Convert of Two Years, Still Struggling to Reconcile Beliefs

[IndigoAK]

First, I suppose some basic information is in order. I converted to the Church when I was 25 years-old. Prior to joining I was agnostic and had grown up in an environment that encouraged progressive beliefs.

My worry is that after two years as a member I am still struggling with reconciling even some of the most fundamental aspects of the Gospel with my pre-existing beliefs.

I am vehemently opposed to the Church's and the Gospel's teachings on gender identity and attraction; the short version is the I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that what a person feels they are is what they are and that we are free to love whomever our hearts lead us to, regardless of whether that person is male, female, blue, purple or has spots down their sides. For me, this is the lesser of the beliefs I need to reconcile - and what I mean by that is that I don't think I ever will and I've accepted that, though I still from time to time find myself self conscious about having this belief and how people within the Church will react to me because I hold it.

The second thing I struggle with is pre-existing notions about the nature of the universe. I am a very scientific person and an avid supporter of the advancement of scientific technology, the point where I would consider myself a transhumanist. When presented with theories such as the Big Bang, I am inclined to agree with it because when I consider everything else I know about the universe, it makes sense to me. When I sit down and think about the possibility of the universe just blinking into existence, I simply can't accept it. I try to, but it's almost as if I am physically incapable of doing so. In this regard, I have spent a vast amount of time over the last two years trying to figure out where these beliefs fit in with the Gospel. At the current moment, I'm partially content with believing that the Gospel's teachings and scientific theory about the creation of the universe can more than coincide - at a very basic level, I think I believe that Heavenly Father instigated the Big Bang, to give an example of where I'm at.

Perhaps the largest belief I am struggling to reconcile with the Gospel's teachings is my belief about sexuality. As I mentioned above, I converted when I was 25. By that point, I had been in several serious relationships, been engaged and was sexually active (though not promiscuous - before converting, I firmly believed in only being sexually active when in a committed relationship). The Gospel teaches that sex is only to be done while married, never before and that masturbation of any kind is simply wrong. Having believed and lived the complete opposite for 25 years prior to converting, reconciling this belief has been the most difficult by far, mostly with regard to masturbation. I have tried everything under the sun that I can think of to come to terms with this - cold turkey, I have lost count of the number of talks I've had with my Branch presidency, I've talked with my Stake President, it's a constant topic between me and my therapist (who is not a Church member and honestly, finds it incredulous that I've spent so much time and effort attempting to simply stop masturbating completely), I've tried attending the Church's addiction recovery group (which I stopped going to because - and I'll be honest - it made me very uncomfortable), I have tried seeking advice with a couple of local converts (those talks didn't amount to much, as their advice was to get married, which honestly, feels cheaty). Recently, I've begun to believe that I may never ever be able to fully cut this out of my life. My therapist is strongly encouraging me to attempt to moderate rather than to eliminate the behavior because she's afraid the large amounts of stress caused by trying to force myself to do something my body and mind clearly don't want to are having an adverse affect on how well I'm coping with other issues. In a surprising twist, my Branch presidency is actually sort of agreeing with my therapist, though possibly because they know that I will always defer to her advice before I defer to theirs.

A fourth thing that I think might be of concern is my personal take on the Church's teachings about each of us having our own personal relationship with Heavenly Father. As my deference to my therapist before my Branch presidency probably suggests, I tend to lean toward immediately practical solutions to problems, especially mental, emotional, and physical problems, and I believe that those things will always need to be sorted first before work can be done on any spiritual problems. A side effect of this is that I've developed an attitude of, "I refuse to accept that Heavenly Father is my better. The nature of a father is that they aren't always right and that sometimes, they need to let their children figure things out on their own, but that they should always be their to help if it's really needed." I have a feeling that many people in the Church who are devout would find this attitude dangerous.

So I guess what I'm asking is...is this stuff normal for a convert who joined the Church at my age and who had life experiences similar to mine? Am I overthinking how long it's taking me to reconcile these things? Are there any converts here who have gone through similar circumstances and were actually able to fully reconcile any of these things?

Finally, I would like to state for the record that I still believe wholeheartedly that Heavenly Father is up there. I do believe that the Gospel exists for a reason and that there are reasons for why it's so specific about a whole range of things. The fact that I'm still a member after two years struggling with this, to my close friends, speaks volumes to the fact that I recognize that the Church is true and is better for me than the alternative.

[dahlia]

I don't think age is the only factor here. I am older than you and lived a life in the world before converting. I have some of your concerns. It pains me to see the posts here about masturbation because I think people are needlessly in anguish over a normal human activity. And, if the Church wants celibacy until marriage, masturbation is one way to avoid premarital sex. I don't think I will ever feel differently.

I also think that some people have gender issues that developed in the womb. I'm concerned about a 13 yr old having a sex-change operation, and letting transgenders who haven't had reassignment surgery use women's bathrooms, for example, but generally, I think that if you get to adulthood and you think you've always been a girl or boy, and you go thru the psychotherapy, etc. then you do what you want to do. But I also think you should go all the way - if you're a girl, then be a girl and get the plumbing worked on. You can't have it both ways.

