A Need to Know

[Guest]

I was under the impression that the thread was geared towards those who believe in God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To make such a claim and yet reject the clear dictates of God is rebellion. Wickedness never was happiness. The response I gave is the only reasonable response to the OP. The church has no need to try to justify their position "in light of science."... God's laws are God's laws. Accept them or reject them. It's rather simple.

Kirtland, the thread is geared towards a possible misinterpretation of the Gospel similar to how in the early days of Christianity, Christians believed the sun revolved around the earth. The root of the logic behind the possible misinterpretation that is applied to the moral stance of homosexuality is the OP's daughter's research on the genetic component of homosexuality.

So, although you are correct that in the case of homosexuality, the Church doesn't need to justify the commandment with "in light of science...", we have to somehow make the OP's daughter understand how this is not a way to bury our head in the sand similar to the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo's heliocentric ideas. Make sense?

[Guest]

To many, the concept of God is illogical.

Which would be on the dishonest side. There is nothing illogical about the concept of a God just like there is nothing illogical about the concept that there is no God just like there is nothing illogical about humans plugged into the matrix of a super giant computer. It's merely a choice of what school of thought you decide to accept.

Edited July 18, 2012 by anatess

[Vort]

To many, the concept of God is illogical.

Which illustrates my point perfectly.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

Kirtland, the thread is geared towards a possible misinterpretation of the Gospel similar to how in the early days of Christianity, Christians believed the sun revolved around the earth. The root of the logic behind the possible misinterpretation that is applied to the moral stance of homosexuality is the OP's daughter's research on the genetic component of homosexuality.

So, although you are correct that in the case of homosexuality, the Church doesn't need to justify the commandment with "in light of science...", we have to somehow make the OP's daughter understand how this is not a way to bury our head in the sand similar to the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo's heliocentric ideas. Make sense?

No we don't... You don't make someone understand why God's laws lead to joy and that what God calls sin leads to misery... you teach righteous principles and the people decide whether they want to follow God's precepts or follow the natural man.

"When they are learned they think they are wise..." applies to this "knowledge" of the OP's daughter.

[Dravin]

Sorry, not trying to be contentious, perhaps illogical is a strong word - but faith can (not always) involve doing things that are illogical... unless you can explain the logic behind requests such as:

Is there any logical reason that looking at a brass serpent would cure you?

You're asking the wrong question. What you need to be asking is, "Is there any logical reason to have looked at the brass serpent?"* And the answer is yes, they believed that an all powerful being would heal you if you did so. Ultimately this applies to your other examples. The issue people have is with the premise not the logic, if one accepts the premise that an all powerful, loving, and knowing being, or someone with the authority to speak for said being, is telling you to do something it's entirely logical to do it. To use a very crude example, if a man points a gun at your head, or offers you $100 (depending on how you view God), and tells you to say, "I'm a goosey goose." three times. It's entirely logical to do so. Now if someone doesn't accept the premise of the existence of the man and his money/gun than the action seem illogical but if one accepts the premise, such as faithful believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then the action is logical.

*When you ask if there is any logical reason for a brass serpent to cure you you're moving outside of the scope of if it's logical to look at the brass serpent with the expectation of being healed and you're moving into if it's logical for God to have accomplished his purpose through that mechanism or command. That's an entirely different kettle of fish to if it's logical to look, and a different kettle of fish than Vort was addressing about if gospel obedience is logical.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

As in all things it all comes down to choice and how we choose to follow the laws of God. We can be like Nephi and know that the Lord gives us no commandment we can't keep, or we can be like the world that teaches that "if it feels good, do it". One leads to life eternal, the other to an eternal separation from the fullness of God's glory. We have to decide for ourselves which is most important to us... fleeting pleasure or a fullness of joy that will last forever.

I agree with this but this has to be couched with the fact that the thorn in the flesh isn't taken away every time just because of choice. The thorn in the flesh could still continue despite choices. Paul chose not to let his thorn in the flesh disrupt his calling on Earth, in fact it likely made him stronger. At some point though he realized that he couldn't get rid of it, that he had to live with it. God gave him strength to deal with the thorn in the flesh but it remained.

I think it is important to realize that this condition, same sex attraction, for most may also be a thorn in the flesh that will not go away despite choice. I have no idea how hard it is to overcome such a thorn but I think some of the frustration would be if people around them think that the thorn is somehow gone just because they are momentarily overcoming the battle of carnal desires. It may take continual, life long effort to keep overpowering the influences of the body and that is no easy task as it is the case with many bodily influences.

