Speculation about same sex attraction and addictions


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2019 at 11:55 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

I still am not sure how directly the Lord controls the day-to-day minutiae of our lives.  Does a father who sends his child to boarding school specifically arrange for his child to have an obnoxious roommate, or to be hazed, or to be confronted with an opportunity to cheat, or to find a lifelong friend, or to make a connection with a particular teacher that will open particular doors, or to be exposed to a particular life-changing class or book or idea?  Or does the father simply send the child to school, knowing that some of these things are likely to happen and that the overall effect of whatever happens will be positive because of—or in spite of—these events?

I’m not really committed to one paradigm over the other.

Yep. Some events he places in our way for growth and learning; others may be due to the actions of others, and some are just happenstance or coincidence. It's all a part of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2019 at 8:47 AM, scottyg said:

Yep. Some events he places in our way for growth and learning; others may be due to the actions of others, and some are just happenstance or coincidence. It's all a part of life.

I would say that I am not committed to a lot of theories though some appear to me to have more relevance than others.   Though we are somewhat blind in mortality - it does not make sense to me that we chose and came to this life's individual experiences and circumstances with complete ignorance.  No one has explained to me how we could exercise our agency to choose a path and later decide to repent of it.  Thus I have come to believe that in mortality we have limited agency - so we can repent through an exercise of greater agency as we come to have increased knowledge and understanding of our choices and the inevitable results of such choices. 

It seem to me that often we try to make doctronal conclusions on limited understanding and deliberate ignorance imposed on our mortal condition with what is call a veil of forgetfulness.  I am sure as I personally gain "Knowledge" of eternal nature that it will be necessary to adjust my personal theories and understanding - I look forward to such greater understanding and paradigm adjustments. 

There are many good individuals that disagree with my assessment that we play out a major role in determining our individual course from pre-existence choices that directly determine our mortality as well as the continuation of choices that determine and impact our eternal life and exaltation.  It does not make sense to me that G-d determines any of it without our input and concurrence.  So I believe that all things are for our eternal benefit.  That there is nothing in this life that can happen that cannot be for our benefit as long as we have faith and are willing to repent.

As to seemingly minor or insignificant things - I do not believe in circumstantial or chance.  I believe everything is prescripted to occur that can or will occur.  I do not believe in random occurrence.  Just as I do not believe in creation by randomness - I do not believe in any random event as possible.  I believe all things has a cause and without a cause there is nothing to occur.  But I would go even farther to say there is no event without an intelligent cause.  If this is not true - it would be impossible even for G-d to know what is to come or to be in the future.  Outside of speculative philosophy I see nothing to indicate randomness creation of any event is possible.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

There are many good individuals that disagree with my assessment that we play out a major role in determining our individual course from pre-existence choices that directly determine our mortality as well as the continuation of choices that determine and impact our eternal life and exaltation....

As to seemingly minor or insignificant things - I do not believe in circumstantial or chance.  I believe everything is prescripted to occur that can or will occur.  I do not believe in random occurrence.  Just as I do not believe in creation by randomness - I do not believe in any random event as possible.  I believe all things has a cause and without a cause there is nothing to occur.  But I would go even farther to say there is no event without an intelligent cause.  If this is not true - it would be impossible even for G-d to know what is to come or to be in the future.  Outside of speculative philosophy I see nothing to indicate randomness creation of any event is possible.

 

The Traveler

I can't speak for others, as I can only speak for myself. The reason for disagreement is that I do not believe in predestination which is what your statements/thoughts appear to describe, as in "I believe everything is prescripted to occur that can or will occur." (emphasis added). This is what is defined as predestination. We are predetermined/prescripted to experience specific things in our life, instead of being foreordained according to the foreknowledge of God.

Let me further clarify, as an example, of what I am hearing from you. I know of a father who backed over his teenage daughter. I am hearing you say that the father either chose or agreed to this experience, and thus the daughter would have had to agree to this unfortunate circumstance -- which was as you specified "prescripted" not a random event. (This means our lives, agency is an illusion, because no matter what they were going to experience that event).

If I am misunderstanding, please clarify.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I can't speak for others, as I can only speak for myself. The reason for disagreement is that I do not believe in predestination which is what your statements/thoughts appear to describe, as in "I believe everything is prescripted to occur that can or will occur." (emphasis added). This is what is defined as predestination. We are predetermined/prescripted to experience specific things in our life, instead of being foreordained according to the foreknowledge of God.

Let me further clarify, as an example, of what I am hearing from you. I know of a father who backed over his teenage daughter. I am hearing you say that the father either chose or agreed to this experience, and thus the daughter would have had to agree to this unfortunate circumstance -- which was as you specified "prescripted" not a random event. (This means our lives, agency is an illusion, because no matter what they were going to experience that event).

If I am misunderstanding, please clarify.

My view is similar. I don't believe in predestination, but I do believe in foreordination. Many are called, but few are chosen, and why are they not chosen...