As an academic, this stuff comes up all the time on college campuses. The bathroom issue is currently a hot topic at many schools. Maybe most people don't have to deal with these issues in their daily lives, but I've got gay students every term and every once in a while, someone who wants to 'identify' as something else. These are normally nice students and I don't have any reason to treat them differently than anyone else. Nor do I think they are damned for what they do or who they are.

Anyway, you aren't the only person dealing with these issues, if that helps.

[classylady]

I'm okay with not understanding everything. But, I do know that our Heavenly Father knows all. I know He loves all His children. With the Savior's atonement all will be made well. I trust in that.

[bytor2112]

To co-opt a paraphrase used by a late Apostle, " the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit." It is difficult to address your concerns without going all preachy....but perhaps it is good to remember that it is a journey and we are all at different places in that journey. I have found that the best way to learn what the Lord wishes for us to learn and "know" is by first being obedient to what HE has already revealed. I haven't always adhered to this and while we are all the sum of our experiences, I wish I hadn't experienced many of the things I did because I was led by worldly idea's.

I will say that some of what you express would lead me to believe that if you continue down this road you will likely find a reason to leave the church and rejoin the world.

All I can say is good luck in your journey. If you stop thinking upon the things that trouble you and only focus on what the Lord has revealed in Holy Writ and from the mouth's of Prophet's and seek what He will reveal to you.....you will find one day that the answers to these questions/concerns really aren't very important in the Eternal scheme of things. A scheme I might add that you gladly accepted or as the scriptures record, that the morning stars sang together,t long before your mortal sojourn on this fallen sphere.

[selek]

So I guess what I'm asking is...is this stuff normal for a convert who joined the Church at my age and who had life experiences similar to mine?

I converted to the Church at roughly the same age as you- soI am inclined to agree with dahlia that these questions have little to do with age, but are more a matter of nature and nurture.

I, too, have always been a rationale person with a strong tendency to seek out the nuts-and-bolts of how and why rather than just accepting things "as they are" or "as "the way they've always been".

Am I overthinking how long it's taking me to reconcile these things? Are there any converts here who have gone through similar circumstances and were actually able to fully reconcile any of these things?

Short answers? Yes and yes.

To be blunt, however, this isn't a dichotomy between those "born in covenant" and "those who converted later" or even between "the magical mind" and the "rational thinker".

Those are false dichotomies.

You complain that being asked to believe that God created the universe is aking to being asked to believe that it "just blinked into existence one day".

Save for the noise and fireworks, how is that any different than believing that "nothing suddenly exploded into an infinite number of worlds, stars, and galaxies"?

What you are dealing with can best be described (IMNSHO) as theological parallax- the dichotomy of trying to reconcile two different viewpoints of the same object.

The bottom line is that whether you are talking about LDS theology or secular cosmology, you are inevitably going to have to take certain things on faith.

Both Thomas S. Monson and Steven Hawking operate on unproven assumptions about the universe. For each man, their assumptions coincide with their overall philosophies and world-views. Each believes that their assumptions are perfectly reasonable given their past experiences and understanding of "how the universe works".

When the question is asked, "Which of them is wrong?", the answer is "Yes".

Each man can be justly accused of error- depending upon one's point of view.

Modern philosophers and secular humanists would have you believe that religious faith and rationale thought are incompatible.

That's rubbish. It is sectarian gate keeping- no different than the Protestants saying that the Catholics are the root of all evil, than the Catholics saying the Hindu's have no enlightenment to offer the seeking mind, or UofU graduates talking about women at BYU.

You are not required to choose between "your faith" and "rationale thought"- but you will be required to "reorder your toybox" and to prioritize your assumptions.

It's the same process you would face when confronting any new ideas or learning any new discipline.

In the short term, you might find the following link of interest: Mormon Scholars Testify

One final thought:

For me, experience (and fact) trump theory every time they're tried.

We have both experimented upon the "mustard seed" of faith, and seen our experiment blossom into a testimony that God lives.

That result- that evidence/fact/experience/proof now trumps all mere theories to the contrary.

It therefore becomes the foundation on which we must build the rest of our premise- weighing each new idea against what we now know to be true.

Good luck in your journey.

[IndigoAK]

I don't think age is the only factor here. I am older than you and lived a life in the world before converting. I have some of your concerns. It pains me to see the posts here about masturbation because I think people are needlessly in anguish over a normal human activity. And, if the Church wants celibacy until marriage, masturbation is one way to avoid premarital sex. I don't think I will ever feel differently.

...

Anyway, you aren't the only person dealing with these issues, if that helps.

This helps a lot, actually. It helps that there are those who agree that masturbation is normal and can even be helpful in curtailing other feelings and emotions that may come up while practicing no sex before marriage. I suppose the issue then becomes not being able to be open about that. I don't feel this is something I would be able to share with my Branch presidency or even most other members of the Church without being seen as somebody who is blatantly disregarding doctrine and therefore somebody who isn't taking the Church and his spirituality seriously.