Just like the people of Alma were still enslaved and worked despite being righteous. But God gave them the strength to make the burden light. I know that those that suffer from any physical challenge can have their burdens lightened by following the gospel even though it may not ever be taken away while in this probationary state. The challenge would become more burdensome though if one does not turn to the Lord for assistance and the individual may be permanently spiritually scared by giving into such carnal passions over time, obscuring the view of their true spiritual self and potential.

[Guest]

No we don't... You don't make someone understand why God's laws lead to joy and that what God calls sin leads to misery... you teach righteous principles and the people decide whether they want to follow God's precepts or follow the natural man.

"When they are learned they think they are wise..." applies to this "knowledge" of the OP's daughter.

Here's that "make" thing again.

No, in this particular case - in this one thread - if you participate in the thread, the objective is to have some discussion points to HELP (okay, I didn't use the word make - seems like that word is explosive when it is followed by "understand") the daughter see that her research has no impact on Church doctrine. If you don't want to engage in that discussion, then you don't have to make a comment in the thread. Make sense?

The OP is not discussing the minutae of why abstaining from homosexual activity leads to joy. She already knows that. The OP is discussing how to explain to her daughter that her genetic research on homosexuality has no bearing on gospel standards. The daughter is facing it as an academic discussion so we need to treat it as such.

P.S. I'm not saying that THAT's the only thing that should be talked about in this thread. What I'm saying is that - to address the OP, we touch on the academic discussion.

Edited July 18, 2012 by anatess

[Vort]

Sorry, not trying to be contentious, perhaps illogical is a strong word - but faith can (not always) involve doing things that are illogical...

Logic is a system of symbolic reasoning: Given a premise or premises, what results reasonably flow from it or them? Given that, your questions are easily answered:

unless you can explain the logic behind requests such as:

Is there any logical reason that looking at a brass serpent would cure you?

If you accept the premises that God exists, that he is all-powerful and therefore can heal you, and that he speaks to prophets, it is completely logical to infer that if a prophet tells you to look at a brass serpent to be healed, you should do so.

Is there any logical reason for this?

(Old Testament | Genesis 22:2)

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

If you accept that your greatest happiness lies in following God and that God requires obedience and sacrifice, then it's logical that if God requires a certain sacrifice, you should do it.

or this?

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 5:10)

10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.

See the first example. The logic is identical.

How about baptism by immersion, what logical justification is there for a full immersion, why not just a sprinkle? or why water at all? why not just say words of commitment?

Because we were told to baptize by immersion in water. It would be illogical to attempt to complete the ordinance outside those given parameters; indeed, it would not be completing the ordinance at all.

Faith is acting on things that are not seen. I think many (not all) requests are given for no other reason than to demonstrate faith - and that means asking us to do things that we cannot logically explain a reason behind - that we act, not based on logic, but instead based on faith.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think there are any official reasons that logically explain why a committed loyal homosexual relationship should not be called marriage.

Of course there is a logical reason, the same logical reason why a dog should not be called a Buick.

[Bensalem]

Originally Posted by KirtlandSaintinZion

I was under the impression that the thread was geared towards those who believe in God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To make such a claim and yet reject the clear dictates of God is rebellion. Wickedness never was happiness. The response I gave is the only reasonable response to the OP. The church has no need to try to justify their position "in light of science."... God's laws are God's laws. Accept them or reject them. It's rather simple.

Kirtland, the thread is geared towards a possible misinterpretation of the Gospel similar to how in the early days of Christianity, Christians believed the sun revolved around the earth. The root of the logic behind the possible misinterpretation that is applied to the moral stance of homosexuality is the OP's daughter's research on the genetic component of homosexuality.

So, although you are correct that in the case of homosexuality, the Church doesn't need to justify the commandment with "in light of science...", we have to somehow make the OP's daughter understand how this is not a way to bury our head in the sand similar to the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo's heliocentric ideas. Make sense?

Yes, the discussion has followed this tract and included these subjects. But to be clear, my daughter is not coming from a Christ centered perspective. And conversion is beyond her at this time. She believes religion is good so long as it produces a good result, but religion is not necessary to living a good life.

I started the thread to find out what the LDS church's perspective was on the science coming out that homosexuality is not a choice but more a precondition at birth. I was looking to gain more support for my debate position that personal choice cannot be so easily removed from the equation, since accountability is also an irrevocable concept in all true religious doctrine, not just in the LDS church.

