Struggling with LGBT

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The inclination of homosexuals or heterosexuals to prioritize sex isn't really the core point I'm getting at. It's the response by others to that prioritization that I'm really commenting on. It's the "heroically deciding to be their authentic selves" narrative that differs now-a-days.

 

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?  I keep hearing from folks who get ticked off whenever someone is talking about being gay, in the context of trying to live life as a disciple of Christ.  People taking issue with statements like "I'm a gay saint"?

I see a massive difference in someone admitting (sometimes publicly) to having an aspect of their existence out of sync with the plan of happiness, and someone willingly embracing such an aspect and feeding it.   I'm wondering if folks see a difference between the two as well. 

I mean, our story is that we're all sinful fallen humans, in need of weekly opportunities to review our failings, renew our baptismal covenants, and become clean of our sins.  What's the difference between someone trying to master their temper, someone trying to master their straight adulterous inclinations, and someone trying to master their same-sex inclinations?  

I think about the alcoholism/addiction/pr0n recovery programs that use a 12 step format.  There's quite a lot of "my name's X, and I'm an [alcoholic/drug addict/pr0n addict/etc]".  Before folks work on mastering and winning over their addictions, there's a massive effort to get folks to understand, internalize, and admit that their addictions are out of control.  Once some mastery is gained and some time has passed, later steps are big on daily accountability and self-scrutiny for slip-ups. Folks don't 'graduate' from such a program, folks just move through the steps over and over, throughout life, in order to combat something that'll probably be a core weakness for their whole life.  

Maybe another way to ask the question: What percentage of LDS folks suffering from same-sex attraction out there, do you believe buy and push the "heroic deciding to act like my authentic self" narrative?

Perhaps a third way to ask the question: Do you believe it's possible for someone to say to themselves "I'm gay", without following that narrative?  In your eyes, is there such a thing as a "gay saint" who is being a good disciple of Christ, or is the person believing that about themselves somehow sinning?

 

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

What's the difference between someone trying to master their temper, someone trying to master their straight adulterous inclinations, and someone trying to master their same-sex inclinations?  

 

Part of it is because we’re good prosecutors for other people sins and we’re good defense attorneys for our own and those people we admire. I’ll lecture you about your porn addiction but ignore my own foul temper and unforgiving nature. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by LDSGator

[Backroads]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:39 PM, LDSGator said:

Maybe, but I’m old school. It’s just more sad than anything else to see that family estrangement. I don’t care who began it. Really, really sad. 

Oh, family estrangement is always very sad.

I think about that old quote about how pretty much any two good followers of the gospel could make a marriage work... and I agree with that and would daresay that can be extended to any sort of relationship.

The trick here is that we're talking about good followers of the gospel and I don't know how many of us are there yet. Even the best of us can be prone to some form of pettiness, pride, judgment, and that ever-so-frustrating tendency to feel pain and hurt.

I think, until we have a lot more truly good followers of the gospel, it's going to be a necessary evil to distance from certain others. 

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Even the best of us can be prone to some form of pettiness, pride, judgment, and that ever-so-frustrating tendency to feel pain and hurt.

All true, and remember that no one is perfect. Even apostles struggle with what you described, and they'd be the first to admit it. 

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?

Absolutely.  BTW, I'm not necessarily speaking for anyone else, but that distinction is never the problem.

The problem with today's society is that there is this implication "not that there's anything wrong with that."  Oh, yes, there is.  There is just as much wrong with that as there is with any sin or "sinful tendency."  Obviously the act is worse than simply feeling a temptation.  But there is definitely something wrong with "having that weakness."

The message of the gospel has always been to love the sinner and hate the sin.  How do we do that if people "identify" with the sin?  If we are asked to separate the sin from the sinner, we can't very well do that when the sinner in question expresses that their sin is part of their identity.

There's a big difference between someone "struggling with same sex-attraction" vs "a homosexual."  Yes, that means we're getting into the speech police arena.  And there is definitely that danger.

The point I make is that (terminology or phraseology aside) there is a difference between someone who identifies as something (which is considered permanent) vs something that is just a personality or choice thing that can be changed.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Carborendum

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Absolutely.  BTW, I'm not necessarily speaking for anyone else, but that distinction is never the problem.

The problem with today's society is that there is this implication "not that there's anything wrong with that."  Oh, yes, there is.  There is just as much wrong with that as there is with any sin or "sinful tendency."  Obviously the act is worse than simply feeling a temptation.  But there is definitely something wrong with "having that weakness."

The message of the gospel has always been to love the sinner and hate the sin.  How do we do that if people "identify" with the sin?  If we are asked to separate the sin from the sinner, we can't very well do that when the sinner in question expresses that their sin is part of their identity.

There's a big difference between someone "struggling with same sex-attraction" vs "a homosexual."  Yes, that means we're getting into the speech police arena.  And there is definitely that danger.

