not my ideal.

Research has been done that has determined that in long-term successful marriages, the compatability of the partners has little to do with the success. It is more about the commitment to the marriage and each other. I'll try to find the study and start another thread. I don't want this one getting off-topic.

[circusboy01]

We're still supposed to have our distinct character/personalities. I'd assume that would mean some matches would be a lot better than others. We're equal...not the same. And I'd like to believe we still have choice. Arranged marriages are not my ideal.

I'm 65 years old, and not married.If I'm blessed enough to make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

Whether I'm aloud to choose a mate on my own. Or Heavenly Father chooses one for me. I will be equally happy. I doubt that he will just match us up randomly. He is Heavenly Father. Of course he will know who is best suited for who, and there is a very distinct possibility that He will match you up with someone who would be your choice anyway. Possibly someone that you would have chosen while still here on earth. Had your paths crossed.

Edited May 10, 2012 by circusboy01

[annewandering]

In the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, what "mate" would be different from any other "mate"?

Every mate is different than every other mate. People in the Celestial Kingdom may be righteous but they are not cookie cutter people. We are different here and we will be different after death. I am ME and you are not. Forever. .

[circusboy01]

Every mate is different than every other mate. People in the Celestial Kingdom may be righteous but they are not cookie cutter people. We are different here and we will be different after death. I am ME and you are not. Forever. .

If Heavenly Father does choose a mate for us. It is because He knows us, and knows our differences, that he will choose a worthy, compatible and loving mate for us.

[annewandering]

If Heavenly Father does choose a mate for us. It is because He knows us, and knows our differences, that he will choose a worthy, compatible and loving mate for us.

Do we think free agency ends at death? I think not. An eternal mate is very important and I believe God will let people pick their own.

[Guest]

You just said we shouldn't judge then in the same breath say you wouldn't be surprised if Brigham Young doesnt make it to the cel. kingdom. Ummmm. bit of judgement?

Nope, the general idea being, 'The criteria of who makes it to the celestial kingdom is so outside my purview that who knows who will or won't make it there. No outcome will surprise me.' She wasn't trying to 'condemn' Brigham Young to existence outside of the Celestial Kingdom. To be fair though, I do see how one could read that into her post.

The comment was made under the concept that gays who don't get married can't get into the Celestial Kingdom. My response is - we don't really get to make the call of who are and who aren't getting into the CK. All we know is that if we follow Christ to the best of our abilities in accordance to our understanding, Christ's Atonement and God's mercy will hopefully get us there.

And that's why I used Ghandi - unmarried male - and Mother Theresa - unmarried female - as examples to juxtapose with Brigham Young - married many times over - to say that I wouldn't be surprised at all on who of these guys get to make it to the CK or not. If there was an unmarried LDS Prophet or Apostle I would use them in the example instead... but then, I don't know of any.

[circusboy01]

Do we think free agency ends at death? I think not. An eternal mate is very important and I believe God will let people pick their own.

You may very well be right and we will be able to pick our mates. But even if heavenly Father chooses our mates for us, I have no doubt that we will be happy with His choice. Which means we will not lose our agency. God is all seeing and all knowing. I really don't see someone complaining about the mistake God made in his choice of mates for them.

If Heavenly Father does choose our mates. I know for sure that he will make a better choice than some I have made in the past.(joke)

[pam]

If Heavenly Father does choose our mates. I know for sure that he will make a better choice than some I have made in the past.(joke)

Some? Now just how many mates have you had? :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

We're still supposed to have our distinct character/personalities. I'd assume that would mean some matches would be a lot better than others. We're equal...not the same. And I'd like to believe we still have choice. Arranged marriages are not my ideal.

Which "distinct character/personalities"? The ones that we were given here with our temporary, corrupted body stewardship?

This is why I said "the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom". If a person receives the fullness, all that God has, what trait or characteristic that God has do you think will be missing from those that receive a fullness? We are told that when we see Christ we see the Father. That doesn't sound like any distinct character/personality to me, even though they are two separate beings.

There are other levels and other Kingdoms available for those that do not have their eye single to the glory of God. If they would prefer some other characteristic then I suppose they could find that elsewhere. In the Telestial Kingdom one star varies from another.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Every mate is different than every other mate. People in the Celestial Kingdom may be righteous but they are not cookie cutter people. We are different here and we will be different after death. I am ME and you are not. Forever. .

