A Need to Know

[Bensalem]

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

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

"Sexual orientation is not a choice, disease, addiction, learned, or subject to change." William Bradshaw.

My daughter has learned well and I was incorrect to argue that the doctrine of free agency applies to sexual orientation; it only applies to the choice one makes to act or not act upon their same gender attraction.

Thank you for providing the link.

[Heber13]

"Sexual orientation is not a choice, disease, addiction, learned, or subject to change." William Bradshaw.

My daughter has learned well and I was incorrect to argue that the doctrine of free agency applies to sexual orientation; it only applies to the choice one makes to act or not act upon their same gender attraction.

Thank you for providing the link.

I think you are right, the agency applies to the choice on makes on acting on it.

I think we are still learning a lot about this. It is interesting to see how the Church is navigating through it as we learn more about it in our society.

[Bensalem]

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.

Your presentation, of course, is coming from a religious perspective. As was mine in my discussion with her. The fact remains that if my daughter manages to do good in life, she will be rewarded because we are judged by our deeds. Her education and personal interest has motivated and drives her to serve the underprivileged students at the bottom rungs of our public school system. I am sure God will support her and reward her even if her eye is not single to His glory. She may be blind to God (devil's fault), but she is not blind to good (Christ's gift).

Being raised in a bi-religious household my daughter has adopted her mother's Buddhist inclination that one needs to consider proper behavior in this life over making plans for the next life (she would add, if it even exists). It is a form of self-sacrifice that is very Christ-like. She may never understand the larger picture, but she will have time to learn on the other side of the veil.

[Bensalem]

I think you are right, the agency applies to the choice on makes on acting on it.

I think we are still learning a lot about this. It is interesting to see how the Church is navigating through it as we learn more about it in our society.

Yes, I am very grateful to have had this discussion. I thank you and all the contributors.

[Bensalem]

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.

Okay, 'moral agency' is a better term than 'free will' (or 'free agency').

[Bensalem]

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

Thanks. She is a special one. And a very hard worker.

The great thing about this church is that she will have the opportunity to progress through the Temple ordinances after her death. Christ promises peace and I have it in this doctrine.

[ClickyClack]

In a discussion with my daughter (BS in psychology with a minor in education and MS in school counseling), she presented that a preponderance of science shows that sexual orientation is predetermined by genetics and is not a matter of free choice being influenced by social and environmental factors. She likewise suggested that heterosexuality is not a choice, but is preconditioned in the genetic nature of one's being.

Since free agency is critical to LDS doctrine, I was not willing to accept her premise that sexual orientation is 100% predetermined by one's genetic code.

Ask a geneticist how often inherited genes dealing with behavior make anyone "100% predetermined" to anything.

Take a lunch with you. It will take them a while to stop laughing.

[Bensalem]

Ask a geneticist how often inherited genes dealing with behavior make anyone "100% predetermined" to anything.

Take a lunch with you. It will take them a while to stop laughing.

I perhaps misrepresented my daughter's position in the OP. The term "genetic code" is incorrect. She stressed that sexual orientation (homosexual or heterosexual) is not a choice, but something we are born into. This has been supported in genetic biology by William Bradshaw, a Mormon scholar. But it is true that 100% predetermination is not supported.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Your presentation, of course, is coming from a religious perspective. As was mine in my discussion with her. The fact remains that if my daughter manages to do good in life, she will be rewarded because we are judged by our deeds. Her education and personal interest has motivated and drives her to serve the underprivileged students at the bottom rungs of our public school system. I am sure God will support her and reward her even if her eye is not single to His glory. She may be blind to God (devil's fault), but she is not blind to good (Christ's gift).

Being raised in a bi-religious household my daughter has adopted her mother's Buddhist inclination that one needs to consider proper behavior in this life over making plans for the next life (she would add, if it even exists). It is a form of self-sacrifice that is very Christ-like. She may never understand the larger picture, but she will have time to learn on the other side of the veil.

I would never judge another, that is not within my ability or authority in this regard.