In 1992, Elder Marvin J. Ashton said..."Generally our Heavenly Father will not interfere with the agency of another person unless He has a greater purpose for that individual. Two examples come to mind: Saul, who became the Apostle Paul, and Alma the Younger. Both these men were deterred from their unrighteous objective of persecuting and trying to destroy the church of God. Both became great missionaries for the Church. But even as the Lord intervened, they were given choices. Alma, for example, was told, “If thou wilt be destroyed of thyself, seek no more to destroy the church of God.”

Many things happen because God has willed it so, and many other things happen because of our actions alone. And sometimes, our actions coincide with the actions of another, creating a coincidence, for good or bad. Also, not everything that happens in life is related to the Gospel. A few weeks ago a co-worker and I got in the elevator at the same time and we were wearing the exact same shirt and tie combo to work. (we must have hit the same sale at JCPenney) :) It was a fun coincidence...God played no part in that, and that's okay.

Edited by scottyg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I can't speak for others, as I can only speak for myself. The reason for disagreement is that I do not believe in predestination which is what your statements/thoughts appear to describe, as in "I believe everything is prescripted to occur that can or will occur." (emphasis added). This is what is defined as predestination. We are predetermined/prescripted to experience specific things in our life, instead of being foreordained according to the foreknowledge of God.

Let me further clarify, as an example, of what I am hearing from you. I know of a father who backed over his teenage daughter. I am hearing you say that the father either chose or agreed to this experience, and thus the daughter would have had to agree to this unfortunate circumstance -- which was as you specified "prescripted" not a random event. (This means our lives, agency is an illusion, because no matter what they were going to experience that event).

If I am misunderstanding, please clarify.

I have tried to understand such things - not just as distant stories but as such apply to me personally.  The problem that I generally understand from predestination is that something outside ourselves determines things happening to us over which we have no input, choice, control or ability to change.  But if we do have input, choice, control and ability to change - how is that predestination?  

Obviously there exist a point of no return when something will happen that we can no longer change.  What differences is there if the point of no return is a nanosecond before the event or a billion years before?  Once the cause is set then the event must happen.  This idea of cause and effect is not something new.  As an intelligent species our intelligence is in part based on anticipation of a future.   The question is - when has a cause become set such that the outcome cannot be changed?  Let me use another comparison.  Let us emagine that we are beings over 13 billion years of intelligent existence of some sort.  That we are on an "eternal" journey that is as old as we can continue into eternity.  In essence we are what we have spent billions of years becoming.  But let's put time into perspective.   Let's let 1,000 years be set equal to a foot.  At 13 billion years we have been on our journey in time for about the distance between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.   Our life here on earth would be no more than an inch and a half.  

Now suppose that having traveled and arrived within an inch of our destination - something will happen that will change everything and prevent us from reaching our destination.  We may try to make things up - but what will interrupt the cause and effect cycle?  But let's take the example of the father backing over a teenage daughter.  With a mortal perspective this does indeed seem unreasonable to consider as a planned event.  Why should it be acceptable that they were forced into such an event by G-d and his plan without any input.  If G-d alone is responsible how can anyone but G-d be held responsible for whatever the outcome may be?  But if there is some good that can come through such an event that G-d could know - why and for what purpose should he withhold this information from us as we choose to come to earth and endure hardships.  Why would he not want us invested from the very start?  But to be effective, during our mortal experience we would face the events or mortality with some blindness and by faith.

The real question - in my mind is that some event would occur that would so turn us that we would fail to return to G-d and we had intended and resolved in our premortal existence.   That we would be forced into some kingdom of glory (or lessor glory) for which we are not actually suited by our core desires.  My answer to that is - Such is not possible.  If we do not repent during the prescribed time - it is because we determined not to repent.  Not because time ran out but we chose a path that would eventually bring us to a point where we become forever unrepentant.  Therefore nothing happens for which we did not determine with knowledge the outcome.  Just because we do not now know the outcome does not mean that we never were aware or considered the outcome.

I used to believe that agency ment we must determine our course and outcome in mortality - but the longer I have lived the more I realize that I really do not know what is before us in death - we may hope, believe and have faith but we do not know.  I am also aware that very little of what I have chosen during my mortal lifetime has made much difference and most likely will fade into obscurity in a few generations.  What is the point?  The only point is faith that there is meaning and that I will continue my agency that is what I started so long ago and that I will become what I have spent my agency forever becoming.  Not blindsided by something I never knew (from the pre-existence) was possible to happen to me or because of me.  Likewise, so will everybody else.  Otherwise how can I ever repent and think my sins forgiven and that my transgressions will not harm someone beyond their choice to return to G-d?  Did I not do anything of eternal importance in my pre-existence?  And if I did - where is that line that was crossed from which what I strived for through eternity when all became lost - and I knew it not?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/25/2019 at 6:07 PM, Traveler said:

My point is that all the scientific evidence points clearly to sexual attractions as an acquired or learned behavior - I am not aware of any evidence (NONE) that clearly point to sexual attractions and behaviors in intelligent humans as a species as purely genetic or nature.