I will say that some of what you express would lead me to believe that if you continue down this road you will likely find a reason to leave the church and rejoin the world.

I will never leave the Church entirely. I made this decision a long time ago. If I truly come across something that completely destroys my belief, I decided that I would go inactive instead. I wouldn't want to permanently alienate myself from it.

Despite the things I've described, I recognize that the Church is an immense part of my life. I have friends in the Church, I'm great friends with all three members of my Branch presidency outside of church activities themselves (that should give you an idea of just much I've talked to all three of them about these issues, that we became good friends) and oddly, I enjoy simply being our Branch's building. I don't even need to be doing anything Church-related in the building, I find peace simply being inside of it. I would never give these things up. Their positive impact on my life has been far too great.

Finally, selek, your post does help a lot. I think the gist of what you're trying to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the scientific stance and the spiritual stance are wholly compatible, as long as I remember that Heavenly Father is, well, Heavenly Father and that at the end of the day, He knows what he's doing.

I think another thing I got from your post (and this probably isn't what you were trying to say) is that while figuring these things out is important, I should do it piece by piece instead of spending so much time and energy trying to have a huge realization at a single moment.

[selek]

Finally, selek, your post does help a lot. I think the gist of what you're trying to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the scientific stance and the spiritual stance are wholly compatible, as long as I remember that Heavenly Father is, well, Heavenly Father and that at the end of the day, He knows what he's doing.

I think another thing I got from your post (and this probably isn't what you were trying to say) is that while figuring these things out is important, I should do it piece by piece instead of spending so much time and energy trying to have a huge realization at a single moment.

Right on both counts- though as I stated, one's point of view and underlying assumptions will also help determine how you process things.

As to the rest, that's how I learned it: line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept.

No one eats an elephant in one swallow- but only one bite at a time.

I hope that helps, and will keep you in my prayers.

[pam]

Right on both counts- though as I stated, one's point of view and underlying assumptions will also help determine how you process things.

As to the rest, that's how I learned it: line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept.

No one eats an elephant in one swallow- but only one bite at a time.

I hope that helps, and will keep you in my prayers.

What happened to the real selek and what did you do to him?

[selek]

What happened to the real selek and what did you do to him?

Sorry. The court ordered those records sealed after the incident...

[The Folk Prophet]

I think that one of the most important thing to know in the gospel is that we cannot trust our own feelings and thoughts on anything beyond a witness that things are true. Beyond that, we have to accept that we are mortal, imperfect, susceptible to misunderstanding, deception, etc.

Our mortal perspective is, ultimately, meaningless compared to the wisdom of God. The sooner we can let go of our own selves and look to God for understanding the better. With some subjects that is easy, and with some subjects that can be very, very hard.

Either way, every premise, every bit of research, every moment of study -- all this should begin with the hypothesis that God's word (and by extension His prophet's and apostle's words) is right. What we naturally feel on any subject is irrelevant. Feelings have no bearing on truth.

We can come to understand and feel the same as God on all things. But part of that is accepting His perfection and our weakness (His brilliance and our idiocy is another way we could put it). Trusting that God loves better than we ever can, and that His understanding of mercy and justice is absolutely fair and equitable. If we have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and the reality that this is God's church and doctrine, then we can eventually reconcile our contrasting personal feelings.

If, on the other hand, we hold to any sort of delusion that we know better... Well, like I said, as mortals, we are incapable of really understanding anything (meaning that we're stupid, every one (relatively speaking)).

[IndigoAK]

I think that one of the most important thing to know in the gospel is that we cannot trust our own feelings and thoughts on anything beyond a witness that things are true. Beyond that, we have to accept that we are mortal, imperfect, susceptible to misunderstanding, deception, etc.

Our mortal perspective is, ultimately, meaningless compared to the wisdom of God. The sooner we can let go of our own selves and look to God for understanding the better. With some subjects that is easy, and with some subjects that can be very, very hard.

Either way, every premise, every bit of research, every moment of study -- all this should begin with the hypothesis that God's word (and by extension His prophet's and apostle's words) is right. What we naturally feel on any subject is irrelevant. Feelings have no bearing on truth.

We can come to understand and feel the same as God on all things. But part of that is accepting His perfection and our weakness (His brilliance and our idiocy is another way we could put it). Trusting that God loves better than we ever can, and that His understanding of mercy and justice is absolutely fair and equitable. If we have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and the reality that this is God's church and doctrine, then we can eventually reconcile our contrasting personal feelings.

If, on the other hand, we hold to any sort of delusion that we know better... Well, like I said, as mortals, we are incapable of really understanding anything (meaning that we're stupid, every one (relatively speaking)).