All of us here have done good, no doubt, we kept our first estate and that desire to be like God continues in our spirits as the light of Christ. Our goal here is to not let carnal things obscure that light. It takes specific, guided effort to keep that light going. The natural man is an enemy to God, because the default is to slowly let the influences of carnality obscure what we came here with, our desire to be like God. Think of the story of the ten talents. But now think of the talents as spiritual gifts, we are not talking about the talent to understand organic chemistry or the anatomy of an alligator or how to make a better computer chip. The "talents" God gives are in relation to his field, his work, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. If we hide that talent and don't return it with interest, then it is taken away from us. In other words, if we don't use our stewardship to bring about his work, it doesn't matter how much earthly good is done.

Also thing of the story of the poor widow, who cast in more than those who gave in abundance because it was all her "want" and her living.

By the way, we all understood the larger picture before coming here, even your daughter did. Understanding isn't the test. It is living it despite carnal distractions.

Like a soldier who goes through basic training and says "yes, in the heat of the battle I would go back to save my fellow soldier" but then the battle takes place and only some actually go back to save their fellow soldiers even though they fully understood the concept and even agreed that that is what they would do in that setting.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Bensalem]

1). I would never judge another, that is not within my ability or authority in this regard.

2). In other words, if we don't use our stewardship to bring about his work, it doesn't matter how much earthly good is done.

3). By the way, we all understood the larger picture before coming here, even your daughter did. Understanding isn't the test. It is living it despite carnal distractions.

1). The Bible teaches that the saints will be the judge of this world. How can you teach repentance unless you judge a wrong? So judgment is taking place all the time when teaching.

2). In light of the fact that we will be judged according to our deeds, are you sure you want to say, "it doesn't matter how much earthly good is done"? My daughter hopes to use her education to facilitate underprivileged youth in our failing educational systems. Is that somehow not the work of God?

3). While my daughter may never understand God in this life, she does understand doing good and avoiding evil distractions.

[Seminarysnoozer]

1). The Bible teaches that the saints will be the judge of this world. How can you teach repentance unless you judge a wrong? So judgment is taking place all the time when teaching.

2). In light of the fact that we will be judged according to our deeds, are you sure you want to say, "it doesn't matter how much earthly good is done"? My daughter hopes to use her education to facilitate underprivileged youth in our failing educational systems. Is that somehow not the work of God?

3). While my daughter may never understand God in this life, she does understand doing good and avoiding evil distractions.

Sorry I don't have enough time to really respond, maybe I will get back to it over the weekend.

For now, I think speaks of the difference between doing good and what the Lord really wants out of us; "“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

“But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

“The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.”

Said the Lord: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

“As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

And with that in mind; 3 Nephi "26 And behold, all things are written by the Father; therefore out of the books which shall be written shall the world be judged.

27 And know ye that ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am."

Jesus did not judge the world in His first visit, that will change in the second.

[Bensalem]

Sorry I don't have enough time to really respond, maybe I will get back to it over the weekend.

Catch you on the rebound. Have a great weekend.

[Seminarysnoozer]

1). The Bible teaches that the saints will be the judge of this world. How can you teach repentance unless you judge a wrong? So judgment is taking place all the time when teaching.

2). In light of the fact that we will be judged according to our deeds, are you sure you want to say, "it doesn't matter how much earthly good is done"? My daughter hopes to use her education to facilitate underprivileged youth in our failing educational systems. Is that somehow not the work of God?

3). While my daughter may never understand God in this life, she does understand doing good and avoiding evil distractions.

My point was that the judgment is not just the deed but what is in the person’s heart, the desires of their hearts. Obviously, works alone is not sufficient. Having an eye single to the glory of God means that one has forsaken all to be Christ’s disciple. Without knowing the heart one cannot judge in this life. At some point we will be able to see such things but not here unless given authority to do so. There are many parables given about doing good deeds but only for show. The deed alone is not sufficient, it has to be done with divine purpose and righteous intent.

D&C 137 “ 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.”

And Alma 41 “ 3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.”

