Church attitude towards Gays.

[Seminarysnoozer]

While I am slowly responding to everyone's replies made to me, I have but one question. Since we are all children of God, and SGA is a temptation by Satan, why would God implant us with such a temptation at birth? We may have physical deformities and mental/emotional illnesses implanted within us. But this is going against what God created us for, and against the natural purpose of the opposite sex (in marriage, then bearing children).

Boyd K. Packer made a great statement on this and you are welcome to look up the statement.

People may disagree with my strong view as far as this goes but pretty much all temptations are from the body, the corrupted body.

One thing to keep in mind is that God did not create the corruption, the Fall of Adam and Eve created the corruption. The bodies that God created, one of each type, male and female were the perfect versions in the Garden of Eden.

We are currently dual beings, both body and spirit. The natural man is an enemy to God. This is the test, to distinguish which passions come from our natural man (the body) and which are generated by our spiritual being, our spirit self. The frustration of this life in all areas we find frustration is when the two natures don't match. But that mismatch is what creates this probationary state to see the contrast between good and evil. If our body's passions matched our spiritual ones exactly then there would be no test beyond what we were already tested with in the previous life. We, in this life, are tested with where we prefer to put the desire of our heart (what we like the most), the passions from the body versus the passions from the spirit and to what degree. We don't want to make our carnal nature take precedent over our spiritual nature, at least our desire should be towards that end even though it can't be done 100% in this life. In other words, the natural reasons for getting married and having children should not be our primary motivation to do it, it should be done with spiritual concerns as the main motive, ideally.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Soulsearcher]

I miss so much good stuff when i go to work.

I'll address a few points.

For carli i'll comment on the emotional aspect. Many of my closest friends are female or were in the past i should say as i've lost contact with most of them, closest friendships i've had and bonds that were amazing. the girls i dated i had an emotional bond with and that was different than friendship also. The emotional connection i had to my first boyfriend blew them all out of the water. It went much deeper and was just a completely different feeling, and it's not comparable to the friendships I've had with male friends either. There's just something different and i'd like to think that married people know what i'm talking about, that bond that kinda set your spouse apart from the crowd.

For Dev, if your quoting the quote from Packer that i think you are quoting there was clarification made on that quote shortly after he made it. he didn't say that no one would be born with something like that, he said no one would be born with something they couldn't control. two very different meanings. He was suggesting that if people are born with it, they still can exert control over it. There was quite a long conversation about this on the boards shortly after that talk.

i always have fun with some of the stereo types about gays and how girly they are and such, and how butch lesbians are. I had a guy walk into my store a few weeks ago and i just shook my head. I don't know if he was gay but he fit every stereo type and my co-worker just looked at me and laughed and asked "now why can't you be that obvious?" When i go to the clubs i'm amazed at the variety of what i see. Both gay and lesbians of all shapes and sizes and types and to be honest I am not sure which guys to try and flirt with cause i don't know if they are straight or not( you'd be surprised how many straight guys go to gay bars). My best friend and i are great examples lol. Growing up it was all gi joe and guns and weapons, softer than many boys my age but still rough and tumble, nothing pink or girly for me. my best friend is such a mixed bag i'm not sure i'd know for sure he was gay if we hadn't met on a gay site and i hit on him. He's so fashion oriented, skin and hair care are absolute for him(more skin care and hair care products than all my aunts combined) and a complete domestic goddess when it comes to cooking and cleaning, yet he's very manly in so many other ways.

Also as wing said don't confuse SGA for gender confusion or wishing we were the other gender. i like being a man, i don't want to stop being a man, i just happen to be attracted to other men. there are transsexuals out there, but they are a separate story.

Edit: also forgot to touch on the when we notice things topic. I knew i wasn't quite the same before i hit puberty, i just wasn't quite able to put my finger on it. I was much more curious about boys than girls. We've all heard it's common to play doctor and explore even with kids of the same gender when we are young, but it's usually a wide curiosity and from what i've heard there does tend to be more boys and girls exploring because of the differences. I had no curiosity about girls at all, i wanted to know more about the other boys(nothing of a sexual nature). then as i enter into puberty my curiosity started to make a bit more sense because while my friends were being aroused by girls i was aroused by them, confusing and yet answered some questions all at the same time.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Soulsearcher

[annewandering]

This piqued my interest, mostly due to your "Prince Charming" reference. Because, as a child, I never fantasized about being a princess for Prince Charming to come and rescue. Even when watching movies like Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, I never pictured myself in the role of the princess. The thought of taking on such a role as a "maiden in distress" simply did not cross my mind.