The point I make is that (terminology or phraseology aside) there is a difference between someone who identifies as something (which is considered permanent) vs something that is just a personality or choice thing that can be changed.

A great talk I remembered that addresses "identifying" with something is "What Manner of Men" by Elder Donald L. Hallstrom from the Apr 2014 conference. Specifically paragraphs 4-7, but the whole thing is good and applicable.

https://basic.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/what-manner-of-men?lang=eng

Edited December 27, 2022 by scottyg
Added link

[Vort]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?

I see a difference, and at the risk of getting overly meta, I see a difference between the differences.

I have never heard anyone proclaim themselves a pedophile Latter-day Saint. I have never heard anyone proclaim themselves a hateful Latter-day Saint. I have never heard anyone proclaim themselves a lustful Latter-day Saint, or a racist Latter-day Saint, or a selfish Latter-day Saint, or a spiteful Latter-day Saint, or a miserly Latter-day Saint, or a bullying Latter-day Saint.

Yet I have read and heard numerous people proclaim themselves homosexual Latter-day Saints.

See the difference?

Edited December 27, 2022 by Vort

[Anddenex]

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?  I keep hearing from folks who get ticked off whenever someone is talking about being gay, in the context of trying to live life as a disciple of Christ.  People taking issue with statements like "I'm a gay saint"?

Elder Bendar answers this question wonderfully here:

We don't identify ourselves by our proclivities, whether right or wrong. Vort already, pretty much, said what I was thinking. In the church we don't hear people say:

"Hi, I'm a straight saint."

"Hi, I'm an adulterer at heart saint."

"Hi, I'm a dishonest saint."

"Hi, I'm an alcoholic saint."

"Hi, I'm a chain smoker saint."

"Hi, I'm a recovering watcher of porn saint." (caveat: doesn't watch anymore or act on this proclivity)

"Hi, I'm a recovering prostitute saint."

We don't identify ourselves in the Church by our proclivities. We identify as for who we are -- sons and daughters of God, which merely "saint" is sufficient. "I'm a Latter-day Saint." That is all that is needed.

To be clear. There might be a time where saying, "Hi, I'm a Latter-day Saint. And I have struggled with same-sex attraction, being gay...." And then a lesson is provided or some doctrinal truth.

But for some reason, one proclivity seems to be justified for some justified reason.

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?  I keep hearing from folks who get ticked off whenever someone is talking about being gay, in the context of trying to live life as a disciple of Christ.  People taking issue with statements like "I'm a gay saint"?

I see a massive difference in someone admitting (sometimes publicly) to having an aspect of their existence out of sync with the plan of happiness, and someone willingly embracing such an aspect and feeding it.   I'm wondering if folks see a difference between the two as well. 

I mean, our story is that we're all sinful fallen humans, in need of weekly opportunities to review our failings, renew our baptismal covenants, and become clean of our sins.  What's the difference between someone trying to master their temper, someone trying to master their straight adulterous inclinations, and someone trying to master their same-sex inclinations?  

I think about the alcoholism/addiction/pr0n recovery programs that use a 12 step format.  There's quite a lot of "my name's X, and I'm an [alcoholic/drug addict/pr0n addict/etc]".  Before folks work on mastering and winning over their addictions, there's a massive effort to get folks to understand, internalize, and admit that their addictions are out of control.  Once some mastery is gained and some time has passed, later steps are big on daily accountability and self-scrutiny for slip-ups. Folks don't 'graduate' from such a program, folks just move through the steps over and over, throughout life, in order to combat something that'll probably be a core weakness for their whole life.  

Maybe another way to ask the question: What percentage of LDS folks suffering from same-sex attraction out there, do you believe buy and push the "heroic deciding to act like my authentic self" narrative?

Perhaps a third way to ask the question: Do you believe it's possible for someone to say to themselves "I'm gay", without following that narrative?  In your eyes, is there such a thing as a "gay saint" who is being a good disciple of Christ, or is the person believing that about themselves somehow sinning?

 

You bring up some interesting thoughts. I'll try and reply in detail tomorrow. Hopefully my response will be interesting as well. 

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?  I keep hearing from folks who get ticked off whenever someone is talking about being gay, in the context of trying to live life as a disciple of Christ.  People taking issue with statements like "I'm a gay saint"?

I see a massive difference in someone admitting (sometimes publicly) to having an aspect of their existence out of sync with the plan of happiness, and someone willingly embracing such an aspect and feeding it.   I'm wondering if folks see a difference between the two as well. 

I mean, our story is that we're all sinful fallen humans, in need of weekly opportunities to review our failings, renew our baptismal covenants, and become clean of our sins.  What's the difference between someone trying to master their temper, someone trying to master their straight adulterous inclinations, and someone trying to master their same-sex inclinations?  