[Seminarysnoozer]

She believes religion is good so long as it produces a good result, but religion is not necessary to living a good life.

Ah yes. The failure of pragmatism though is that it doesn't take into account the eternal results.

Korihor used similar arguments, that the members were limited in the amount of goodness they could achieve if they weren't limited by the "chains" of their religion. We know how that argument ended.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't know if I agree with that, if you can see it, then it is no longer faith (imo)... faith has to do with things that you cannot see.

The existence and nature of God is the first obstacle that needs to be overcome I think. Everything else rests on this. To try and talk someone out of drinking tea (or other activity) without first addressing and overcoming the issue of the existence of God, is futile imo. it's running around in circles without addressing the elephant in the room...

I think it may be mixing up the terms logical with empiricism. Empiricism seems to reject faith more directly, I guess unless you count the "burning in the bosom" as a sensory perception.

[HiJolly]

I hope each of you can take the time to watch these videos of Dr. Bradshaw, who has retired from teaching at BYU but still has a lot to give.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

I personally think there are at least 3 factors to homosexual 'feelings'

1. life experience, such as sexual abuse at a young age

2. genetic, protein expression, and other gestational influences

3. choice

I think that #3 by far is much less an influence than the typical Mormon would like to think. Most gays simply *don't* get to choose, IMO.

Please watch the videos.

HiJolly

[Dravin]

OK, thanks, that's a better way to put it. In any event, I think it's safer to steer conversions in the direction of seeking the Spirit, and having faith and trust in God..... then to try and justify why God chooses the mechanisms that He does (for which we do not always have the correct answer).

I'm a bit confused because unless I missed it you are the one who steered the conversation in that direction by asking your questions about the logic of being healed by a brazen serpent (which as I pointed out doesn't particularly relate to Vort's comments).

Just that it's easy to get into trouble by mixing speculative rationalizations with spiritual truths - when people find incorrect rationalizations they tend to shy away from spiritual truths. The safer, more honest road, is to say "We don't know the reasoning behind all the things God asks us to do." and leave it at that.

jmo.

That God knows best and has told me I should do X so I am going to do X being logical isn't speculative rationalization about spiritual truths. It also has nothing to do with his reasoning for choosing a particular mechanism.

Really, and admittedly I may have missed it occurring earlier, but you've kinda gone and done:

Vort: Apples.

You: But why peaches?

Vort/Me: Apples

You: We should be careful to not talk about peaches.

I don't know if I agree with that, if you can see it, then it is no longer faith (imo)... faith has to do with things that you cannot see.

Nothing about logic requires you to see it, and are you really arguing that:

* God loves me and knows what is best for me.

* Since God loves me and knows what is best for me when he tells me something I will do it.

Is contrary to faith? When our Missionaries say, "If the Book of Mormon is scripture then Joseph Smith was a prophet." they are making a logical argument. Joseph Smith's Discourses on Faith make heavy use of logic as well. Needless to say I'm with Vort in not seeing a fundamental incompatibility between faith and logic.

Logic is a system of symbolic reasoning: Given a premise or premises, what results reasonably flow from it or them?

A decent test to see if someone understands logic is to present something like the below to them (you can also choose something more evocative than people who wear green):

Premise: People who wear green are evil and need to be killed.

Set-up: I have a gun and see Bob who is wearing green.

Action: I kill Bob.

Then ask them if the action is logical. If they argue that the action is illogical you've got someone who doesn't understand logic.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

Ah yes. The failure of pragmatism though is that it doesn't take into account the eternal results.

Korihor used similar arguments, that the members were limited in the amount of goodness they could achieve if they weren't limited by the "chains" of their religion. We know how that argument ended.

Her pragmatic perspective is coupled with an acceptance for her fate at death. She believes good will be returned for good, which is also a truth of the gospel.

Her university education has given her much in the way of actually making a difference in the lives of underprivileged and undeserved children and young adults in our primary and secondary schools.

Her view of most religions is that they do more harm than good, condemn more than accept, and deny or ignore scientific discovery at their peril.

She is a pretty bright kid. If only she had the desire to explore what we have in the LDS church, but unfortunately she lumps us in with all the other religions.

[Dravin]

ok, yes, it is logical to trust in God, and yes, God is a real being who is empirical, and is empirically testable.

Okay, I know you don't need my 'permission' but given your statement here there isn't a need to address my post to you above.

[Guest]

I do think there are some things for which we step outside of our own understanding though, and these provide the ultimate realization of what faith is - not just faith that God exists, but faith in doing something for no other reason than "God said so".