Instead, when playing pretend, and even in my dreams- I was always the one doing the rescuing. I specifically remember playing "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "Mario" with my sister and our friends, and I would always insist on being Sonic or Mario, while my sister would be Tails or Princess Peach in need of rescuing. When playing the 3 Musketeers, I'd always be D'artagnan. And when we would play power rangers, I was always one of the male rangers- or Ninja Turtles... I always took on the masculine role of the Prince, the Hero, or the rescuer.

As I grew older and started maturing, I was very much a Tom Boy. I was mostly interested in the kinds of things the boys were interested in and even preferred boyish clothing. Almost all of my friends were boys, and I was often seen as just another "one of the guys". I exhibited absolutely no interest in dating or had any feelings of attraction toward anyone, be they male or female. Thoughts about my sexuality never even crossed my mind, until one of my few female friends- who happened to be a lesbian- attempted to ask me out on a date. I was not in any way interested in her, and her attempts to flirt with me just made me feel icky. I told her that I certainly wouldn't stop being her friend, but I just wasn't interested in dating, and we remained good friends for quite some time.

But that started a short period for me as I started wondering if I was actually homosexual myself and just hadn't figured it out yet. Such thoughts had never even entered my mind until then, but as I started adding up what I was interested in, how I pictured myself, etc... I really started wondering. It wasn't until my second year of college that I started actually feeling anything like sexual attraction toward someone and had my first "crush", and I realized that I am indeed attracted to men. :) But had I voiced my concerns to others while I was trying to figure out my sexual orientation, I had many friends that might have influenced me to think I was attracted to females and my family would probably have reacted very adversely, causing me to feel hurt and rejected. Sometimes, I still wonder if someday I do find myself feeling attracted to a female... what would I do about it- as far as who would I tell/talk to about it?

This just goes to show though that what we show interest in, how we see ourselves, etc can be extremely fluid. My attitudes, thoughts, behaviors, interests, etc are extremely masculine, but I still self-identify very strongly as female and am attracted to males. We cannot rely on any of these outside "markers" for determining whether or not someone is going to feel attracted to another of the same gender or feel themselves self-identifying as the opposite gender. That sexual attraction is entirely biological and I don't believe it can be controlled. I agree with the homosexual community in that you cannot change who you are attracted to- it just happens. What matters though, is what people do about that attraction. If, someday, I were to find myself feeling attracted to a female, I would treat it the same way I do when I feel particularly attracted to a guy I would never want to date- ignore it.

I very much understand this. I just was not interested till I went to college. It might have something to do with it being a very small town. I graduated with 18 people, 13 girls and 5 boys. Having 5 brothers it was not often we did so called girl things. Only sex I ever really thought about was the guy molesting me and that isnt exactly an encouragement. Nevertheless I never had any thoughts of being homosexual.

One of my best friends was a boy. He was very effeminate. Today people would assume he was gay. He wasnt. lol he is married with 7 kids. Of course that doesnt prove anything but he just wasnt interested in guys. One of my teachers was very effeminate. He walked very 'funny'. Talked odd too. He had nine kids and was a bishop. Was not gay.

The stereotypes just dont mean a whole lot. Ok there was one guy people did say was gay. It turns out he was a pedophile not gay. lol. OK not that funny but people really arent much good at judging this.

Anyway it just seems smartest to not judge and condemn but not encourage something that has no apparent future. Someday we will know more but it isnt now.

[circusboy01]

Don't worry. The thread didn't cause any ill feelings that weren't already there.

Well. In that case. You guys need to make up. If you can't get along, I'm going to have to cast you out, and condemn you to Worldstart. They have people there that really don't get along:):roflmbo I don't have a clue what roflmbo means and why it showed up on this post. But it's a cool sounding word. I know I know this is a serious thread, and it's not the place for levity.

Edited May 3, 2012 by circusboy01

[pntkl]

I don't have a clue what roflmbo means and why it showed up on this post. But it's a cool sounding word. I know I know this is a serious thread, and it's not the place for levity.

:roflmbo is missing the post-fixed : to make the rolling on the floor laughing my butt off smily. Most likely from a trigger happy backspace finger or carat selection overwriting the character when selected.

[bytor2112]

Why do have I have a hard time believing that three 15-year-old girls who are likely experimenting with their sexuality and certainly can't keep their hormones in check are representative of the general homosexual population?

Anyone?

Ah, I see what you're saying. I misunderstood before. I understand this argument. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's reasonable.

NO...they are more representative of the MTV generation.....much more en vogue to be lesbian, than the homosexual counterpart.

[circusboy01]

:roflmbo is missing the post-fixed : to make the rolling on the floor laughing my butt off smily. Most likely from a trigger happy backspace finger or carat selection overwriting the character when selected.

Makes sense. I was trying to add the rolling on the floor laughing guy.