And Romans 2; “ 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

And Matthew 15; “ 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

And Moroni 7; “ 6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.

8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.

9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.”

And, Dallin H. Oaks: “Have you ever found yourself doing something you thought was right, but doing it because you "had" to? Did you ever keep a commandment of God with an attitude of resentment or self-righteousness, or even because you expected some immediate personal benefit? I suppose most of us have had this experience. Do you remember your feelings on such occasions? Do you think such feelings will be ignored by a Father in Heaven who gave us the willpower we call agency? Don't such feelings tell us something about the desires of our hearts? under the law of God we are accountable for our feelings and desires as well as our acts. Evil thoughts and desires will be punished. Acts that seem to be good bring blessings only when they are done with real and righteous intent. On the positive side, we will be blessed for the righteous desires of our hearts even though some outside circumstance has made it impossible for us to carry those desires into action.” … “In summary, under the law of God we are accountable for our feelings and desires as well as our acts. Evil thoughts and desires will be punished. Acts that seem to be good bring blessings only when they are done with real and righteous intent. On the positive side, we will be blessed for the righteous desires of our hearts even though some outside circumstance has made it impossible for us to carry those desires into action. “(1985-86 Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 29, 31)

[Finrock]

Good afternoon all.

I'd like to point out that the premise that sexuality is determined by genes and is not a choice, which the OP daughter's argument relies on, is faulty. There isn't a "proponderance" of evidence that suggest that our sexual orientation is somehow determined at birth. In fact, the latest studies confirm what common sense has said for years; that we are a combination of our genes and our environment.

"Genes work with probabilities; they don't work with certainties. So most things that you're looking at with these genetic tests, it's not like you're condemned to automatically get the disease or the syndrome. There's a lot of factors in play there (Sam Kean)."

"The more that I looked at DNA, the more I realized it was nature and nurture. It's how genes and your environment work together to produce the person you are. So I don't feel like I'm really hemmed in because of my DNA. Obviously there's some things that were never going to happen for me — I was never going to play in the NBA — because I'm not tall enough or bulky enough. But even now we're finding a lot of behavioral traits that have some sort of genetic influence or roots in DNA somehow. We're also finding that those things don't rigidly dictate who we are. Genetic determinism is an idea that really scares people and understandably so. But thankfully the more we find out about our DNA, the more we realize we're not determined by our DNA (Sam Kean; Emphasis added)."

If our DNA or our genes do not rigidly determine who we are then we have choice and your daughter's argument fails.

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Finrock, protein expression makes a huge difference in the development of an embryo, fetus and even early infant. For example, it is proteins which determine the type of fur a cat will have. I recall an experiment in Texas where they cloned a cat with orange stripes. 5 clones, 2 were orange striped, 2 were gray striped and 1 was calico.

Not everything is determined by DNA, but the DNA focuses and bounds the possibilities once proteins are expressed. I believe our sexual attractions are set due to a lot of factors, including protein expression and other things we have only begun to study. And maybe more. Certainly 'nurture' has a role as well, but I don't think its as 'strong' as the rest.

HiJolly

[Bensalem]

Sorry I don't have enough time to really respond, maybe I will get back to it over the weekend.

For now, I think speaks of the difference between doing good and what the Lord really wants out of us; "“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

“But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

“The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.”

Said the Lord: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

“As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

And with that in mind; 3 Nephi "26 And behold, all things are written by the Father; therefore out of the books which shall be written shall the world be judged.

27 And know ye that ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am."

Jesus did not judge the world in His first visit, that will change in the second.

My point was that the judgment is not just the deed but what is in the person’s heart, the desires of their hearts. Obviously, works alone is not sufficient. Having an eye single to the glory of God means that one has forsaken all to be Christ’s disciple. Without knowing the heart one cannot judge in this life. At some point we will be able to see such things but not here unless given authority to do so. There are many parables given about doing good deeds but only for show. The deed alone is not sufficient, it has to be done with divine purpose and righteous intent.

D&C 137 “ 9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.”

And Alma 41 “ 3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.”