These definitions are very vague.  What we learn is based in our genetic and natural make up and capacities.  We are obviously not born with our full capacities. They have to be developed. I think it is important to separate out the maturing process from "learned behavior".  I believe these are two separate things at least for this type of discussion. What a person "grows up" to be is, at least in part, due to their genetic propensities.  You are right, I can have a genetic propensity to be a great baseball player but if I never play baseball I won't become one.  But if I wasn't born with the genetic "natural" ability to become a professional baseball player, no matter how much I try to acquire that ability, it may not happen.  I have a hard time believing that a person who becomes attracted to the same sex is one who didn't have, at least in part, a genetic, "natural", design to go in that direction.

We learn in the scriptures that we can fight off natural man. And we also learn it is in the lack of fighting off natural man that we stray from the correct path.  It is in letting the natural man take over that we become the fallen state we find ourselves in when we are born into this world.  We can live in this world without being of the world.  To do that requires a lot of effort to not let natural tendencies win out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fifthziff said:

I have a hard time believing that a person who becomes attracted to the same sex is one who didn't have, at least in part, a genetic, "natural", design to go in that direction.

I can believe it easily. There is no genetic test that exists, or genetics study ever done that shows a person is born homosexual, or has developed true homosexual desires during their maturation process based off of genes. You cannot see or predict a person's sexual preferences based off of genetics...you only see male and female. Anyone who says otherwise is cherry picking data to fit their narrative. The "gay gene" has been debunked many times. What is "natural" is heterosexual relations period; homosexual desires are learned. People who say they were "born this way" have no foundation to stand on except their word only.

I agree that we must fight off the natural man, but the phrase natural man does not mean that every sin is a natural tendency. If that were the case then everyone would be fighting off homosexual desires. The natural man is one who remains in his fallen condition; one who has not yet experienced the spiritual rebirth Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus. The natural man is a person who chooses to be influenced by appetites, desires, and passions rather than the promptings of the Holy Ghost. As far as genetics go, (spiritually speaking) it could be argued that all of our natural tendencies are to do good, and that all evil is a learned behavior of the flesh...we are children of God after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I can believe it easily. There is no genetic test that exists, or genetics study ever done that shows a person is born homosexual, or has developed true homosexual desires during their maturation process based off of genes. You cannot see or predict a person's sexual preferences based off of genetics...you only see male and female. Anyone who says otherwise is cherry picking data to fit their narrative. The "gay gene" has been debunked many times. What is "natural" is heterosexual relations period; homosexual desires are learned. People who say they were "born this way" have no foundation to stand on except their word only.

I agree that we must fight off the natural man, but the phrase natural man does not mean that every sin is a natural tendency. If that were the case then everyone would be fighting off homosexual desires. The natural man is one who remains in his fallen condition; one who has not yet experienced the spiritual rebirth Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus. The natural man is a person who chooses to be influenced by appetites, desires, and passions rather than the promptings of the Holy Ghost. As far as genetics go, (spiritually speaking) it could be argued that all of our natural tendencies are to do good, and that all evil is a learned behavior of the flesh...we are children of God after all.

I guess I have to take a step back then. I guess I assumed most people would say that the way a person's brain is wired occurs via "genetics". Yes there are errors, mutations and other factors that occur that change the wiring of the brain but these are all "natural" processes. So, when I am saying "genetics" I am really referring to all the natural processes that relate to development of personality, thought process, attractions, likes, dislikes, that are not based in a random choice.   If attraction is based on a random choice then why isn't the number of same sex attraction closer to 50%? 

 

As far as your last statement goes, "As far as genetics go, (spiritually speaking) it could be argued that all of our natural tendencies are to do good, and that all evil is a learned behavior of the flesh...we are children of God after all."  I would not use the word "genetics" to suggest that has anything to do with our spiritual nature.  I am only using the word genetics to describe the process of being conceived in sin.  In other words, genetics is the process in which Adam and Eve were able to have mortal posterity and allow us to come into a fallen state. How you see it depends greatly on how far one thinks we have fallen from our previous existence.  Only a little bit fallen? then yes we would mostly have the propensity to do good.  Or are we greatly fallen beings right now.  I think the prophets would suggest that we have fallen a long way.  “I have learned in my travels,” the Prophet Joseph Smith observed, “that man is treacherous and selfish, but few excepted” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 30; hereafter TPJS). “Men have been ever prone to apostacy,” President John Taylor pointed out. “Our fallen nature is at enmity with a godly life” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

These definitions are very vague.  What we learn is based in our genetic and natural make up and capacities.  We are obviously not born with our full capacities. They have to be developed. I think it is important to separate out the maturing process from "learned behavior".  I believe these are two separate things at least for this type of discussion. What a person "grows up" to be is, at least in part, due to their genetic propensities.  You are right, I can have a genetic propensity to be a great baseball player but if I never play baseball I won't become one.  But if I wasn't born with the genetic "natural" ability to become a professional baseball player, no matter how much I try to acquire that ability, it may not happen.  I have a hard time believing that a person who becomes attracted to the same sex is one who didn't have, at least in part, a genetic, "natural", design to go in that direction.