[JudoMinja]

Soul,

You've identified basically exactly what I was talking about except from the other end. Being gay or straight simply doesn't fit into any kind of package that can be easily identified. Our personalities, as people, are very fluid. We are all extremely diverse, no matter our orientation. What makes a person homosexual is nothing more than the fact that they are attracted to others of the same gender. Everything else that people try to use to identify whether or not someone might be homosexual can be misleading- and since that orientation cannot be truly pinned down until they feel some kind of sexual attraction toward another, you cannot identify whether or not someone is/will be homosexual until they at least experience their first crush.

You had clues that such would probably happen when you were young, but I had similar clues that would have pointed me toward homosexuality and I have never felt myself attracted to anyone of my same gender. You didn't know, until you actually felt who you were attracted to. And you didn't make any conscious decision about who you wanted to be attracted to either. It just happened. We all find ourselves feeling attracted to whomever our biology has programmed us to feel attracted to- whatever traits our hormones respond to.

This means that we will all sometimes feel attracted to someone who is "off limits", especially those who are already married where anyone you feel attracted to who is not your spouse is "off limits". I don't know how I would handle it if everyone I ever felt attracted to fell into my "off limits" category, but anyone who is truly homosexual and also believes what the church teaches would end up facing this struggle- and while the church is officially striving to be more supportive of those facing this dilemma, most of the members are still stuck in a "racist" mindset where they pin on the stereotypes and refuse to even attempt to understand the homosexual person or make any connections with them.

[Soulsearcher]

Soul,

You've identified basically exactly what I was talking about except from the other end. Being gay or straight simply doesn't fit into any kind of package that can be easily identified. Our personalities, as people, are very fluid. We are all extremely diverse, no matter our orientation. What makes a person homosexual is nothing more than the fact that they are attracted to others of the same gender. Everything else that people try to use to identify whether or not someone might be homosexual can be misleading- and since that orientation cannot be truly pinned down until they feel some kind of sexual attraction toward another, you cannot identify whether or not someone is/will be homosexual until they at least experience their first crush.

You had clues that such would probably happen when you were young, but I had similar clues that would have pointed me toward homosexuality and I have never felt myself attracted to anyone of my same gender. You didn't know, until you actually felt who you were attracted to. And you didn't make any conscious decision about who you wanted to be attracted to either. It just happened. We all find ourselves feeling attracted to whomever our biology has programmed us to feel attracted to- whatever traits our hormones respond to.

This means that we will all sometimes feel attracted to someone who is "off limits", especially those who are already married where anyone you feel attracted to who is not your spouse is "off limits". I don't know how I would handle it if everyone I ever felt attracted to fell into my "off limits" category, but anyone who is truly homosexual and also believes what the church teaches would end up facing this struggle- and while the church is officially striving to be more supportive of those facing this dilemma, most of the members are still stuck in a "racist" mindset where they pin on the stereotypes and refuse to even attempt to understand the homosexual person or make any connections with them.

Agreed. I didn't really put it all together until i was on the train with a friend of mine when i was about 15 or so. I was sitting across from him and it just hit me full force. I'm sure i'd figured some of it out earlier but with the culture i'd been raised in it wasn't a thought i nurtured.

I kinda want to comment on the last part of your post as well. It's no secret i've left christianity behind, but i also don't want people to think it's just the gay thing. To be honest it's a big part of why i can't even consider it anything plausible in my future now, more for the people than anything else(which speaks to your comment)

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

I think this is what motivated me most, and i know it seem a cop out to most, but i couldn't reconcile the people and the faith. I saw such few examples of the proclaimed people of christ that even tried to live up to his example. I wanted nothing more than to be a preist when i was young, it was a goal i loved. Be one of the chosen, give your life to god, but the more i saw of the people around me as i grew i saw so many empty words and actions that i couldn't make sense of it. Then as i started to understand my differences the fear and self loathing and they attitudes of "the christians" of the world made me question what kind of god would support this, why would a god of love, who gave his only son for our benefit be happy with someone feeling like i did and support people showing so much hate and anger. i was about 18 when i walked away from the catholic church and yes i miss it, i think a few of the ex catholics know what i mean when i say there are just somethings i miss. i even miss somethings from the LDS church( mostly some of the heated discussions i had some sunday mornings), but no church feels like a sanctuary or home any more, and until it does i'm happy keeping the spiritual part of my life to myself. On the up side most of the bitterness is gone

[carlimac]

Agreed. I didn't really put it all together until i was on the train with a friend of mine when i was about 15 or so. I was sitting across from him and it just hit me full force. I'm sure i'd figured some of it out earlier but with the culture i'd been raised in it wasn't a thought i nurtured.