Again, I said "highest level", so, please don't take that out of context. Of course we will be individuals, I don't think I said anything different from that.

What characteristic or trait that God has does Jesus Christ not have? When looking at those two individuals, what makes you so uneasy about them being "cookie cutter" people?

I sure hope the differences that we find here don't continue after this life. I realize that some people fall in love with their temporary stewardship they have here in this life and want it to continue into the next but by definition that is loving the things of this world. That is to be carnally minded. We would be unjust stewards to claim it as our own. Think of the parable of the unjust steward. For example, if a person is 6' 10'' and becomes a professional basketball player, it would be prideful of them to think that their height advantage is something that would continue in the next life and a "difference" that would continue in the next. Also, if a person was given a brain that we would consider intelligent, more than average, and that person believes they are more intelligent than another and will maintain that difference in the next life, that is prideful and his/her challenge is that of the "learned man". Does Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' continue after this life? Does Moses still have difficulty speaking?

[annewandering]

Oh I sure hope the differences we had from time beginning are still there when we are exhaulted. We are not buddists thinking that we are one part of the all. We are individuals with individual spirits. Being individual does not mean being evil in any way.

When it is said that when you see Christ you see the Father and vv. it refers to their purposes not their personalities.

I do not get this idea that being individual is wrong. I do not get the idea that God will take away our free agency. Remember the pre-existance? lol ok remember what has been revealed about that time? We were given a choice. In other words we had free agency even then. Satan is the one who wanted to take that away so we would all be 'saved' not God or Jesus.

We are not now, and never were, part of the All Being. When we die we wont be either. Especially in the highest of the high parts of the Celestial Kingdom. We were sent here to learn not to become mindless worker bees. Doesnt that give a clue to how we are going to be in eternity?

[bluedreams]

Which "distinct character/personalities"? The ones that we were given here with our temporary, corrupted body stewardship?

No. The ones we were given from the beginning that makes us ourselves. The one mentioned in my patriarchal blessing that's supposed to be eternal. Personally, mine says I get to choose my spouse, so I'm banking on that being an eternal promise.

This is why I said "the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom". If a person receives the fullness, all that God has, what trait or characteristic that God has do you think will be missing from those that receive a fullness? We are told that when we see Christ we see the Father. That doesn't sound like any distinct character/personality to me, even though they are two separate beings.

That's (far) beyond what I meant. Personality is not equivalent to our aquisition of charity, hope, and faith. Just because I receive all that the Father has doesn't mean I become Him. Throughout my life and God's refinement of me, I've changed but who I am has not. I'm still recognizably me...the best me (minus anger, fear, resentment, etc). For example, before my mission I had this odd fear that somehow I would lose much of who I am by becoming a missionary. Though I drastically improved, who I intrinsically was remained the same. I still was sarcastic, blunt, artsy, eccentric, nurturing, etc. Ironically the missionaries that were often considered the most relatable didn't try to fit some ideal mould, but remained themselves...their best selves.

There are other levels and other Kingdoms available for those that do not have their eye single to the glory of God. If they would prefer some other characteristic then I suppose they could find that elsewhere. In the Telestial Kingdom one star varies from another.

Monson is not Hinckley, Holland is not Packer, Eyring is not Uchtdorf, Paul is not Peter, Alma is not Mormon, JS is not BY. They all differed but I believe all were/are in the right place spiritually. Having one's eye single to the glory of God and having personality and differnces is not the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. We all must learn charity. But a quiet person can learn it just as well as the chatterbox.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 10, 2012 by bluedreams

[Seminarysnoozer]

No. The ones we were given from the beginning that makes us ourselves. The one mentioned in my patriarchal blessing that's supposed to be eternal. Personally, mine says I get to choose my spouse, so I'm banking on that being an eternal promise.

That's (far) beyond what I meant. Personality is not equivalent to our aquisition of charity, hope, and faith. Just because I receive all that the Father has doesn't mean I become Him. Throughout my life and God's refinement of me, I've changed but who I am has not. I'm still recognizably me...the best me (minus anger, fear, resentment, etc). For example, before my mission I had this odd fear that somehow I would lose much of who I am by becoming a missionary. Though I drastically improved, who I intrinsically was remained the same. I still was sarcastic, blunt, artsy, eccentric, nurturing, etc. Ironically the missionaries that were often considered the most relatable didn't try to fit some ideal mould, but remained themselves...their best selves.