I think about the alcoholism/addiction/pr0n recovery programs that use a 12 step format.  There's quite a lot of "my name's X, and I'm an [alcoholic/drug addict/pr0n addict/etc]".  Before folks work on mastering and winning over their addictions, there's a massive effort to get folks to understand, internalize, and admit that their addictions are out of control.  Once some mastery is gained and some time has passed, later steps are big on daily accountability and self-scrutiny for slip-ups. Folks don't 'graduate' from such a program, folks just move through the steps over and over, throughout life, in order to combat something that'll probably be a core weakness for their whole life.  

Maybe another way to ask the question: What percentage of LDS folks suffering from same-sex attraction out there, do you believe buy and push the "heroic deciding to act like my authentic self" narrative?

Perhaps a third way to ask the question: Do you believe it's possible for someone to say to themselves "I'm gay", without following that narrative?  In your eyes, is there such a thing as a "gay saint" who is being a good disciple of Christ, or is the person believing that about themselves somehow sinning?

 

So I get what you're saying and somewhat agree in theory. In practice, however, my cynicism is strong. And I believe justifiably so.

There are just certain things that scream "red flag"!

For example, my wife's cousin's wife (I'll just call her a cousin moving forward for ease's sake)... I heard from my wife's aunt that this cousin was reading a certain book. I can't recall what the book was, but I was familiar with it and just the fact that she was reading it was immediately a big ol' red flag. My gut sense was "Whoa...that's not good." I think I even expressed some concern to my wife's aunt. Anyhow, a year down the road and, surprise, surprise, this cousin and her husband announced they were leaving the church.

Do I take any pleasure that my gut feeling was right? No. It is heartbreaking.

Am I under the logical delusion that my gut feelings are always right? No. Do I believe that everyone who's ever read a "Ol' Jo was a con-man and a lecher" type book lost their testimony and left the church? No, I don't. But I do have gut feelings about certain things that seem to turn out to be correct an awful lot. And, frankly, I think most people, if honest with themselves, would have the same gut feelings. I think there's this general view that we're somehow meant to suppress all such feelings and stare blankly and daftly at such issues as if we don't have any discernment abilities at all. How dare we judge, after-all, right? But here's the thing: when I heard about my cousin reading said book, I maintained a firm hope. I did suppress the gut feeling to an extent in favor of that hope. I understand the desire to not pre-judge or assume the worst when you hear certain things. I could have been wrong, after all. Maybe the cousin could have been reading the book for academic purposes and had no testimony struggles behind the event whatsoever. I have enough discernment and intelligence to pretty well know that wasn't the case, however. But I still maintained hope I was wrong. But I wasn't.

People declaring themselves gay in a "coming out" type public move is a huge red flag. All the arguments about how it's "the same" as other struggles people are struggling against might have logical validity, but the gut feeling remains. Part of that is experience. How often do we see said people remain faithful after coming out? Sure...it happens. But more often then not, it seems, the writing's on the wall. But the other part is just my sense of logic. I don't buy the reasons people give for coming out. Helping others. Showing humility. All those ideas...it doesn't feel right. My gut tells me it's pride, not humility, that generally seems to drive coming out.

It's my sense that the individuals who keeps said issues largely to themselves are significantly more likely to be the faithful who struggle to overcome in likewise manner to other struggles. But I also understand that isn't going to be an absolute truth.

You may gather, from my comments, that my larger issue is the public coming out, rather than the struggle itself. I think that is probably accurate.

Another, related issue, is that I believe certain sins just ought to be kept to oneself. I don't believe the "confess them" part of the equation means publicly. And this is particularly true when it comes to sexually related issues. I don't want people standing up in sacrament meeting and telling my 5-year-old how they prefer their sex. I don't want the "Daddy, what's pornography?", "Daddy, what's a lesbian?",  "Daddy, what's adultery?", "Daddy, what's sodomy?", or the like type question because of church. I don't need to know the detail that Billy-bob likes boys, and I definitely  don't want to have to explain that to my young children. And I highly question the motives of those who want to get up in front of children and "confess" their sexual proclivities. I understand kids are going to come across stuff like that and it has to be dealt with. That doesn't, however, mean people shouldn't worry about keeping such matters private, as they ought to be.

That's not to say I think those who come out publicly in forums where children won't know of it means there are no red flags jumping. It's just a side-note.

Here are some detailed replies to your questions:

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it?

Yes.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I keep hearing from folks who get ticked off whenever someone is talking about being gay, in the context of trying to live life as a disciple of Christ. 

I'd say "worried" is a better description than "ticked off".

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

People taking issue with statements like "I'm a gay saint"?