We learn in the scriptures that we can fight off natural man. And we also learn it is in the lack of fighting off natural man that we stray from the correct path.  It is in letting the natural man take over that we become the fallen state we find ourselves in when we are born into this world.  We can live in this world without being of the world.  To do that requires a lot of effort to not let natural tendencies win out. 

Thank you for responding.  There may be more research than you think.  There has been a great deal of research done with reproduction of animals in captivity and other controlled environments - especially with endangered species.  In essence reproductive behavior, even in lower animals, can require various levels of "learning" or training in "natural" social structures that when disrupted can cause extinction of a species.  

May I be bold and make a suggestion based on my own unscientific observations.  I say unscientific because I realize that my observations are not entirely "controlled".   However, I have taken the opportunity to ask, whenever possible, those involved with same sex attractions if they were ever involved with masterbation.  I have also asked if they know of anyone with same sex attractions that did not masterbate.  I would suggest that there is a connection.  Not that all that masterbate have same sex attractions but it would appear that all that have same sex attractions, masterbate.  It is also interesting that a very high % of those that support same sex attractions but themselves are not homosexual have been involved in masterbation.  I apoligze if my blunt and bold remarks have offended anyone - especially someone innocent and uneducated in such things as many are in our religious culture. 

I thought to add another thought concerning the "Law of Chastity" and some recent changes to the wording concerning this law.  Some things are not explained in great detail because it is thought unnecessary but it is my personal opinion that our current society and religious climate is hampered somewhat by widely held beliefs that are not accurate - both in our mortal experience and especially concerning things eternal.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2019 at 12:06 PM, Traveler said:

Thank you for responding.  There may be more research than you think.  There has been a great deal of research done with reproduction of animals in captivity and other controlled environments - especially with endangered species.  In essence reproductive behavior, even in lower animals, can require various levels of "learning" or training in "natural" social structures that when disrupted can cause extinction of a species.  

May I be bold and make a suggestion based on my own unscientific observations.  I say unscientific because I realize that my observations are not entirely "controlled".   However, I have taken the opportunity to ask, whenever possible, those involved with same sex attractions if they were ever involved with masterbation.  I have also asked if they know of anyone with same sex attractions that did not masterbate.  I would suggest that there is a connection.  Not that all that masterbate have same sex attractions but it would appear that all that have same sex attractions, masterbate.  It is also interesting that a very high % of those that support same sex attractions but themselves are not homosexual have been involved in masterbation.  I apoligze if my blunt and bold remarks have offended anyone - especially someone innocent and uneducated in such things as many are in our religious culture. 

I thought to add another thought concerning the "Law of Chastity" and some recent changes to the wording concerning this law.  Some things are not explained in great detail because it is thought unnecessary but it is my personal opinion that our current society and religious climate is hampered somewhat by widely held beliefs that are not accurate - both in our mortal experience and especially concerning things eternal.

 

The Traveler

On the church website it says; "People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple."  and also "We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience. The Savior Jesus Christ has a perfect understanding of every challenge we experience here on earth, and we can turn to Him for comfort, joy, hope, and direction (see Alma 7:11–12)."

So, there is no sin that has to take place to have that challenge in life, it is a part of the HUMAN experience, as stated by the church. If there was some sin involved in creating same sex attraction then nobody with same sex attraction could attend the temple, one would have to have those sins resolved. Obviously, having same sex attraction is not as a result of what the person did any more than the blind man being born blind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

So, there is no sin that has to take place to have that challenge in life

Actually it didn't say that. Your conclusion isn't supported by your quote.

4 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

it is a part of the HUMAN experience

You mean the natural man experience?

4 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

If there was some sin involved in creating same sex attraction then nobody with same sex attraction could attend the temple

Well that's spurious. That's like saying if someone sinned in developing their addiction to porn then they could never attend the temple.

4 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

one would have to have those sins resolved

Which...once again...has nothing to do with the choices or actions or sinful thoughts one has had in the past that led one to think or feel certain ways.

4 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

Obviously, having same sex attraction is not as a result of what the person did any more than the blind man being born blind.

Because the things we take pleasure in is the same as vision? Obviously? And, of course, therefore likewise, acting on blindness will keep one from the temple?

How does this actually make sense to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2019 at 4:34 PM, Fifthziff said:

On the church website it says; "People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple."  and also "We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience. The Savior Jesus Christ has a perfect understanding of every challenge we experience here on earth, and we can turn to Him for comfort, joy, hope, and direction (see Alma 7:11–12)."

So, there is no sin that has to take place to have that challenge in life, it is a part of the HUMAN experience, as stated by the church. If there was some sin involved in creating same sex attraction then nobody with same sex attraction could attend the temple, one would have to have those sins resolved. Obviously, having same sex attraction is not as a result of what the person did any more than the blind man being born blind. 

First - it appears to me that you are changing the discussion.  I thought it was about intelligent cognitive behavior and if there is scientific (empirical) evidence if such "intelligent" behavior is acquired or pre-programed in humans.  I agree completely with the statement made by the Church.  I would broaden the statement to say that regardless of whatever a person has done in the past - they are not lost for eternity and that they can make and keep covenants with G-d.  I believe that in order to make and keep covenants with G-d that an individual must change.  I think this may in part be what @The Folk Prophetwas saying in his post.