I understand what you're trying to say, but this ultimately something I'm incapable of. I will never be able to completely do away with everything I've come to believe over the course of my life and replace it with what the Gospel and the Church tells me is how things are. The most I will ever be able to achieve is the compromise I'm currently going for. Maybe that makes me a terrible Saint, but in that case I'll settle for being a terrible Saint if it keeps me from driving myself insane.

[Backroads]

I understand what you're trying to say, but this ultimately something I'm incapable of. I will never be able to completely do away with everything I've come to believe over the course of my life and replace it with what the Gospel and the Church tells me is how things are. The most I will ever be able to achieve is the compromise I'm currently going for. Maybe that makes me a terrible Saint, but in that case I'll settle for being a terrible Saint if it keeps me from driving myself insane.

This goes against many of my personal beliefs and pet peeves about "fixing for yourself" things about the Church, but... after reading this thread, I think, you're working hard, you're pondering these things, etc. I don't feel you're necessarily compromising.

[mnn727]

I converted as an adult when I was 37, 20 years ago, there are still things I am reconciling. Some things I just keep my mouth shut on. There are some things that I was adamant about that I have come around to the Churches way of thinking, other things not yet.

If something is not a deal breaker for you, you may find your attitude changes with time on some things, it has on mine -- are you willing to listen, but stay silent when you have something like that? (meaning not to push/preach your personal point of view during church/classes).

Edited March 25, 2013 by mnn727

[IndigoAK]

My big thing with staying quiet is that I feel like I'm being dishonest in some way. Like I'm lying to everybody at church.

[Guest]

Struggling is completely normal and even good. Beliefs need to be challenged so your understanding is increased.

The good thing is that you are trying to figure it all out. It is always good to seek the truth of all things instead of just accepting it without understanding it. But, you can't find truth without humility. This is true whether it be science, society, or religion. As they say - you can't fill a cup that is already full. So, the first requirement is that you humble yourself enough to admit that what you already know may not have been completely true.

It's like 5 blind people who are trying to find the truth about the elephant. One feels the tusk and he describes the elephant as a sword. The other feels the tail and he describes the elephant as a rope. The other feels the nose and he describes the elephant as a big snake. Another felt the leg and describes the elephant as a tree. And yet another felt the underbelly and describes the elephant as a flying mountain. All 5 people testify vehemently to the truth of their understanding and they argue day in and day out with each other about what an elephant is.... But, they will never see the truth of the elephant if they don't humble themselves enough so that they might try to "see" the elephant from the other side.

[Backroads]

My big thing with staying quiet is that I feel like I'm being dishonest in some way. Like I'm lying to everybody at church.

Forget for a moment all the "political" stuff. Do you believe the basics?

[IndigoAK]

Forget for a moment all the "political" stuff. Do you believe the basics?

If by basics you mean that I believe in God, I believe Joseph Smith bore a true testimony and I believe that President Monson is a true prophet of God, then yes.

Edited March 25, 2013 by IndigoAK

[The Folk Prophet]

I understand what you're trying to say, but this ultimately something I'm incapable of. I will never be able to completely do away with everything I've come to believe over the course of my life and replace it with what the Gospel and the Church tells me is how things are. The most I will ever be able to achieve is the compromise I'm currently going for. Maybe that makes me a terrible Saint, but in that case I'll settle for being a terrible Saint if it keeps me from driving myself insane.

The fact that you think you're incapable of it does not mean you are incapable of it. With God, all things are possible. Part of the atonement of Christ is in it's power that weaknesses may be overcome. And all of us are perfectly capable of becoming like the Savior--that is to say--perfect. Perfectly humble, perfectly obedient, perfectly understanding, perfectly knowledgeable. We can't expect to be there tomorrow. We can't expect to be there even in this life. But you can absolutely completely do away with everything you've come to believe if those beliefs are, actually, incorrect. Compromise is a start. But if you keep at it with faith, humility, trust, and obedience, you will get there. This is a big part of grace.

There have been many times in the history of the Lord's interaction with mankind wherein mankind has had to totally swallow their pride and understanding and completely rely upon the Lord and his word or will. I'm convinced that the challenge you are facing is the core of the test of mortality. Can we put off our own views and feelings in favor of the word of the Lord? This struggle is not unique to you. We all must face it somewhere, somehow. And it is a lifelong process, for sure. A lifelong learning to acknowledge our nothingness, weakness, unprofitably, etc.

[BadWolf]

Another convert here:

1) Science v Religion

For me, it isn't. My science never conflicts with my religion because they answer 2 seperate questions; How & Why.

Science may sound like "why", but it never is. Its HOW.

Take ANY area of science, and science describes "how". We ask "Why is the sky blue/ do electrons cascade/ why is this antimicrobial... But what we describe is how the process works.

Its the foundation of the scientific method: repeatability & describing how.

Astrophysics to Psych to Medicine.

As scientists... We describe "how".