I kinda want to comment on the last part of your post as well. It's no secret i've left christianity behind, but i also don't want people to think it's just the gay thing. To be honest it's a big part of why i can't even consider it anything plausible in my future now, more for the people than anything else(which speaks to your comment)

I think this is what motivated me most, and i know it seem a cop out to most, but i couldn't reconcile the people and the faith. I saw such few examples of the proclaimed people of christ that even tried to live up to his example. I wanted nothing more than to be a preist when i was young, it was a goal i loved. Be one of the chosen, give your life to god, but the more i saw of the people around me as i grew i saw so many empty words and actions that i couldn't make sense of it. Then as i started to understand my differences the fear and self loathing and they attitudes of "the christians" of the world made me question what kind of god would support this, why would a god of love, who gave his only son for our benefit be happy with someone feeling like i did and support people showing so much hate and anger. i was about 18 when i walked away from the catholic church and yes i miss it, i think a few of the ex catholics know what i mean when i say there are just somethings i miss. i even miss somethings from the LDS church( mostly some of the heated discussions i had some sunday mornings), but no church feels like a sanctuary or home any more, and until it does i'm happy keeping the spiritual part of my life to myself. On the up side most of the bitterness is gone

I appreciate your candidness on this issue. I'm sure you went through so much pain over everything. The one thing that I see from my vantage point and that I disagree with you on is that God doesn't support people showing hate and anger towards others- for any reason. That is simply humans being human...imperfect and full of pride. And honestly so insecure in within themselves that they need to tear others down in order to build themselves up.

[Soulsearcher]

I appreciate your candidness on this issue. I'm sure you went through so much pain over everything. The one thing that I see from my vantage point and that I disagree with you on is that God doesn't support people showing hate and anger towards others- for any reason. That is simply humans being human...imperfect and full of pride. And honestly so insecure in within themselves that they need to tear others down in order to build themselves up.

the thing was it was the pope, it was the prophets. you look at some of the talks given before the gay issues really came and it was sanctioned by the highest levels of the churchs because it's the best they knew at the time, but still wasn't right. things have gotten much better and much clearer so now the examples you give are correct, but the damage was done and those scars don't heal too quick.

[Traveler]

Soul,

You've identified basically exactly what I was talking about except from the other end. Being gay or straight simply doesn't fit into any kind of package that can be easily identified. Our personalities, as people, are very fluid. We are all extremely diverse, no matter our orientation. What makes a person homosexual is nothing more than the fact that they are attracted to others of the same gender. Everything else that people try to use to identify whether or not someone might be homosexual can be misleading- and since that orientation cannot be truly pinned down until they feel some kind of sexual attraction toward another, you cannot identify whether or not someone is/will be homosexual until they at least experience their first crush.

You had clues that such would probably happen when you were young, but I had similar clues that would have pointed me toward homosexuality and I have never felt myself attracted to anyone of my same gender. You didn't know, until you actually felt who you were attracted to. And you didn't make any conscious decision about who you wanted to be attracted to either. It just happened. We all find ourselves feeling attracted to whomever our biology has programmed us to feel attracted to- whatever traits our hormones respond to.

This means that we will all sometimes feel attracted to someone who is "off limits", especially those who are already married where anyone you feel attracted to who is not your spouse is "off limits". I don't know how I would handle it if everyone I ever felt attracted to fell into my "off limits" category, but anyone who is truly homosexual and also believes what the church teaches would end up facing this struggle- and while the church is officially striving to be more supportive of those facing this dilemma, most of the members are still stuck in a "racist" mindset where they pin on the stereotypes and refuse to even attempt to understand the homosexual person or make any connections with them.

What you have referenced in your post is scientifically what is called variant behavior. It is important that the kind of variant behavior you highlight is only found in more developed or intelligent species. That is because the variations are driven by a learned response rather than an inherent response. Not all learning occurs because of conscious selection. Pavlov, Skinner and other scientist have demonstrated that in intelligent species there are the possibilities of learning at subconscious levels. The technical terms for this are the lowest level of cognitive learning and the higher than lowest level of cognitive learning.

The basis of science in the arena of the subconscious has established the dangers of things like subliminal (or hidden stimulation). This is because it is a proven fact that humans as an intelligent species can be influenced to make decisions and choices without being consciously aware – thus thinking that their response was completely according to their character or individual make up and not something external influencing their choices – like a light turned on as demonstrated by Pavlov

In a previous post I mentioned how the process of cognitive learning causes the brain to physically change (sometimes called wiring) as part of the development of the learning cognitive processes. I also mentioned that the March 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine outlined the scientific research into this very concept. Does anyone remember when it was discovered that the brains of homosexuals are different than heterosexuals? At first this was announced as proof that homosexuals are “created” different. But that part of the brain which was different defines that cognitive learning was taking place – proof that homosexuality is actually a cognitively learned or acquired behavior. As soon as that was identified the whole decision of different brains in homosexual was not only dropped but banned from all discussions of the topic.