Monson is not Hinckley, Holland is not Packer, Eyring is not Uchtdorf, Paul is not Peter, Alma is not Mormon, JS is not BY. They all differed but I believe all were/are in the right place spiritually. Having one's eye single to the glory of God and having personality and differnces is not the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. We all must learn charity. But a quiet person can learn it just as well as the chatterbox.

With luv,

BD

You've confined your responses to just this life which was not the conversation. So, by changing the focus of the response you can say "no" all you want. I don't disagree with you at all there, we are all different here, yes, I agree with that. I didn't say anything contrary to that in the first place.

[bluedreams]

You've confined your responses to just this life which was not the conversation. So, by changing the focus of the response you can say "no" all you want. I don't disagree with you at all there, we are all different here, yes, I agree with that. I didn't say anything contrary to that in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean by "confined to just this life." And i was hoping we didn't disagree on it. I wasn't ever talking about Christ-like attributes that are to be universal. I was consistently talking about the personality of individuals that makes us us. Before, now, and after. So there would still be differences of one potential mate compared to another because there's still differences between individuals, IMHO.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Oh I sure hope the differences we had from time beginning are still there when we are exhaulted. We are not buddists thinking that we are one part of the all. We are individuals with individual spirits. Being individual does not mean being evil in any way.

When it is said that when you see Christ you see the Father and vv. it refers to their purposes not their personalities.

I do not get this idea that being individual is wrong. I do not get the idea that God will take away our free agency. Remember the pre-existance? lol ok remember what has been revealed about that time? We were given a choice. In other words we had free agency even then. Satan is the one who wanted to take that away so we would all be 'saved' not God or Jesus.

We are not now, and never were, part of the All Being. When we die we wont be either. Especially in the highest of the high parts of the Celestial Kingdom. We were sent here to learn not to become mindless worker bees. Doesnt that give a clue to how we are going to be in eternity?

I think you are mixing the idea of being of the same personality with the idea of becoming one being. I do not believe in a process of molding and congealing into one enormous all encompassing being. I am talking about developing traits that would be described as the perfection of all traits, without deficiencies in any aspect that we would call "good". If person A has all those traits, it wouldn't look different than person B who also has all those traits.

Why do you call being "one" in thought and mind with God, mindless? Purpose dictates personality. If a person is "Christlike" that suggests an attitude, a thought process, a mannerism and action. What other aspects of "personality" are left?

Haven't you ever asked yourself, "What would Christ do?" So, in your description, does that make a person "mindless"?

Of course, we aren't there yet. And we weren't there before this life. I am not arguing the description of the back of the arrow, I am talking about the tip of the arrow point that we are all striving to be like. When Jesus prayed that we could be one like He is one with the Father, what was he praying for? Your answer is probably, so that we can all be one in purpose. If 2 individuals are one in purpose and they receive a Celestialized body, that has with it all the traits of perfection and they receive a fullness of God's inheritance, what would one person lack that the other person has?

All means all, I am not sure how you would propose that one person would have less than all at that highest level. Their would be no deficiencies in personality or purpose. I don't know at which point the fullness is achieved exactly, but our target that we are moving towards should be single (meaning all that the Father has), not various (meaning parts of the whole). The whole plan of salvation is one of becoming more like our Heavenly Father (and Mother). That is the opposite of saying that the plan is to become more individual. If that is the plan, why go through all of this, like you said, we were different from the beginning.

Not everyone will achieve the whole inheritance. Whatever one desires in this life will carry through to the next. If one wants to have a part of the inheritance that is possible. If they want to have a unique personality for the sake of being unique, I am sure there are options for that. That requires less work than being whole and so the progression for that goal will be limited, it will stop shy of having everything. We try not to set our sights lower than our potential. But, our potential is a self fulfilling prophesy. If we believe we are less than the whole and that is all we can become, that is probably true.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[annewandering]

Unique is not equivalent to lacking in Godlike characteristics.

NO where did I ever say or imply that being Godlike is being mindless. In fact just the opposite. Either you are radically misreading what I am saying or we have very little in similarity of belief about what the Celestial Kingdom is. The other kingdoms as well.

We are individuals same as God is an individual. Individual is not evil or less than godlike. It is what we are.

I find the entire concept of losing who we are to be the very antithesis of Godlike. We were never created to be stepford wives/husbands. God like means like God, not a clone of God.