Stepping outside of our understanding doesn't necessarily throw out logic. I'm a programmer - being logical gets me a paycheck. I may not know how or why a particular code works, all I know is that the developer's guide says that's the proper syntax to accomplish something. But, the results still need to follow a logical conclusion. Just because "God said so" is illogical by itself. But, if you follow that to its logical conclusion and its surrounding body of knowledge, it starts to weave a picture. For example, if we accept by faith that that picture drawn by the missionary is the Plan for our Salvation, we can follow it to its logical conclusion. If something doesn't make sense in that plan, we have 2 logical avenues (just 2 out of many, of course) - 1.) we misunderstood the plan, so we need to revisit it and build the logic forward, 2.) we don't know quite yet how it fits but we take it upon authority because everything else coming out of that same authority has proved logical.

Going by faith without logic, in my opinion, is living by blind faith. Now, your logic may be different than my logic, but in each case, there's gotta be a reason why we follow that path other than simply saying, "God said so." "God said so and I've proven to myself that if I follow God I am more at peace" is a shade above just saying "God said so".

[Dravin]

Was Joseph Smith's life more at peace because he did what Heavenly Father asked? For the most part, yes, following the commandments brings more peace. There are exceptions to that though, as some rewards are not given on this side of the veil, and I think there is more to it than doing things for reward/fear... part of progression is a fight, a harder road that many would not consider to be peaceful.

How does she mean peace?

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

If she means absence of struggle, I wholeheartedly agree with the point you're making that our life won't always be peaceful, even in the Gospel. If she's talking about the Peace of God though, such doesn't necessitate an absence of struggle to obtain and maintain.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

Was Joseph Smith's life more at peace because he did what Heavenly Father asked? For the most part, yes, following the commandments brings more peace. There are exceptions to that though, as some rewards are not given on this side of the veil, and I think there is more to it than doing things for reward/fear... part of progression is a fight, a harder road that many would not consider to be peaceful.

perhaps better would be "God said so, and I know that if I follow God I will progress in knowledge, wisdom, love, and understanding."

How does she mean peace?

If she means absence of struggle, I whole heatedly agree with the point you're making that our life won't always be peaceful, even in the Gospel. If she's talking about the Peace of God though, such doesn't necessitate an absence of struggle to obtain and maintain.

Great point Dravin.

But that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that each of us has our own reasons - following a logical path - why we do what we do other than simply saying "God said so". "God said so and I've proven to myself that when I do what God says, I'm at peace" is just one of those gazillion reasons, but it follow a certain logical path. Saying plainly "God says so" and that's that, in my opinion, is blind faith. Faith and logic goes hand in hand - neither mutually exclusive, nor separate.

Joseph Smith has his own reasons. Twenty jillion of them. None of which touch on - I believe this because I like to struggle - I'm fairly certain.

[Bensalem]

This is a common mindset, and one that we have to overcome.

I think there are some exaggerations within the atheistic community though, most Christians are not unscientific, and most do not condemn others.

perhaps an extreme example...

(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 16:2 - 3)

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

but we all have a conscience - we all have the light of Christ within us to tell us what is right and what is wrong. when we do not follow the light of Christ, we feel guilty/bad/judged. Sometimes people who come to church think they are being judged by others, when in reality they are only being judged by themselves and their own conscience. Their guilt causes them to see a distorted reality where everyone is thinking bad thoughts about them, when in reality, everyone is thinking good thoughts about them.

When you see stuff like this:

Religious people are 'better neighbors' - USATODAY.com

"The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue."

Page 2: Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

"the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

I think it's safe to say that religious people are being unfairly judged in many areas. We need to really be on our toes, to be extra nice - turn the other cheek when we are hit - and all that.

Another issue with my daughter is the concept that all good things come from Christ, which implies to her that her good comes from another source. She hasn't made the connection or realization that the spirit to do good in her is the spirit of Christ or at least a gift which comes out of the creation.

It also appears to contradict the concept that we are rewarded for the good that we do, since the good actually comes from Christ.

What is missing is her understanding of free agency and that it is our choice to do good that is being rewarded.

[Heber13]

I think it is really cool you can have these discussions with your daughter. I admire you for that.