And Romans 2; “ 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

And Matthew 15; “ 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

And Moroni 7; “ 6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

7 For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.

8 For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.

9 And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.”

And, Dallin H. Oaks: “Have you ever found yourself doing something you thought was right, but doing it because you "had" to? Did you ever keep a commandment of God with an attitude of resentment or self-righteousness, or even because you expected some immediate personal benefit? I suppose most of us have had this experience. Do you remember your feelings on such occasions? Do you think such feelings will be ignored by a Father in Heaven who gave us the willpower we call agency? Don't such feelings tell us something about the desires of our hearts? under the law of God we are accountable for our feelings and desires as well as our acts. Evil thoughts and desires will be punished. Acts that seem to be good bring blessings only when they are done with real and righteous intent. On the positive side, we will be blessed for the righteous desires of our hearts even though some outside circumstance has made it impossible for us to carry those desires into action.” … “In summary, under the law of God we are accountable for our feelings and desires as well as our acts. Evil thoughts and desires will be punished. Acts that seem to be good bring blessings only when they are done with real and righteous intent. On the positive side, we will be blessed for the righteous desires of our hearts even though some outside circumstance has made it impossible for us to carry those desires into action. “(1985-86 Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 29, 31)

I'm not sure if you are 'scolding' (educating) me for judging or my daughter for being a mere 'hireling'.

Could you please be more specific before I attempt an answer?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm not sure if you are 'scolding' (educating) me for judging or my daughter for being a mere 'hireling'.

Could you please be more specific before I attempt an answer?

Of course I am not scolding, that is exactly why I started that earlier comment with I cannot judge and the very reason I am not wanting to be specific. And then you came back with the post of 'we have to judge'. And then I followed with the explanation of why we cannot really judge because we do not know what is the desire someone's heart, for the most part.

All I am saying is that the test we face here is not just doing the right thing but doing the right thing with the right desires of the heart, with an eye single to the glory of God. God uses all the variables not just the ones that are on the surface or 'seen by man' to judge.

Even when the task is not possible the desires of the heart are recorded.

[Bensalem]

Good afternoon all.

I'd like to point out that the premise that sexuality is determined by genes and is not a choice, which the OP daughter's argument relies on, is faulty. There isn't a "proponderance" of evidence that suggest that our sexual orientation is somehow determined at birth. In fact, the latest studies confirm what common sense has said for years; that we are a combination of our genes and our environment.

"Genes work with probabilities; they don't work with certainties. So most things that you're looking at with these genetic tests, it's not like you're condemned to automatically get the disease or the syndrome. There's a lot of factors in play there (Sam Kean)."

"The more that I looked at DNA, the more I realized it was nature and nurture. It's how genes and your environment work together to produce the person you are. So I don't feel like I'm really hemmed in because of my DNA. Obviously there's some things that were never going to happen for me — I was never going to play in the NBA — because I'm not tall enough or bulky enough. But even now we're finding a lot of behavioral traits that have some sort of genetic influence or roots in DNA somehow. We're also finding that those things don't rigidly dictate who we are. Genetic determinism is an idea that really scares people and understandably so. But thankfully the more we find out about our DNA, the more we realize we're not determined by our DNA (Sam Kean; Emphasis added)."

If our DNA or our genes do not rigidly determine who we are then we have choice and your daughter's argument fails.

Regards,

Finrock

Thanks for the quotes. I'll add them to my side of the discussion with my daughter. Although my views have changed in lieu of the following post by 'HiJolly':

Originally Posted by HiJolly

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

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

"Sexual orientation is not a choice, disease, addiction, learned, or subject to change." William Bradshaw.

My daughter has learned well and I was incorrect to argue that the doctrine of free agency applies to sexual orientation; it only applies to the choice one makes to act or not act upon their same gender attraction.

Thank you for providing the link.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Good afternoon all.

I'd like to point out that the premise that sexuality is determined by genes and is not a choice, which the OP daughter's argument relies on, is faulty. There isn't a "proponderance" of evidence that suggest that our sexual orientation is somehow determined at birth. In fact, the latest studies confirm what common sense has said for years; that we are a combination of our genes and our environment.