Part of making and keeping covenants with G-d require faith in Jesus Christ and baptism for the remission of sins.  As a rule when we become accountable we must repent.  This is a bit of an oxymoron because prior to our accountability what we do to acquire behaviors are not considered sinful - but after we become accountable a great many acquired behaviors in our "innocence" are in deed sinful and must be repented of or we will suffer eternal consequences.  A couple of thoughts here.  Repentance is not a one and done thing or concept - at least in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Each week we partake of the sacrament we renew our covenants - even if we have broken the promises previously made - it is a covenant to initiate a "do over" process.  Repentance is a process of changing behavior (among other things).  If our acquired behaviors are not changing we are not repenting.  I would also point out that if a behavior is not acquired - the reality is that even in eternity it cannot be altered or changed and the thought or possibility of repentance would not be possible - even for G-d.  Obviously if someone has same sex attractions or any other acquired behavior that is not sinful to some degree - why think of ever changing it?  Why believe that through Jesus Christ that it can be overcome?  Thus the first step to a change is the discipline to overcome whatever propensity one has to do a thing - with not doing that thing.  We can talk about sexual behaviors but I hope we can agree that just because someone has a sexual attraction does not mean that it is without question good to act upon it.  In the Church we have the Law of Chastity that in essence defines the only circumstance under which any sexual behavior can take place without committing a sin of grievance before G-d. 

 

We are all fallen and the reality is that no one can justify all their acquired behaviors in and of themselves.  We all have acquired behaviors that are sinful because of the fall.  We do not need to point to others to make accusations of others.  We should encourage all to repent - but first and foremost that call to repent begins with us and then is extended to others as forgiveness.  But do not mistake forgiveness as encouragement to continue in any way behaviors that distance anyone from G-d and his righteousness.  He loves us but there is a caveat that if we love him we will keep his commandments and that includes disciplining our behavior.

 

The one single thing I disapprove of completely concerning same sex attractions is the notion that a person is a powerless blob of thought less proto organic matter in capable of intelligently determining their behavior - including their sexual behavior and attractions.  I believe humans have sufficient intelligence capable of thinking and determining what they are and will do - and that nothing is too difficult that with G-d's help cannot be accomplished.   Even same sex attractions - I have witnessed such controlled and overcome despite great difficulties.

 

The Traveler

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2019 at 8:52 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Actually it didn't say that. Your conclusion isn't supported by your quote.

You mean the natural man experience?

Well that's spurious. That's like saying if someone sinned in developing their addiction to porn then they could never attend the temple.

Which...once again...has nothing to do with the choices or actions or sinful thoughts one has had in the past that led one to think or feel certain ways.

Because the things we take pleasure in is the same as vision? Obviously? And, of course, therefore likewise, acting on blindness will keep one from the temple?

How does this actually make sense to you?

Yes it does say in the quote that same sex attraction is not a sin.  The quote also used the words Human experience, so that is why I used it as well but I dont think there is much of a difference.  What I am saying is that there is no sin in having same sex attraction. That is all I am saying. Again, the LDS quote said that just because a person has same sex attraction (not "had" or resolved, meaning ongoing same sex attraction) does not keep them from entering the temple. The reason I am saying this is because in previous posts there was a suggestion from others that the reason same sex attraction develops is as a result of poor choices or sins.  Blindness in the scriptures is used metaphorically many times to represent the passions of the body.  Yes, we are supposed to relate those two concepts together.  If one reads the scriptures as literal events there would be a lot missed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2019 at 2:35 PM, Traveler said:

First - it appears to me that you are changing the discussion.  I thought it was about intelligent cognitive behavior and if there is scientific (empirical) evidence if such "intelligent" behavior is acquired or pre-programed in humans.  I agree completely with the statement made by the Church.  I would broaden the statement to say that regardless of whatever a person has done in the past - they are not lost for eternity and that they can make and keep covenants with G-d.  I believe that in order to make and keep covenants with G-d that an individual must change.  I think this may in part be what @The Folk Prophetwas saying in his post.

Part of making and keeping covenants with G-d require faith in Jesus Christ and baptism for the remission of sins.  As a rule when we become accountable we must repent.  This is a bit of an oxymoron because prior to our accountability what we do to acquire behaviors are not considered sinful - but after we become accountable a great many acquired behaviors in our "innocence" are in deed sinful and must be repented of or we will suffer eternal consequences.  A couple of thoughts here.  Repentance is not a one and done thing or concept - at least in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Each week we partake of the sacrament we renew our covenants - even if we have broken the promises previously made - it is a covenant to initiate a "do over" process.  Repentance is a process of changing behavior (among other things).  If our acquired behaviors are not changing we are not repenting.  I would also point out that if a behavior is not acquired - the reality is that even in eternity it cannot be altered or changed and the thought or possibility of repentance would not be possible - even for G-d.  Obviously if someone has same sex attractions or any other acquired behavior that is not sinful to some degree - why think of ever changing it?  Why believe that through Jesus Christ that it can be overcome?  Thus the first step to a change is the discipline to overcome whatever propensity one has to do a thing - with not doing that thing.  We can talk about sexual behaviors but I hope we can agree that just because someone has a sexual attraction does not mean that it is without question good to act upon it.  In the Church we have the Law of Chastity that in essence defines the only circumstance under which any sexual behavior can take place without committing a sin of grievance before G-d. 