But because what we call “sexual behavior” is also reinforced with “pleasure” there is an additional problem that occurs with any acquired behavior associated with such pleasure that leaves the person so introduced highly addicted to that acquired behavior. Scientific experiments have shown that primates addicted to drug (similar to sexual pleasure) will choose to die rather than give up their addictive behaviors. That is a most powerful acquired addiction that will override the instinctive proclivity of life itself.

There are none so blind as those that will not see - or as from another thread – those that use their powers of reason and logic as means to justify an ingrained belief rather than discover truth. This all gives very interesting understanding to the scripture – ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

The Traveler

Edited May 4, 2012 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

In a previous post I mentioned how the process of cognitive learning causes the brain to physically change (sometimes called wiring) as part of the development of the learning cognitive processes. I also mentioned that the March 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine outlined the scientific research into this very concept. Does anyone remember when it was discovered that the brains of homosexuals are different than heterosexuals? At first this was announced as proof that homosexuals are “created” different. But that part of the brain which was different defines that cognitive learning was taking place – proof that homosexuality is actually a cognitively learned or acquired behavior. As soon as that was identified the whole decision of different brains in homosexual was not only dropped but banned from all discussions of the topic.

I am not sure what difference that would make anyways. We know that we are all sent here to face the corruption of our bodies, to be in a fallen state. The corruption isn't developed with age necessarily, it is there at birth. It can be reinforced with age and made more difficult to overcome. But why try to establish what came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm not seeing what difference that would make.

Of course, we are not responsible for those corruptions until the age of accountability but the corruption is there right from the beginning. We all face a different set of corruptions. Always, with any desire of the heart that is contrary to what God would want of that person, "I was created that way", is not going to be an indication that it is right. God takes into account all the variables that we have a hard time measuring and describing. The point is that we all face "born that way" challenges, even Christ had some of those by being mortal. We know the natural man is an enemy to God. The choice between physical nature and spiritual nature is the test and the test is set up by having a mismatch between those two natures involving various traits for different people. We don't all face the same challenges.

The cognitive process you talk about, in spiritual terms, is similar to the "obscuration of the right eye". Eventually, when a person pays more attention to the passions of the body over spiritual ones, their ability to discern spiritual matters darkens.

[Traveler]

I am not sure what difference that would make anyways. We know that we are all sent here to face the corruption of our bodies, to be in a fallen state. The corruption isn't developed with age necessarily, it is there at birth. It can be reinforced with age and made more difficult to overcome. But why try to establish what came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm not seeing what difference that would make.

Of course, we are not responsible for those corruptions until the age of accountability but the corruption is there right from the beginning. We all face a different set of corruptions. Always, with any desire of the heart that is contrary to what God would want of that person, "I was created that way", is not going to be an indication that it is right. God takes into account all the variables that we have a hard time measuring and describing. The point is that we all face "born that way" challenges, even Christ had some of those by being mortal. We know the natural man is an enemy to God. The choice between physical nature and spiritual nature is the test and the test is set up by having a mismatch between those two natures involving various traits for different people. We don't all face the same challenges.

The cognitive process you talk about, in spiritual terms, is similar to the "obscuration of the right eye". Eventually, when a person pays more attention to the passions of the body over spiritual ones, their ability to discern spiritual matters darkens.

Why pursue a cure for cancer? What does it matter if cancer is caused by a genetic trait, a virus or subjection to a carcinogen? To me the answer is obvious.

In the arena of SGA - it is still obvious. We can remove harmful “things” from our society that damage children and we can more easily identify problems in our own lives caused from past mistakes. It means that anyone that so desires has access to truth and through that truth a greater hope of being benefited. It means that there is a way and know path for those that wish to take it. Truth is of no value to those that cannot find it because they refuse to seek it - or refuse to acknowledge it should it somehow appear before them.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why pursue a cure for cancer? What does it matter if cancer is caused by a genetic trait, a virus or subjection to a carcinogen? To me the answer is obvious.

Why is it so obvious? You have misspoken. To find a "cure" for cancer is not the same as preventing cancer for the individual who has cancer. Preventing cancer requires the understanding of how it comes about. Even if by science we were able to prevent it from ever happening again, that isn't necessarily a "cure" for it, just an eradication of it. (Like getting measles.) Once it is there, the focus is more on how to get rid of it, whether there was a 30% predisposition because of genes and a 40% contribution by things the person did (like sunburns etc.) versus 80% predisposition because of genes and only 10% action and 10% unknown factors ... what difference does it make? We are not going to "cure" the predisposition.