<grin> Case in point: Big Bang Theory describes HOW the universe came into being. Not why. Back up aaaaaaaallllllllll the waaaaaaaaaay to "why", and any self respecting scientist will thwack you upside the head and say "That's not my job." Or will just go white around the eyes a s say "Because it is! That's an atom! That's. what. They. Doooooo!"

((Science also describes "what" in the "how", just never the why.))

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Indiana Jones

[Martain]

I am vehemently opposed to the Church's and the Gospel's teachings on gender identity and attraction; the short version is the I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that

It really does indeed sound like you're really quite set in that view based on the way you word the above.

If by basics you mean that I believe in God, I believe Joseph Smith bore a true testimony and I believe that President Monson is a true prophet of God, then yes.

I've found a very big difference between those things that I do not know but believe (still take on faith) and those things that I know for certain via a personal witness from God through the Holy Ghost.

What I want to know... is what do you know. You indicate you believe the things above but what have you gained a witness on via the power of the Holy Ghost?

There are some things I'd like to share with you and perhaps even some counsel that may be found applicable but I feel knowing the above first will allow me to hopefully be of more use to you.

[gree0232]

First, I suppose some basic information is in order. I converted to the Church when I was 25 years-old. Prior to joining I was agnostic and had grown up in an environment that encouraged progressive beliefs.

My worry is that after two years as a member I am still struggling with reconciling even some of the most fundamental aspects of the Gospel with my pre-existing beliefs.

I am vehemently opposed to the Church's and the Gospel's teachings on gender identity and attraction; the short version is the I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that what a person feels they are is what they are and that we are free to love whomever our hearts lead us to, regardless of whether that person is male, female, blue, purple or has spots down their sides. For me, this is the lesser of the beliefs I need to reconcile - and what I mean by that is that I don't think I ever will and I've accepted that, though I still from time to time find myself self conscious about having this belief and how people within the Church will react to me because I hold it.

The second thing I struggle with is pre-existing notions about the nature of the universe. I am a very scientific person and an avid supporter of the advancement of scientific technology, the point where I would consider myself a transhumanist. When presented with theories such as the Big Bang, I am inclined to agree with it because when I consider everything else I know about the universe, it makes sense to me. When I sit down and think about the possibility of the universe just blinking into existence, I simply can't accept it. I try to, but it's almost as if I am physically incapable of doing so. In this regard, I have spent a vast amount of time over the last two years trying to figure out where these beliefs fit in with the Gospel. At the current moment, I'm partially content with believing that the Gospel's teachings and scientific theory about the creation of the universe can more than coincide - at a very basic level, I think I believe that Heavenly Father instigated the Big Bang, to give an example of where I'm at.

Perhaps the largest belief I am struggling to reconcile with the Gospel's teachings is my belief about sexuality. As I mentioned above, I converted when I was 25. By that point, I had been in several serious relationships, been engaged and was sexually active (though not promiscuous - before converting, I firmly believed in only being sexually active when in a committed relationship). The Gospel teaches that sex is only to be done while married, never before and that masturbation of any kind is simply wrong. Having believed and lived the complete opposite for 25 years prior to converting, reconciling this belief has been the most difficult by far, mostly with regard to masturbation. I have tried everything under the sun that I can think of to come to terms with this - cold turkey, I have lost count of the number of talks I've had with my Branch presidency, I've talked with my Stake President, it's a constant topic between me and my therapist (who is not a Church member and honestly, finds it incredulous that I've spent so much time and effort attempting to simply stop masturbating completely), I've tried attending the Church's addiction recovery group (which I stopped going to because - and I'll be honest - it made me very uncomfortable), I have tried seeking advice with a couple of local converts (those talks didn't amount to much, as their advice was to get married, which honestly, feels cheaty). Recently, I've begun to believe that I may never ever be able to fully cut this out of my life. My therapist is strongly encouraging me to attempt to moderate rather than to eliminate the behavior because she's afraid the large amounts of stress caused by trying to force myself to do something my body and mind clearly don't want to are having an adverse affect on how well I'm coping with other issues. In a surprising twist, my Branch presidency is actually sort of agreeing with my therapist, though possibly because they know that I will always defer to her advice before I defer to theirs.

A fourth thing that I think might be of concern is my personal take on the Church's teachings about each of us having our own personal relationship with Heavenly Father. As my deference to my therapist before my Branch presidency probably suggests, I tend to lean toward immediately practical solutions to problems, especially mental, emotional, and physical problems, and I believe that those things will always need to be sorted first before work can be done on any spiritual problems. A side effect of this is that I've developed an attitude of, "I refuse to accept that Heavenly Father is my better. The nature of a father is that they aren't always right and that sometimes, they need to let their children figure things out on their own, but that they should always be their to help if it's really needed." I have a feeling that many people in the Church who are devout would find this attitude dangerous.

So I guess what I'm asking is...is this stuff normal for a convert who joined the Church at my age and who had life experiences similar to mine? Am I overthinking how long it's taking me to reconcile these things? Are there any converts here who have gone through similar circumstances and were actually able to fully reconcile any of these things?