 

We are all fallen and the reality is that no one can justify all their acquired behaviors in and of themselves.  We all have acquired behaviors that are sinful because of the fall.  We do not need to point to others to make accusations of others.  We should encourage all to repent - but first and foremost that call to repent begins with us and then is extended to others as forgiveness.  But do not mistake forgiveness as encouragement to continue in any way behaviors that distance anyone from G-d and his righteousness.  He loves us but there is a caveat that if we love him we will keep his commandments and that includes disciplining our behavior.

 

The one single thing I disapprove of completely concerning same sex attractions is the notion that a person is a powerless blob of thought less proto organic matter in capable of intelligently determining their behavior - including their sexual behavior and attractions.  I believe humans have sufficient intelligence capable of thinking and determining what they are and will do - and that nothing is too difficult that with G-d's help cannot be accomplished.   Even same sex attractions - I have witnessed such controlled and overcome despite great difficulties.

 

The Traveler

  

It seems you want to discuss behavior related to this issue, where I am not discussing behavior.  I have no disagreement with all of your above discussion about behavior except the idea that the original tendency is somehow generated by a set of behaviors before it reveals itself. 

I agree with your discussion about behavior except the notion that the propensity towards same sex attraction is somehow related to what the person did, to initiate it (I am not talking about magnifying the propensity).  Yes it is altered and either magnified or suppressed by behavior but the thorn in the flesh, so to speak, is something a person is born with or not but will all have thorns, some are different than others. I may have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism that I will never know unless I foster it by starting to drink alcohol.  And even if I became an alcoholic with that propensity I can overcome the behavior but what I am trying to say is that the propensity for alcoholism would remain, even if I overcame being an alcoholic.  This is similar to same sex attraction.  A person is born with a certain hormonal, brain anatomy etc.  What one does with that is the behavior part that I am not talking about.  Just the fact that the anatomy remains until death just like the thorn in the flesh couldn't be removed unless a person be exalted above measure during this life.  The challenge is supposed to be there. 

Christ overcame all passions of the body.  He overcame very basic passions including hunger but that doesn't mean he didn't feel hunger from then on out. It was still there, I am sure, while in mortality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Fifthziff said:

It seems you want to discuss behavior related to this issue, where I am not discussing behavior.  I have no disagreement with all of your above discussion about behavior except the idea that the original tendency is somehow generated by a set of behaviors before it reveals itself. 

I agree with your discussion about behavior except the notion that the propensity towards same sex attraction is somehow related to what the person did, to initiate it (I am not talking about magnifying the propensity).  Yes it is altered and either magnified or suppressed by behavior but the thorn in the flesh, so to speak, is something a person is born with or not but will all have thorns, some are different than others. I may have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism that I will never know unless I foster it by starting to drink alcohol.  And even if I became an alcoholic with that propensity I can overcome the behavior but what I am trying to say is that the propensity for alcoholism would remain, even if I overcame being an alcoholic.  This is similar to same sex attraction.  A person is born with a certain hormonal, brain anatomy etc.  What one does with that is the behavior part that I am not talking about.  Just the fact that the anatomy remains until death just like the thorn in the flesh couldn't be removed unless a person be exalted above measure during this life.  The challenge is supposed to be there. 

Christ overcame all passions of the body.  He overcame very basic passions including hunger but that doesn't mean he didn't feel hunger from then on out. It was still there, I am sure, while in mortality. 

Perhaps I should be more clear and say cognitive responses.  Note that the term cognitive implies "Awareness".   The implications of any attraction implies a cognitive response.  I think we can agree that no one is attracted to something they are not aware of.  So I am saying that sexual attractions meet all the known scientific parameters of a cognitive response.   I have a great deal of difficulty when someone says that any cognitive response in an intelligent species is not or cannot be acquired without offering even a shred of evidence.  We do have a lot a scientific research into all kinds of cognitive responses.  Like fears.  Example fears such as  heights, deep water, snakes, spiders, the dark and a great many other things.  I used fears as an example because certain fears may not seem logical at all and the particular fear may not be an actual experience but association with other things (think Pavlov's dog).