Our life here on Earth is intended to carry with it certain predispositions, was my point. There are many examples of our need to overcome many of these predispositions as the natural man is an enemy to God.

If one thinks that the goal of this life is to overcome all the corruption that was created by the Fall by way of man's knowledge (science) then that person has no real understanding of the purpose of this life. If our pursuit is to right every corruption than our focus becomes one of focus on the things of this world that will later turn to dust. There will be a time when all "cancers" are "cured", when we come unto His rest.

Our gospel is one of 'deliverance' out of bondage. If that is the case, then it requires being in bondage in the first place. To desire to never be in bondage was previously discussed and decided in the pre-mortal life. We all chose the route of being in bondage so that we can be delivered from it.

[Traveler]

Why is it so obvious? You have misspoken. To find a "cure" for cancer is not the same as preventing cancer for the individual who has cancer. Preventing cancer requires the understanding of how it comes about. Even if by science we were able to prevent it from ever happening again, that isn't necessarily a "cure" for it, just an eradication of it. (Like getting measles.) Once it is there, the focus is more on how to get rid of it, whether there was a 30% predisposition because of genes and a 40% contribution by things the person did (like sunburns etc.) versus 80% predisposition because of genes and only 10% action and 10% unknown factors ... what difference does it make? We are not going to "cure" the predisposition.

Our life here on Earth is intended to carry with it certain predispositions, was my point. There are many examples of our need to overcome many of these predispositions as the natural man is an enemy to God.

If one thinks that the goal of this life is to overcome all the corruption that was created by the Fall by way of man's knowledge (science) then that person has no real understanding of the purpose of this life. If our pursuit is to right every corruption than our focus becomes one of focus on the things of this world that will later turn to dust. There will be a time when all "cancers" are "cured", when we come unto His rest.

Our gospel is one of 'deliverance' out of bondage. If that is the case, then it requires being in bondage in the first place. To desire to never be in bondage was previously discussed and decided in the pre-mortal life. We all chose the route of being in bondage so that we can be delivered from it.

Hi Seminarysnoozer,

I am having difficulty following, understanding and believing your post for the following reasons:

1. We tend to treat symptoms and not causes. For example, the cure for headaches is not aspirin. Many think it is a cure because whenever they get a headache they take an aspirin and the headache goes away. This is flawed for many reasons but to begin with headaches are not cause by a lack of aspirin. Aspirin treats the symptom and not the cause. Thus unless whatever it was that brought about the headache in the first place is prevented from happening again - the headaches will continue indefinitely and the reality is such that habitual regular use of aspirin will result in aspirin becoming less and less effective as a headache reliever.

2. Humans tend to abandon logic, reason and intelligence when personal pleasure is involved. If a person wants to do something bad enough logic, reason and intelligence are not the deciding factor. This has nothing to do with genetics for what we call intelligent species - or a species capable of learning. In short the capability to learn enables an ability to decide not to learn.

3. SGA has become a political issue and not scientific. Case in point - name one other cognitive behavior (cognitive meaning that the individual must be aware or cognitive of what is happening in order to formulate or determine a response) that can be proven to be a, from birth, predisposition or inherited only reaction. I submit that the word predisposition is 100% misused in this context. This is because it means that the response, although predetermined - was indeed a result of an actual determination or in this case a disposition - which in this case must be a cognitive disposition. If it was not based on cognation then a person would not know that it was a same gender to which they have an attraction. Indeed the very word attraction implies cognition. I am not aware of any scientific study that says, implies or proves to any degree that gender preference is the only cognitive (or awareness) activity that is not nor can be influenced by anything learned.

4. What was brought about because of the fall is not ignorance but something else. The fall does not mean that humans lack the intelligence to modify or learn to change cognitive behaviors. It is both unjust and an act of tyranny to hold one to one standard and others to a different standard. In this case to incarcerate one segment of the population for the cognitive behavior of rape because it is determined that the possible problems created from the behavior are greater than the possible benefits then at the same time award and encourage cognitive behavior for which not any single actual benefit to society can even be suggested. --- I would point out at this point that negative reinforcement is often necessary to modify or attempt to modify problematic cognitive behaviors and that negative reinforcement should be employed as soon as possible and not put off until patterns of behavior become habitual or addictive. And of most importance; I know of no cases where any cognitive behavior has been modified in degree or any way be reinforcing it.

So my question to you is - why do you feel that it is necessary for society to reinforce and give support to SGA? I have stated publically that if even one actual and real social benefit could be presented - I would apologize for my position and change my attitude. But without a valid response that SGA is a benefit - I will not support or encourage it. This does not mean that I will not be friendly or kind to anyone with SGA - It means that when asked - I will give my honest opinion - as per this thread.