"Genes work with probabilities; they don't work with certainties. So most things that you're looking at with these genetic tests, it's not like you're condemned to automatically get the disease or the syndrome. There's a lot of factors in play there (Sam Kean)."

"The more that I looked at DNA, the more I realized it was nature and nurture. It's how genes and your environment work together to produce the person you are. So I don't feel like I'm really hemmed in because of my DNA. Obviously there's some things that were never going to happen for me — I was never going to play in the NBA — because I'm not tall enough or bulky enough. But even now we're finding a lot of behavioral traits that have some sort of genetic influence or roots in DNA somehow. We're also finding that those things don't rigidly dictate who we are. Genetic determinism is an idea that really scares people and understandably so. But thankfully the more we find out about our DNA, the more we realize we're not determined by our DNA (Sam Kean; Emphasis added)."

If our DNA or our genes do not rigidly determine who we are then we have choice and your daughter's argument fails.

Regards,

Finrock

The quotes you gave do not support "choice" as you are suggesting. The quote is suggesting that nurture is the missing element, not choice. I don't think nurture and choice are the same thing. If you do, please explain. To me, nurture also is not by choice, at least not that persons choice while developing at a young age. When a person is older one can mold their environment a little more easily based in choice but not fully.

Religion suggests that there is even something more than nature and nurture, it steps beyond a purely naturalistic view of why people do the things they do. Suggesting nurture as another factor still doesn't allow for spiritual influence, the nurture they are referring to is external and comes from the natural (corrupted) world.

[Bensalem]

Of course I am not scolding, that is exactly why I started that earlier comment with I cannot judge and the very reason I am not wanting to be specific. And then you came back with the post of 'we have to judge'. And then I followed with the explanation of why we cannot really judge because we do not know what is the desire someone's heart, for the most part.

All I am saying is that the test we face here is not just doing the right thing but doing the right thing with the right desires of the heart, with an eye single to the glory of God. God uses all the variables not just the ones that are on the surface or 'seen by man' to judge.

Even when the task is not possible the desires of the heart are recorded.

I guess the fact that I was not sure whether you were 'scolding' or (educating) proves your point well enough. But that doesn't mean I didn't make a judgment of sorts.

When I cross the street with an approaching car I look at the driver to judge whether or not they see me and whether or not their car is slowing down. It is true I don't see into their heart (they may actually want to run me over), but I am making judgments (aka, assessments).

Same as when I am speaking to someone of our gospel. I am asking questions of them to try to determine where they stand with God. That is a judgment I have to make before I can teach them anything.

As for my daughter, she does not acknowledge God and does not understand a thing about Christ or his purpose. She therefore cannot do her good works with "an eye single to the glory of God". Does that diminish her good works? Not in the eyes of the poor and underprivileged students she serves.

She does, however, understand that good is rewarded and evil is punished. This principle remains with the covenant of accountability Noah made in God (Genesis 9:5). So her good will serve her well as a spirit child of Noah. Even if she does not know it, her service to the poor serves Christ.

My daughter has a lot to learn before she can accept the covenants which may some day bring her to me in the tribe of Ephraim. But she has more than a Millennium to progress.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Bensalem

[Seminarysnoozer]

I guess the fact that I was not sure whether you were 'scolding' or (educating) proves your point well enough. But that doesn't mean I didn't make a judgment of sorts.

When I cross the street with an approaching car I look at the driver to judge whether or not they see me and whether or not their car is slowing down. It is true I don't see into their heart (they may actually want to run me over), but I am making judgments (aka, assessments).

Same as when I am speaking to someone of our gospel. I am asking questions of them to try to determine where they stand with God. That is a judgment I have to make before I can teach them anything.

As for my daughter, she does not acknowledge God and does not understand a thing about Christ or his purpose. She therefore cannot do her good works with "an eye single to the glory of God". Does that diminish her good works? Not in the eyes of the poor and underprivileged students she serves.