Finally, I would like to state for the record that I still believe wholeheartedly that Heavenly Father is up there. I do believe that the Gospel exists for a reason and that there are reasons for why it's so specific about a whole range of things. The fact that I'm still a member after two years struggling with this, to my close friends, speaks volumes to the fact that I recognize that the Church is true and is better for me than the alternative.

Well, there is a methodology to the church's views on sexuality, and, like you, I was initially skeptical of them until I sat down and thought them through - at the end of teh process, I was struck both at the depth and wisdom of teh church's position on sexuality. In short, it answers the question of sexuality, does sexuality control us or do we control our sexuality?

In the churches view, it is most definitely US, as individuals, that control our sexuality. I strongly agree with that position. Here is why:

I will start with a few 'extremes' to demonstrate the validity of the question.

#1 - If a man came to you and told you that he was just 'born' a pedophile, so his sexual interaction with n eight year old girl was neither crminal nor a sin before God, would you buy that explanation?

#2 - If another man came to you and told you that he committed adultery because he was just born that way, thus he was totally unable to control himself when a young tart smiled at him - his commitment to his wife be dambed? This is not sinful?

If we add to this the fat that things like the human genome being mapped, there is no gay gene, and the the best genetic analysis can only point in the direction of 'influence' rather than causation ... well, that too begs the question, are we slaves to our genes? Or, even with genetic leanings, are we able to overcome even inate challenges? For example, sociopaths have a HUGE genetic procivility toward violence - should we lock them all up as a precaution? Or do they, as the church teaches, have agency? SHould be judged on their actions and not their genetic makeup?

It is that standard that the church applies to homosexuality. There is a huge difference between sexual attraction and 'love', and homosexual tendancies do not necessarily equate to 'marriage' anymore than do abherrent attraction to animals.

That is no way disparages the depth of feeling or commitment in a homosexual relationship, but it does bely the position that homosexuality is just 'born'. I have littel doubt that there are things beyond the immediate impact of agency that influence sexuality - yet it returns to that standard - do we control our sexuality? Or does it control us?

If we believe that we are, to borrow a phrase from Seinfeld, masters of our own domain, then e have to give serious consideration to the challenge of avoiding sexual temptation.

Put another way, we have to realize that the scriptural referrence crosses all volumes of scripture, from OT, NT, BoM, and beyond. If God is giving us this clear and clarion warning, there is probably a reason for it.

In the OT times, our society was governed by 'tribes'. Homosexuality was a dire threat to the very existence of the tribe in often hostile lands. If you doubt the veracity of this analysis, there are places on this earth that live much the same way, and by much the same laws, as the ancient Jews. Places like Afghanistan, Somolia, etc. In these places, if you were a son, you basically forsake your duty to your family as head of house hold, as the inheritor of property, title ... and the progression of such t following generations. To abandon that responsibility for 'love' was an immediate threat and, in many cases, ivites immediate attack from adversaries who, seeing the writing on the wall, will attempt to get their spoils through force rather than wait for the inevitable. Its a rough world.

Yet today, as we grapple with homosexuality, we would do well to realize that we are not the 'first' to struggle with this issue. Times in history, notably in China and Spain (which is surprising given its past with Inquisition) have been very open and tolerant of homosexuality. In each of those cases, that tolerance eventually evaporated. It doesnot get talked about as much but it goes back to the same basic point, the inability to subsume your sexuality for teh greater good. POlitical adversaries, sometimes correctly and sometimes opportunistically, seized power from 'boy lovers' more interested in filling their fetishes than in administering to their duties gave them an opportunity.

If you were God, and you duty to was to warn you flock of potential dangers involving sexuality, would leave homosexuality off the list ... and expose your flock to the dangers of exploitation though sexuality? Seems a tad obvious as a vulnerability does it not?

Additionally, there is, IMHO, an examination of the homosexual community that must take place. Once agin, bear in mind that this examination begins with the premise that we are masters of our sexuality. We then must grapple wit the highly sexualized atmosphere of the homosexual community. Levels of promiscuity are often orders of magnitude higher within the community than outside the community, as is indeed the incidence of high risk sexual behavior, as evidenced both by Senator Craig, and by the blight of AIDS and its particularly high damage among the homosexual community. There are undoubtedly individuals that fall on either side of teh generaic bell curve, but the fact remains that top of the curve indicates a strong problem of promiscuity with the homosexual community ... and all that details in terms of higher risks of infection and suicide.

There is one final bit of analysis here, if the church is wrong on this one ... it will change. It may not change as fast as we would like, but it will change. The ordination of black preists is a case of point, something the church prayed about long and hard before finally being given the go ahead to do just that.

In the meantime, perhaps your conflict is a conflict for a reason? A quick view of scripture indicates that Jesus spent a great deal of time with sinners of all strips. There is nothing stopping you from exploring the homosexual community to either validate or contradict your feeling with experience. So long as your exploration remains within the bounds of the church, i.e. you do not violate the law of chastity, there is no reason not to follow through and answer your own questions.