The Traveler

Edited May 7, 2012 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hi Seminarysnoozer,

I am having difficulty following, understanding and believing your post for the following reasons:

1. We tend to treat symptoms and not causes. For example, the cure for headaches is not aspirin. Many think it is a cure because whenever they get a headache they take an aspirin and the headache goes away. This is flawed for many reasons but to begin with headaches are not cause by a lack of aspirin. Aspirin treats the symptom and not the cause. Thus unless whatever it was that brought about the headache in the first place is prevented from happening again - the headaches will continue indefinitely and the reality is such that habitual regular use of aspirin will result in aspirin becoming less and less effective as a headache reliever.

2. Humans tend to abandon logic, reason and intelligence when personal pleasure is involved. If a person wants to do something bad enough logic, reason and intelligence are not the deciding factor. This has nothing to do with genetics for what we call intelligent species - or a species capable of learning. In short the capability to learn enables an ability to decide not to learn.

3. SGA has become a political issue and not scientific. Case in point - name one other cognitive behavior (cognitive meaning that the individual must be aware or cognitive of what is happening in order to formulate or determine a response) that can be proven to be a, from birth, predisposition or inherited only reaction. I submit that the word predisposition is 100% misused in this context. This is because it means that the response, although predetermined - was indeed a result of an actual determination or in this case a disposition - which in this case must be a cognitive disposition. If it was not based on cognation then a person would not know that it was a same gender to which they have an attraction. Indeed the very word attraction implies cognition. I am not aware of any scientific study that says, implies or proves to any degree that gender preference is the only cognitive (or awareness) activity that is not nor can be influenced by anything learned.

4. What was brought about because of the fall is not ignorance but something else. The fall does not mean that humans lack the intelligence to modify or learn to change cognitive behaviors. It is both unjust and an act of tyranny to hold one to one standard and others to a different standard. In this case to incarcerate one segment of the population for the cognitive behavior of rape because it is determined that the possible problems created from the behavior are greater than the possible benefits then at the same time award and encourage cognitive behavior for which not any single actual benefit to society can even be suggested. --- I would point out at this point that negative reinforcement is often necessary to modify or attempt to modify problematic cognitive behaviors and that negative reinforcement should be employed as soon as possible and not put off until patterns of behavior become habitual or addictive. And of most importance; I know of no cases where any cognitive behavior has been modified in degree or any way be reinforcing it.

So my question to you is - why do you feel that it is necessary for society to reinforce and give support to SGA? I have stated publically that if even one actual and real social benefit could be presented - I would apologize for my position and change my attitude. But without a valid response that SGA is a benefit - I will not support or encourage it. This does not mean that I will not be friendly or kind to anyone with SGA - It means that when asked - I will give my honest opinion - as per this thread.

The Traveler

I am not sure what exposure you have had to the medical field but to say that we only treat symptoms is absolutely not true. What is the symptom of having high cholesterol? What is the symptom of having high blood pressure? It very well may be nothing and in fact when those things are treated a person does not feel any different. And I am not sure what the example of aspirin and headache have to do with our discussion. Have you ever been in an evaluation for migraine headache? The discussion mostly surrounds triggers and lifestyle factors that prevent headaches such as lack of sleep, certain foods in the diet, avoiding stress, staying up on electrolytes and fluid intake, knowing one's triggers etc. Not sure what your point was there in terms of what I was saying ....

The only thing I disagree with in your second paragraph is the fact that it has nothing to do with genetics. The pleasure centers of the brain are all built differently. A study out of UCLA; "The researchers found a marked correlation between behavior patterns which they term "novelty seeking" and the expression of certain variants of the DRD2 and DRD4 dopamine receptor genes. Novelty-seeking behavior markers include excitability, impulsiveness, extravagance and disorderliness.

"Identification of the molecular genetic factors contributing to temperament and personality is highly complicated, and we are just beginning to put the many pieces of this puzzle together," said Noble, Pike Professor of Alcohol Studies and a professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA. "Despite the considerable evidence supporting the role of the dopamine receptor genes to pleasure and thrill-seeking behaviors, I believe as many as eight additional genes may be involved in forming and supporting personality characteristics."

If someone has a manic episode which has been shown in many studies to carry a genetic predisposition, (a child of a parent with mania for example is about 6 times more likely to get it than the general population) and that person has as part of their manic episode hypersexuality, are you trying to say that genetics had NOTHING to do with it? The reason 'predisposition' is used as opposed to 'disposition' is that phenotypic expression of these things are not usually 100% and there are a lot of other corresponding genes and environmental factors, no doubt. But the original 'predisposition' was by no means the design of the individual, they are born that way. The genetic factor wasn't created by purposeful or cognitive behaviors done during the person's lifetime to produce the inheritable predisposition.