She does, however, understand that good is rewarded and evil is punished. This principle remains with the covenant of accountability Noah made in God (Genesis 9:5). So her good will serve her well as a spirit child of Noah. Even if she does not know it, her service to the poor serves Christ.

My daughter has a lot to learn before she can accept the covenants which may some day bring her to me in the tribe of Ephraim. But she has more than a Millennium to progress.

I don't think I disagree with you about our limited ability to discern between good and evil while in this life, I believe I was referring to the type of judgments that are of eternally unchanging consequences.

With that in mind, the "good" we are talking about, of course, is also of the kind that has eternally unchanging consequences. To have that kind of good count for eternal blessings, yes, it has to be done with an eye to the glory of God. Did Cain's sacrifice count? Why not, was it not good? His argument was that he did it just like his brother.

Genesis 4; " 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

So, what was wrong with Cain's offerings? Didn't he do "good" by giving the offerings?

Joseph Smith gave some insight to this story; "Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith Shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man was the plan of redemption; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised ; consequently Cain could have no faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 58)

[Bensalem]

I don't think I disagree with you about our limited ability to discern between good and evil while in this life, I believe I was referring to the type of judgments that are of eternally unchanging consequences.

With that in mind, the "good" we are talking about, of course, is also of the kind that has eternally unchanging consequences. To have that kind of good count for eternal blessings, yes, it has to be done with an eye to the glory of God. Did Cain's sacrifice count? Why not, was it not good? His argument was that he did it just like his brother.

Genesis 4; " 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

So, what was wrong with Cain's offerings? Didn't he do "good" by giving the offerings?

Joseph Smith gave some insight to this story; "Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith Shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man was the plan of redemption; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised ; consequently Cain could have no faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 58)

But my daughter's work does have eternal consequences. Noah's covenant of accountability (Genesis 9:5) makes the promise that we shall be judged by our fellow man and also the animals may be witness for or against us. Since Christ taught that the good (or evil) we do unto the poor is done unto Him, it is clear that my daughter's good service is done unto Christ. By NT standards her work is counted in her favor.

As for Cain, it is true that his offering was not in alignment with the symbolism of the atonement, thereby, placing his faith in question. But his larger sin was jealousy, which our Lord warned him of, and which eventually led to the murder of his brother Abel.

[Seminarysnoozer]

But my daughter's work does have eternal consequences. Noah's covenant of accountability (Genesis 9:5) makes the promise that we shall be judged by our fellow man and also the animals may be witness for or against us. Since Christ taught that the good (or evil) we do unto the poor is done unto Him, it is clear that my daughter's good service is done unto Christ. By NT standards her work is counted in her favor.

As for Cain, it is true that his offering was not in alignment with the symbolism of the atonement, thereby, placing his faith in question. But his larger sin was jealousy, which our Lord warned him of, and which eventually led to the murder of his brother Abel.

That is my point, jealousy comes from not having our eye single to the glory of God. It is the desire to get gain for oneself at the expense of another or by desiring what someone else has when it is not done in the proper way. And it is the thought that by doing it on one's own there should be individual glory given without having to give thanks to God. That is exactly what Satan tried to do.

Satan still tries to plant in our minds the idea of reaching that goal by other means than the straight and narrow, that we can somehow do it on our own without being covenant people. You even mention the word covenant, which is true. You need to keep in mind the Joseph Smith translation of those versus to really understand what is meant by that covenant.

When reading the Joseph Smith translation it becomes evident that there are certain things that need to take place with the seed of Noah to validate the covenant. "15 And I will remember my covenant, which I have made between me and you and for every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant which I made unto thy father Enoch; that, when men should keep all my commandments, Zion should again come on the earth, the city of Enoch which I have caught up unto myself. And this is mine everlasting covenant, that when thy posterity shall embrace the truth, and look upward, then shall Zion look downward, and all the heavens shall shake with gladness, and the earth shall tremble with joy. And the general assembly of the church of the first-born shall come down out of heaven, and possess the earth, and shall have place until the end come. And this is mine everlasting covenant, which I made with thy father Enoch. And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will establish my covenant unto thee, which I have made between me and thee, for every living creature of all flesh that shall be upon the earth."