We also know from research that cognitive responses are often created in very young infants.  The scientific term for such "learning" is called the lowest cognitive level of learning.  But there is another problem with "Sexual" experiences.  That is the release of powerful endorphins by the human brain.  The Darwin explanation of this is because of the powerful necessary of reproduction for the survival of a species.    Thus, sexual responses can create addictions and dependencies beyond just about every other human behavior.  Addictive and dependencies tightly coupled with cognitive responses is a very powerful determination of behaviors - including attractions.  However, I see no reason to deal with addiction or dependencies unless someone is willing or open to the preponderance of evidence that all cognitive responses in intelligence species are acquired.    Once this is understood and settled - or at least mitigated by some contrary empirical evidence - why believe, think or assume otherwise?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought to add a couple of things.  We are told in scripture that for the time of our ignorance G-d has "winked" at - but now commands everyone everywhere to repent.  I also believe we all need to get past the notion that some are broken and unfixable.  We are all sons and daughters of G-d capable of wonderful miracles of great possibilities.  I am convinced that intelligent humans acquire all attractions, cognitive responses and intelligent behaviors.  I am disappointed that some would define themselves with compartmentalized labels over which they believe they have no input or control.   The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and change behavior.  I believe it applies as well for religious beliefs.  If there is an exception - I would be most interested in the empirical proof of it.  Those that favor the idea because of the popularity of it - I believe display a propensity towards counter or opposite of intelligence.  I realize I am expressing an opinion - but I believe my opinion is based in a preponderance of empirical evidence and have yet to counter any evidence to indicate cognitive behaviors and responses in intelligent beings are not acquired.

I love a statement by Brigham Young  who said something along the lines - "When personal pleasure is involved reason is most often thrown out the window."

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2019 at 4:44 PM, Traveler said:

Perhaps I should be more clear and say cognitive responses.  Note that the term cognitive implies "Awareness".   The implications of any attraction implies a cognitive response.  I think we can agree that no one is attracted to something they are not aware of. 

The Traveler

I think Christ would disagree with that statement as He did say, "Forgive them for they know not what they do".   

Also, think about what sleep walking or sleep eating is. A person is not aware of what they are doing but they are attracted to food and eat food.  There is no awareness of this until after the fact. There are many examples of people doing things they are not aware of. Think about what happens when a person is severely intoxicated, kills someone while driving under the influence of alcohol or something else. 

Again, I was not talking about the response to the thought, that is simply called behavior. I am just talking about the original thought. When Eve took of the fruit she first thought about it and then she acted.  If all she did was think about it, there would have been no transgression. As Elder Bednar and others have said, Satan tempts us through the passions of our mind and body, whether we follow the inclinations of the body or the spirit is the test we face.  That being the test, we all face carnal thoughts.  The carnal thought alone is not a sin but if a person becomes carnally minded, that becomes a sin.  I think that is what you are talking about, the process of being born with carnality, in the flesh and then becoming carnally minded.  The process of becoming carnally minded though starts with having agency between our own original carnal thoughts (from the body - i.e genetics) vs spiritual drives (i.e - light of Christ and later Gift of the Holy Ghost etc.) If one chooses the carnally driven passions originating with our human genetic drives over the spiritual ones then we become carnally minded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fifthziff said:

I think Christ would disagree with that statement as He did say, "Forgive them for they know not what they do".   

Also, think about what sleep walking or sleep eating is. A person is not aware of what they are doing but they are attracted to food and eat food.  There is no awareness of this until after the fact. There are many examples of people doing things they are not aware of. Think about what happens when a person is severely intoxicated, kills someone while driving under the influence of alcohol or something else. 

I am trying to understand what in "The Wild World of Sports" you are talking about (quote from a movie).  How does anything you are referencing have to do with someone being attracted to anything.  If you are freezing to death and are not aware of a warm cozy fire - how can you experience any attraction to the warmth of a fire you do not know exist?  You may think about a warm cozy fire, you may dream of one and you can even wish for one but if you do not know there is a warm cozy fire in a certain place - you will have no attraction to that place.  If a guy is attracted to beautiful girls with long blond hair there could be one standing behind him within inches but there would be no attraction to the lovely girl until he was aware of her.

Now, if you can imagine the experiment of Pavlov's dog you might begin to understand how we acquire attractions.  Since the dog is given food every time a light is turned on - they will attach attraction of eating to the light.  Sometimes little children are mistake mud for chocolate and because they once tasted chocolate they are attracted to mud.  But I know people that have bad experience with peanuts and they associate peanuts with chocolate and so will not touch chocolate - they have acquired a anti attraction.  It should not be that hard to realize we learn attraction.  As a parent I learned that little children have to learn not to be attracted to poop (among other things).

Quote

Again, I was not talking about the response to the thought, that is simply called behavior. I am just talking about the original thought. When Eve took of the fruit she first thought about it and then she acted.  If all she did was think about it, there would have been no transgression. As Elder Bednar and others have said, Satan tempts us through the passions of our mind and body, whether we follow the inclinations of the body or the spirit is the test we face.  That being the test, we all face carnal thoughts.  The carnal thought alone is not a sin but if a person becomes carnally minded, that becomes a sin.  I think that is what you are talking about, the process of being born with carnality, in the flesh and then becoming carnally minded.  The process of becoming carnally minded though starts with having agency between our own original carnal thoughts (from the body - i.e genetics) vs spiritual drives (i.e - light of Christ and later Gift of the Holy Ghost etc.) If one chooses the carnally driven passions originating with our human genetic drives over the spiritual ones then we become carnally minded. 