If you are right, perhaps you will be provided with a testimony thathelps the church change direction. If you are wrong, you will understand the value and depth of the church's wisdom on sexuality as I have come to.

But, it took courage to ask the question, and for that, you have my praise.

[IndigoAK]

It really does indeed sound like you're really quite set in that view based on the way you word the above.

I've found a very big difference between those things that I do not know but believe (still take on faith) and those things that I know for certain via a personal witness from God through the Holy Ghost.

What I want to know... is what do you know. You indicate you believe the things above but what have you gained a witness on via the power of the Holy Ghost?

There are some things I'd like to share with you and perhaps even some counsel that may be found applicable but I feel knowing the above first will allow me to hopefully be of more use to you.

The short version of the answer to whether or not I have a testimony of these things is yes.

...

You're right, there is no gay gene. I subscribe to the theory that human beings are born without a preference. That we are, by default, bisexual and that how we grow up does indeed have a huge influence on who we're attracted to. I'm personally bisexual. I was raised to believe that there is nothing wrong with being attracted to and falling in love whomever my heart leads me to. I've been with both men and women. This is actually something that the vast majority of the people I've known in the Church have no issue with. Their stance has always been, "There is nothing wrong with being bisexual, as long as you don't act on your feelings for men." Personally, that's something I can accept.

As for the last bit of your post, I find it interesting you brought that up. My closest friend is a die-hard athiest, she's known for being incredibly hostile to anybody who's religious. Except for me. In the early days of my time with the Church, she was actually the most helpful in acclimating. She spent a crazy amount of time reading about the Church so that she would be able to talk to me about all kinds of things. She said to me once that she firmly believed I was drawn to the Church because I destined to change it. I'll admit it sounds crazy when I actually type it out and maybe it is, but I just found it interesting that would say that and then you would bring up the same topic in your forum post. I personally don't think this is the case. Changing the Church would require speaking in public and I can barely handle being in a room with two other people, much less a hundred or a thousand.

[gree0232]

The short version of the answer to whether or not I have a testimony of these things is yes.

You're right, there is no gay gene. I subscribe to the theory that human beings are born without a preference. That we are, by default, bisexual and that how we grow up does indeed have a huge influence on who we're attracted to. I'm personally bisexual. I was raised to believe that there is nothing wrong with being attracted to and falling in love whomever my heart leads me to. I've been with both men and women. This is actually something that the vast majority of the people I've known in the Church have no issue with. Their stance has always been, "There is nothing wrong with being bisexual, as long as you don't act on your feelings for men." Personally, that's something I can accept.

As for the last bit of your post, I find it interesting you brought that up. My closest friend is a die-hard athiest, she's known for being incredibly hostile to anybody who's religious. Except for me. In the early days of my time with the Church, she was actually the most helpful in acclimating. She spent a crazy amount of time reading about the Church so that she would be able to talk to me about all kinds of things. She said to me once that she firmly believed I was drawn to the Church because I destined to change it. I'll admit it sounds crazy when I actually type it out and maybe it is, but I just found it interesting that would say that and then you would bring up the same topic in your forum post. I personally don't think this is the case. Changing the Church would require speaking in public and I can barely handle being in a room with two other people, much less a hundred or a thousand.

Well, there is a huge difference between 'love' and 'sex'. For instance, my best friend is as good a man as I know. I trust him implicitly, and we both know that in a crisis each of us would drop everything on a moment's notice to help one another should the time arrive. There is genuine warmth and affection between the two of us, and I can say with no small amount of guile, that he is a handsome man (a fact that his wife no doubt agrees with me on).

I 'love' my best friend. I also 'love' my dog. I intend to have sex with neither, and, in the off chance that something popped into my mind in which consideration of sexual intercourse with either one arose ... I would have a choice to make would I not? To act on that impulse, or bury it. That is the crux of sexual choice.

There are of course instances in which these impulses can be quite powerful, and for some of us, these temptations are powerful indeed. Yet the same challenge is faced by a married man who finds himself beset by an unnatural sexual attraction to woman not his wife, as a homosexual man faces in finding himself with sexual desire for another man.

To be very clear succumbing to that desire alone in either of the above cases has far less to do with 'love' than it does with 'lust'. And uncontrolled sexual desire is a matter for counseling - its as much as impulse control issue as it is anything else. It is the same category, at some level as compulsive shopping and hoarding when we find that we are UNABLE to control our sexual activities ... when they in fact get a hold of us to the point that they interfere with our agency? This is known as sexual addiction ... and again, a full examination of the homosexual community must include that knowledge compared to the comparatively higher incidence of promiscuity in the homosexual community.

I realize that there is a larger debate about the concept of 'praying away the gay', which is not one that I subscribe to ... but we owe the concept of sexual addiction in impulse control a mention ... particularly in light of such facts that the American Psychiatric Institute removed pedophilia from its list of deviant sexuality at the same time it de-listed homosexuality.