[bluedreams]

So this is now 11 pages old and I'm sure a number of things that I'm about to say will probably have been said before, but here's my 1.5 cents anyways.

In a discussion with my daughter (BS in psychology with a minor in education and MS in school counseling), she presented that a preponderance of science shows that sexual orientation is predetermined by genetics and is not a matter of free choice being influenced by social and environmental factors. She likewise suggested that heterosexuality is not a choice, but is preconditioned in the genetic nature of one's being.

I'm a psych major and am hopeful to become a therapist focusing on sex or self worth issues. Sex is one of my pet topics. So take my opinion as you will. I don't feel the research points to what your daughter is stating. It shows a genetic predisposition, but does not negate that there may be environmental/persona/relationsal forces as well. To illustrated, research on twin studies shows that of those that are gay there is a 50% chance their identical twin is gay, 16-22% chance that there fraternal twin is gay, and a 6-11% chance that their adoptive sibling is also gay. The 50% and 20% is high and does show that there are some definite genetic connections to homosexuality. But it also shows that there is something more going on than just genetics. That adoptive siblings (ie. siblings with no genetic connection) also have an increased likelihood of being gay also states that there's more to it than just genetics. We're not necessarily programmed to be something by genetics.

Open question about homosexuality: What is the LDS church's view on scientific discoveries that homosexuality has more to do with genetics than with personal choice?

Does the LDS church have a view on how these scientific studies on sexual orientation fit into the doctrine of free agency and accountability?

Personally I think there is a common misunderstanding of personal choice and agency. It is not equivelant to the idea or free will. We are not free to do or become anything we want. Our choice is defined between choosing between right and wrong. We all have various attributes that left to our natural selves are antithetical to the Gospel. It's our choice as to whether these things become a wedge or a tool to refine us and help us to grow in the Gospel.

So in short, I don't think it matters how a person becomes gay (whether its genetic, environment, parenting, etc). It's what one decides to do about it that matters. I also don't the a majority of those who are gay will be able to choose to change their attraction as a whole as well. Don't negate that that can happen, but from what I've read about those who are active members and gay, that shouldn't be the overall goal.

With luv,

BD

[Bensalem]

So this is now 11 pages old and I'm sure a number of things that I'm about to say will probably have been said before, but here's my 1.5 cents anyways.

I'm a psych major and am hopeful to become a therapist focusing on sex or self worth issues. Sex is one of my pet topics. So take my opinion as you will. I don't feel the research points to what your daughter is stating. It shows a genetic predisposition, but does not negate that there may be environmental/persona/relationsal forces as well. To illustrated, research on twin studies shows that of those that are gay there is a 50% chance their identical twin is gay, 16-22% chance that there fraternal twin is gay, and a 6-11% chance that their adoptive sibling is also gay. The 50% and 20% is high and does show that there are some definite genetic connections to homosexuality. But it also shows that there is something more going on than just genetics. That adoptive siblings (ie. siblings with no genetic connection) also have an increased likelihood of being gay also states that there's more to it than just genetics. We're not necessarily programmed to be something by genetics.

Personally I think there is a common misunderstanding of personal choice and agency. It is not equivelant to the idea or free will. We are not free to do or become anything we want. Our choice is defined between choosing between right and wrong. We all have various attributes that left to our natural selves are antithetical to the Gospel. It's our choice as to whether these things become a wedge or a tool to refine us and help us to grow in the Gospel.

So in short, I don't think it matters how a person becomes gay (whether its genetic, environment, parenting, etc). It's what one decides to do about it that matters. I also don't the a majority of those who are gay will be able to choose to change their attraction as a whole as well. Don't negate that that can happen, but from what I've read about those who are active members and gay, that shouldn't be the overall goal.

With luv,

BD

Thank you for your input.

Good luck with your studies.