Again I do not know what you are talking about.  I thought we were talking about responses.  If there is a butterfly in China - I do not think anyone in the USA would care.  Perhaps we may pretend there are dragons in China but again that does not matter - unless you are in China.   If you never go to China it does not matter what you believe about China.  All that I have talked about so far is how we acquire responses to things for which we are aware.  I am not talking about what is a sin or good or bad or smart or stupid.  What I am saying is that intelligent creatures learn cognitive behaviors and responses.   If someone encounters something to which they have nothing to relate to it - they may try any number of things.  And if they are intelligent they will learn how to behave when they encounter that again.  

I keep saying or asking for a counter example.  I do not believe you have provided anything close.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2019 at 11:23 AM, Fifthziff said:

I guess I have to take a step back then. I guess I assumed most people would say that the way a person's brain is wired occurs via "genetics". Yes there are errors, mutations and other factors that occur that change the wiring of the brain but these are all "natural" processes. So, when I am saying "genetics" I am really referring to all the natural processes that relate to development of personality, thought process, attractions, likes, dislikes, that are not based in a random choice.   If attraction is based on a random choice then why isn't the number of same sex attraction closer to 50%? 

 

As far as your last statement goes, "As far as genetics go, (spiritually speaking) it could be argued that all of our natural tendencies are to do good, and that all evil is a learned behavior of the flesh...we are children of God after all."  I would not use the word "genetics" to suggest that has anything to do with our spiritual nature.  I am only using the word genetics to describe the process of being conceived in sin.  In other words, genetics is the process in which Adam and Eve were able to have mortal posterity and allow us to come into a fallen state. How you see it depends greatly on how far one thinks we have fallen from our previous existence.  Only a little bit fallen? then yes we would mostly have the propensity to do good.  Or are we greatly fallen beings right now.  I think the prophets would suggest that we have fallen a long way.  “I have learned in my travels,” the Prophet Joseph Smith observed, “that man is treacherous and selfish, but few excepted” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 30; hereafter TPJS). “Men have been ever prone to apostacy,” President John Taylor pointed out. “Our fallen nature is at enmity with a godly life” 

With regards to "spiritual genetics", I think this month's New Era magazine explains what I was trying to get across very well. The link is below.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/your-physical-and-spiritual-dna?lang=eng

The entire magazine is a very good read...probably one of the best New Era's I have ever read actually; full of plain and simple truths. It is clear and concise, and kids like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2019 at 5:03 PM, Traveler said:

 

The human brain formulates attractions and repulsions based in cognitive experiences. 

 

The Traveler

The discussion stems from this statement. 

Even our prophet states in a recent article "Your body; A magnificent Gift to Cherish" on lds.org " Our Creator put appetites in our bodies to perpetuate the human race and fulfill His great plan of happiness. Thus, we have appetites for food, for water, and for love."  

I suppose I am using the word "appetite" as synonymous to "attraction" for the purpose of this discussion.  Maybe that is where we are not connecting in this discussion.  

The prophet also stated in that article; "Part of that testing is to determine if the appetites of your body can become mastered by the spirit that dwells within it."  

So, if we relate appetites to attractions, we can say that God put attractions in the body and part of the test we face is to see if the spirit can master the attractions the body generates. 

 

I also like what he says here "Please note: A perfect body is not required to achieve a divine destiny. In fact, some of the sweetest spirits are housed in frail frames. Great spiritual strength is often developed by those with physical challenges—precisely because they are challenged. Such individuals are entitled to all the blessings that God has in store for His faithful and obedient children." 

So, if the challenge from the body is a certain appetite (attraction), that, in and of itself, is not a sin, it is just a challenge. 

Maybe that helps? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scottyg said:

With regards to "spiritual genetics", I think this month's New Era magazine explains what I was trying to get across very well. The link is below.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2019/08/your-physical-and-spiritual-dna?lang=eng

The entire magazine is a very good read...probably one of the best New Era's I have ever read actually; full of plain and simple truths. It is clear and concise, and kids like that.

Thank you.  Yes that is great.  In discussing the Physical DNA, that article says "It also has some influence on your personality and your emotional and psychological makeup." 

I think that is the issue some people don't grasp, is that even personality (which includes attractions) is made up of our physical DNA, not just our spirit self. 

And it goes on to say that the reason God made our bodies and our Physical DNA different (as opposed to "spiritual DNA") is; "Yet our different talents—physical, intellectual, and otherwise—allow us to benefit one another and appreciate one another in different ways. Most importantly, our differences can help us learn divine qualities of patience, compassion, and love."

We all know the discussion of why there needs to be opposition in all things while in this life.  It is interesting to read that some of that opposition is created by the difference between physical DNA and spiritual DNA. 

 

It also states in that article that God is who created the differences, the differences were not developed by choice, He gave us those differences; "God makes people genetically diverse for His purposes. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, then of the First Presidency, taught that it belongs to “the genius of God” that He created “every man different from his brother, every son different from his father” (“Four Titles,” Apr. 2013 general conference [Ensign or Liahona, May 2013, 59])."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share