Now, if you find yourself struggling with unnatural impulses toward children ... our counselors are already being taught that this is not actually a problem. You would to have to be blind not to see, in a world that tolerates groups like NAMBLA under the guise of free speech, where that particular decision is headed.

That however, is another discussion entirely.

In terms of homosexuality, I think we as a church must bear in mind that God allows agency. We do not need to see the wayword wandering of the Jews or Nephites to realize that man is fickle. Our duty is less to 'force' others to accept God's will, it is to preach it and adhere to it as examples. As teh country slides toward homosexual marriage, we can point, as I did to history as a guide, we can point to scripture, and we can, as God in his patience has done many, many times, watch our contemporaries walk off in their own 'wisdom'. I realize it sounds a bit like, "I told you so," but gay marriage may be a trial for the church in the short term, we should be mindful that this is not the first time that this question has been put before God, and I doubt very seriously that it will be much of a trial for him. The consequences of those who choose homosexuality will arrive, as prophesized and indeed warned, and we will adjust with a great many more of our contemporaries understanding the importance of first acknowledging God's wisdom, and then the wisdom of following it.

We should be mindful that the church allows people all the choice they want, but what we do not tolerate is those who choose to openly reject the council of God ... who wish to remain bearers of his testimony on earth. Atonement applies to even the worse of us, and our duty is to remain firm in the council of God.

As for your last part there, you may indeed shape the church, though I doubt very much (and as my own testimony bears out) that how you effect the church in terms of change will be what you thought it would be when you joined ;-)

Edited March 26, 2013 by gree0232

[gree0232]

Oh, one last thing ... as for being shy, I would not worry about it too much ;-) Before I joined the military, I was one of the most painfully shy people you could ever have possibly met ... right up until the day a crusty old Sergeant Major thrust me in front of a platoon of young men, most of whom were older than I was, and told me, "OK Sir, you are in charge now." And then promptly walked away.

Years later, I have little difficulty getting in front of a group.

The point is not the join the military to overcome shyness - that seems, even in my esteemed position, to be a rather brutal methodology for overcoming shyness.

You will however be assigned priest hood duties that will require you to give direction and motivation (sometimes not well - which may be painful). As you grow into greater responsibilities, that shyness will naturally recede over time, and as that shyness recedes I daresay that, whatever your profession is, that confidence will lead you to positions that will further prod that shyness ... the one sharpening the other.

Again, part of the reason that I came to the church was exactly for seeing things like above in the systems the church has created. The benefits that many may not even realize they are getting until they are MUCH older and wiser, or, if they are fortunate and truly gifted, they will see it when they are young ;-)

I myself have the Irish curse of stubbornness, and it took a battlefield or two for me to understand the processes of developing people to accomplish very difficult tasks. Upon joining the church and seeing that methodology solidly embedded in the organization ... from missions to relief society to priesthood assignments ... well, I would strongly recommend in the aftermath of such needless stubbornness the church over a journey a battlefield ;-)

If you are concerned about overcoming shyness, you are in a very good place.

Edited March 26, 2013 by gree0232

[GrayMars]

The second thing I struggle with is pre-existing notions about the nature of the universe. I am a very scientific person and an avid supporter of the advancement of scientific technology, the point where I would consider myself a transhumanist. When presented with theories such as the Big Bang, I am inclined to agree with it because when I consider everything else I know about the universe, it makes sense to me. When I sit down and think about the possibility of the universe just blinking into existence, I simply can't accept it. I try to, but it's almost as if I am physically incapable of doing so. In this regard, I have spent a vast amount of time over the last two years trying to figure out where these beliefs fit in with the Gospel. At the current moment, I'm partially content with believing that the Gospel's teachings and scientific theory about the creation of the universe can more than coincide - at a very basic level, I think I believe that Heavenly Father instigated the Big Bang, to give an example of where I'm at.

Why try to reconcile your notions about the universe with your religious faith? Both explanations have a substantial amount of beauty in them. You could always say God kickstarted the Big Bang, that would be fine and good; however, be aware that this would neither be the natural explanation for the universe, nor the story of the creation narrative in the Bible. Also, remember that there are two creation narratives in the Book of Genesis? They contradict one another, yet they lay alongside one another. Both of them have survived until now, haven't they? So, you could say that Heavenly Father was the instigator (of the Big Bang), but be aware that by doing so you are in effect writing your own narrative. The same accusation has been made by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who said that those who accept everything in all the gospels (according to...) as if they are one story, that they are writing their own gospel. He said this merely as a warning.

Ehrman's warning is simply one reason I ask why you'd try to reconcile this.

Another reason is, I'm an advocate of being able to compartmentalize (where needed) religious belief and understanding of the natural world. It's clear to me that that, even though they may sometimes agree, they are very much separate enterprises of knowledge. I say separate enterprises not to mean they (science and religion) are incompatible. I very much believe that they are compatible, but I think they are quite unrelated.

Any questions, just ask.