[Bensalem]

Just following "survival of the herd" instincts, vs. following Christ... (and I guess you could say that Jesus is the ultimate good shepherd keeping the herd together)

I think discussions around agency - that we are not just robots - that we are more than just matter and energy...bouncing balls have matter and energy - to talk about our ability to think, our ability to act and not just react, our ability to create... like the premortal war, it comes down to the existence of free will. I think true free will can only exist through the existence of an eternal intelligence:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29 - 31)

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

If I can explain it, it seems in order to escape the cause/effect net, if A was caused by B was caused by C etc. etc. down to the beginning - it comes down to an origins question - the original cause. If there is no beginning, no original cause to blame it all on, if part of us is self-existing, imo that is the only way that true free will can exist... the way I see it, you either acknowledge free will, which points towards an eternal spirit, which points towards other eternal spirits including God... or you believe we're all robots, without agency, without intelligence, without spirit, without life... just my ponderings though.

As I read it, free will is eternal as are intelligences exercising it. So it is not so much a gift from God as it is an irrevocable principle. This makes the successful outcome of Lucifer's plan an impossibility.

[HiJolly]

And now for the science (or at least a bunch of relevant evidence):

Professor Bill Bradshaw-Biological Origin of Homosexuality | Mormon Stories Podcast

[Seminarysnoozer]

Her pragmatic perspective is coupled with an acceptance for her fate at death. She believes good will be returned for good, which is also a truth of the gospel.

Her university education has given her much in the way of actually making a difference in the lives of underprivileged and undeserved children and young adults in our primary and secondary schools.

Her view of most religions is that they do more harm than good, condemn more than accept, and deny or ignore scientific discovery at their peril.

She is a pretty bright kid. If only she had the desire to explore what we have in the LDS church, but unfortunately she lumps us in with all the other religions.

Good schmood! .... that is only half the equation. Good has to be coupled with an eye single to the glory of God to count for much.

That is unfortunate. I think the only way "brightness" interferes with religion is when a person starts to trust in the arm of man and learns to like to trust in the arm of man more than God. It is the process of where a person turns when looking for guidance, truth and direction as this becomes what is the desire of the heart. In other words, if a person loves man's limited scientific discovery and the thrill and power it provides over the all-knowing power that God has, then that is what they will have in the end. They will get what they want, limited success and limited growth.

It is important to keep in perspective that we all likely knew more than all the scientist throughout the existence of mortal Earth will ever discover. And when the veil is lifted all that understanding will pour back into our memory. The test of this life is not scientific fact discovery, it is learning to love the ways of God, the methods of God and His order more than independent self absorbed intelligence.

One way to point this out is to reflect on all the things one learns in life, including higher education .... How much of that was discovered by the person's own singular experimentation versus how much was obtained from someone else work or at least building on the information learned from others? Once a person sees that the best way to learn and grow is to obtain the information from someone else and then share their miniscule contribution with everyone else, then they will appreciate God's plan, which is not independent discovery and achievement but a plan of inheritance, including inheriting knowledge, truth and light. This shared glory is only available to those who covenant and remain worthy of such covenants.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Seminarysnoozer]

As I read it, free will is eternal as are intelligences exercising it. So it is not so much a gift from God as it is an irrevocable principle. This makes the successful outcome of Lucifer's plan an impossibility.

Yes but the cause and effect discussed depends on moral agency not just free will, there is a difference. With agency comes responsibility and accountability and those things are measured by God, not us. For example, a person with Down's syndrome may have free will but may not be held accountable for certain things. Without accountability there is no learning to appreciate the need of a Savior and ultimately the need to depend on others and to serve and love others as it will be for anyone wanting to become Celestial like God. There are some souls that have learned that lesson well enough to move onto the Celestial Kingdom without the mortal test.

[HiJolly]

Her pragmatic perspective is coupled with an acceptance for her fate at death. She believes good will be returned for good, which is also a truth of the gospel.

Her university education has given her much in the way of actually making a difference in the lives of underprivileged and undeserved children and young adults in our primary and secondary schools.

Her view of most religions is that they do more harm than good, condemn more than accept, and deny or ignore scientific discovery at their peril.

She is a pretty bright kid. If only she had the desire to explore what we have in the LDS church, but unfortunately she lumps us in with all the other religions.

I really like what I'm hearing about your daughter. I think your summary of her view is excellent and accurate from an intellectual POV. Pragmatically it seems to us that she's missing a lot, but perhaps it's just because she doesn't realize all the physical good done in the world by many religions.

Sounds to me like your daughter is in very good shape overall. We would of course like her to 'see the light' and become LDS, but these things have to happen on their own schedule.

God's not through with her yet.

HiJolly