I am really not sure what you are getting at in your third paragraph. Cognition is not always voluntary. When I think that I would like to have a plate of tacos in the middle of a fast Sunday, that is not the thought I really want to have but it still pops into my head because that is how the brain works. There are spontaneous thoughts that are not a result of any controlled process. In fact most of what the brain does remains in the subconscious but affects behaviors still the same. Just like the computer you are on, you can't see every little calculation it is making, it doesn't come up on the screen. In fact most of what your computer is doing is not on the screen. It is even more so with the brain.

In your third paragraph you seem to be contesting the idea that predisposition somehow means predestination. Those things are not the same. I know that, you know that. I never said it was 100% genetic. So, I am not sure what you are arguing about there. It seems like you are taking my discussion as an all or nothing statement, which it was not.

I was simply saying that we all have certain, genetically determined (meaning given from the process of obtaining a corrupted body in this life and not as a function of our spiritual development prior to this life) traits. The mismatch from our spiritual traits and our corrupted body traits is what creates a lot of our challenge in this life. Understanding that, it doesn't matter if someone with SGA says they were born that way. I still don't see what difference that makes. I was born with some genes that say "eat a lot of food" but believe me, my cognitive thought is not what created that drive because I have been fighting against that my whole life. Everyone has their set of natural man tendencies that have to be managed and contained. But the goal of this life is not to get rid of the natural man tendencies, only to contain them. Even Paul was okay with not getting rid of "thorn in the flesh" because he understood the plan.

Your final question of why I think society should give support to SGA is a loaded question with a supposition of something I did not give. I never talked about society supporting SGA, so I am not sure where that question comes from. I think showing love and supporting people with whatever challenges they may face in this life is important and it is important for all people in our society to do this, to show love to each other. .... but, that probably isn't the answer you wanted.

[circusboy01]

Me again. wont take up too much of your time. When I started this thread I was looking for churches official attitude towards gays. i guess I should have worded it different. What I got is members attitudes towards gays. But, that's okay, it makes for a much more interesting thread.

I went to LDS.ORG today and found just what I was looking for. Good thing I didn't go there first. This 22 page post might never have been.

Seminarysnoozer & Traveler, It's none of my business. So tell me to mind my own if you wish. But your discussions seem to be getting a little heated. Please don't let it turn you into enemies Brother Ray

[Seminarysnoozer]

Me again. wont take up too much of your time. When I started this thread I was looking for churches official attitude towards gays. i guess I should have worded it different. What I got is members attitudes towards gays. But, that's okay, it makes for a much more interesting thread.

I went to LDS.ORG today and found just what I was looking for. Good thing I didn't go there first. This 22 page post might never have been.

Seminarysnoozer & Traveler, It's none of my business. So tell me to mind my own if you wish. But your discussions seem to be getting a little heated. Please don't let it turn you into enemies Brother Ray

Thanks. The discussion may seem heated but it's not, at least on my end. I think we both have been doing this long enough to know that any regular poster on a forum typically is opinionated. For me, I have learned a lot on this forum by 'talking things through'. It helps me flesh out why I believe certain things and sometimes even change my beliefs. Here, we can have a little deeper discussion over gospel principles than one would get or have the time for in Sunday School. The only reason I would have an intense exchange with anyone here is because I respect their input. If I didn't care about what they had to say I would end the conversation a long time ago.

[circusboy01]

Thanks. The discussion may seem heated but it's not, at least on my end. I think we both have been doing this long enough to know that any regular poster on a forum typically is opinionated. For me, I have learned a lot on this forum by 'talking things through'. It helps me flesh out why I believe certain things and sometimes even change my beliefs. Here, we can have a little deeper discussion over gospel principles than one would get or have the time for in Sunday School. The only reason I would have an intense exchange with anyone here is because I respect their input. If I didn't care about what they had to say I would end the conversation a long time ago.

Thank you for your post. I'm sure every one else has the same attitude. I won't worry about you getting along any more.

[mhsmd]

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. Sooo . . . why not legalize gay marriage? Then they can all come out of the closet, get married to someone of the same sex, not have babies, and then all the homosexuals will be gone and the debate would be over. Totally joking! I just had to add that bit of "insight" that popped into my head while reading through this thread.

[bay2boy]

I wouldn't be at all surprised when judgement day comes and Ghandi and Mother Theresa, both unmarried on earth walk into the Celestial Mansion. Just like I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Brigham Young, sealed to several spouses, gets barred from it. This is simply not something we are qualified to judge.

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?

[Dravin]

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.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have a problem with the 'a mate will be provided' bit. Wouldnt it be more accurate to say that they would have an opportunity to find a spouse after death? Being provided seems to suggest they will just be allotted a random worthy mate.

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

[bluedreams]

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

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.