I did not snooze through seminary. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't understand what you mean by "confined to just this life." And i was hoping we didn't disagree on it. I wasn't ever talking about Christ-like attributes that are to be universal. I was consistently talking about the personality of individuals that makes us us. Before, now, and after. So there would still be differences of one potential mate compared to another because there's still differences between individuals, IMHO.

All the examples that you gave are descriptions of the differences that exist mostly in this life, that is what I meant.

Maybe at least you will agree that as we approach perfection (if that is the direction a person is heading, which probably applies to only a small percentage of all individuals on this Earth), that the differences become smaller. Maybe you don't agree with that, I don't know. Maybe you think that the differences don't change, which would make me wonder what you think the purpose of this life is. Or maybe you think the differences will increase, which to me doesn't fit with the gospel teachings at all.

When we say that the plan is to help people become more like Heavenly Father, in what way do you think that is? If one says, to have His glory or to have His purpose, I don't see how that can be separated from personality when it is completely perfected. (Before reaching perfection, yes it is different.) His glory is based on His personality, what He does, how He thinks, the things He finds value in and works on, the things He loves, etc. These are all personality traits. They don't vary and they are not whimsical. They are not variable or random. His glory was obtained the same way it always has, eternally doing it the same way. The opposite of that is to have mannerisms and decisions that vary with the wind.

When one group sees themselves as different, that is the start of prejudice and pride. It is the start of entitlement and judgement.

[bluedreams]

I did not snooze through seminary. :)

I personally ate through seminary

[Mikhail]

The church may not agree with gay, but we are still kind toward them and being their friends.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Unique is not equivalent to lacking in Godlike characteristics.

NO where did I ever say or imply that being Godlike is being mindless. In fact just the opposite. Either you are radically misreading what I am saying or we have very little in similarity of belief about what the Celestial Kingdom is. The other kingdoms as well.

We are individuals same as God is an individual. Individual is not evil or less than godlike. It is what we are.

I find the entire concept of losing who we are to be the very antithesis of Godlike. We were never created to be stepford wives/husbands. God like means like God, not a clone of God.

I did not snooze through seminary. :)

Lets make sure we are talking about the same things. This whole branch of the conversation got spun off the comment of 'how would one mate be different from another in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom'. The conversation already implies that there are individual beings. What I was referring to was their traits, their characteristics, how they act, what they would do if they were in the same situation etc.

If potential mate A has all the "good" traits there are and has eliminated any "bad" traits (they have received a fullness of God's glory and all He has) how could that possibly differ from potential mate B who also has all the "good" traits there are? They are different people, A and B, but if their glory is full and they received a fullness, how would one be different from another?

Please just answer this, if you were to become (by your own choice, agency driven, not forced) a "clone of God", why would that be bad? What is it that frightens you of that idea?

[Guest]

The church may not agree with gay, but we are still kind toward them and being their friends.

Let me correct this to be more accurate.

The church may not agree with gay sex, but we are still kind toward them and being their friends.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We were never created to be stepford wives/husbands.

I agree that we were not "created to be" anything, stepford wives/husbands whatever. We were "created" to give us the opportunity to be like our Heavenly Father (and Mother). What we become is our choice. If one wants to remain something uniquely different from God (by definition means that there is something lacking) than that is their choice. We are judged by the desires of our heart. What I have been discussing is not the opposite of agency, it is all a choice, a choice between all versus partial.

[annewandering]

If we are different than God we are not lacking. Different is not evil or wrong. Why in the world do you think that different is bad?

I do not get this lacking bit. You are saying you want to be a clone of God. right? If so that is just wrong. Why do you feel that you are not worthy to be a God unless you give up being uniquely you?

[Guest]

If we are different than God we are not lacking. Different is not evil or wrong. Why in the world do you think that different is bad?

I do not get this lacking bit. You are saying you want to be a clone of God. right? If so that is just wrong. Why do you feel that you are not worthy to be a God unless you give up being uniquely you?

Anne, I think maybe you're thinking of "being" in too earthly a term. I thought the whole point to our existence is to be like God in every way. So, if I become a "clone of God", that's like the greatest thing that will ever happen to me. I don't assign a "uniquely me" concept to my eternal existence. I have no desire to be unique or an individual. I merely have the desire to be one with God even it if means losing my individuality. I, of course, in my limited knowledge, do not know if losing my individuality is the end game of Godhood. But, if it is, I certainly welcome it.