Yes. I think "taking issue" is accurate. I do take issue with it. @Vort and @Anddenex addressed this in part. My red flag commentary above addresses other parts of it. There's probably more to my taking issue with it too that I haven't been able to articulate yet. But this is correct. I do take issue with it.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I see a massive difference in someone admitting (sometimes publicly) to having an aspect of their existence out of sync with the plan of happiness, and someone willingly embracing such an aspect and feeding it.   I'm wondering if folks see a difference between the two as well.

Yes. I do see a difference. And it is a massive difference. And if, in those cases where my red flag feelings are wrong, one remains committed because their admission isn't based in some level of embracing and feeding then hooray. But part of my concern is that the public admission feels an awful lot like a form of embracing and feeding. It may not be feeding it a full-on main course. But it sure feels like a little snack, if nothing else. But in the cases where it isn't, I think we agree.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

What's the difference between someone trying to master their temper, someone trying to master their straight adulterous inclinations, and someone trying to master their same-sex inclinations?

Identity politics, for one.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think about the alcoholism/addiction/pr0n recovery programs that use a 12 step format.  There's quite a lot of "my name's X, and I'm an [alcoholic/drug addict/pr0n addict/etc]".  Before folks work on mastering and winning over their addictions, there's a massive effort to get folks to understand, internalize, and admit that their addictions are out of control.  Once some mastery is gained and some time has passed, later steps are big on daily accountability and self-scrutiny for slip-ups. Folks don't 'graduate' from such a program, folks just move through the steps over and over, throughout life, in order to combat something that'll probably be a core weakness for their whole life.  

FWIW, AA and similar programs that teach "I'm a [whatever]" have never fully set well (sat well??) with me. I've never much cared for the idea of "once you're this, you're always this" type ideas. I dislike the concept. I understand the admission of the problem idea. But beyond that, declaring oneself as such a thing seems kind of problematic to me. I mean I get why. It kind of makes sense. Sort of. It just seems like at a certain point one ought to be able to say they aren't what they were. Isn't that what repentance is all about? Anyhow...just a side thought. I'm not sure I've given it enough thought to really discuss.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

What percentage of LDS folks suffering from same-sex attraction out there, do you believe buy and push the "heroic deciding to act like my authentic self" narrative?

I have no idea. How many LDS folk suffer in silence? Do those who suffer in silence do so because they haven't bought the push? Have all those who come out done so because of that push? Who knows. I'd guess those who publicly come out generally have bought into it. In fact that seems (from my perception and experience) to be the common narrative they give behind their decision to come out.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you believe it's possible for someone to say to themselves "I'm gay", without following that narrative? 

Yes. Though I still think declaring oneself "gay" is problematic from the get go. But, yes, I believe that.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In your eyes, is there such a thing as a "gay saint" who is being a good disciple of Christ

Yes.

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

or is the person believing that about themselves somehow sinning?

It's a tricky question due to the somewhat broad semantic understanding people have of "sinning".

I think a better way to ask it would be to ask if a person who believes that about themselves can be worthy. The answer to that is clearly a yes.

But if anything that isn't perfection is sin then anything that isn't perfect is something to strive to overcome and not be. And accepting that one just "is" imperfect and it cannot be overcome is not a perfect way to think, and is therefore, semantically speaking, sinful. But does everyone who thinks of themselves as "gay" think they cannot overcome it? Probably not. And an even more complicated question: does one engaging in certain activities that are less than ideal at one level or another, but doing so innocently, qualify those activities as sinful? I think that has to be accounted for. I believe it is wrong to declare oneself "gay" as an identity. But if someone else doesn't believe it's wrong, and does so in good faith, committed to doing right, but in the end I'm correct and they're mistaken, did they really sin? I mean if you flip that around and say in the end that they were right and I was mistaken does it mean I could be currently engaged in sin with my views? I'd like to think not? And so I have to understand that their actions, although I consider them wrong, perhaps ought not be labelled "sin", in that sin requires knowledge and understanding.

Edited December 27, 2022 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

20 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It is interesting, isn't it. I don't know if I have any meaningful insights.

Maybe it has something to do with the different ways the people I grew up with valued conformity to group standards? "Boys do ____" vs. "Girls do ____" and we don't want to confuse the two? Of course, some of the new narratives are just conforming to different standards and not really about non-comformity.

Maybe it has to do with what is considered pathological? When I was young, homosexuality and trans-gender were solidly considered "illnesses" (technically, it was about a decade after the APA had de-pathologized homosexuality in the DSM, but that sort of change doesn't trickle out to the laity immediately). I don't know if this adds to the conversation, but I have a child who seems determined to get themselves classified as some kind of neurodivergent. They frequently bring up essays and articles about "unexpected signs someone is on the autism spectrum" as if to say, "see, Dad, how I'm really neurodivergent on some level." When I was younger, people didn't want to carry the stigma that comes with labels of mental or neurological illness, where today those same diagnoses do not carry the same stigma. Is it good to be more accepting of people's mental/neural diversity? On some level, yes, it seems good to be more accepting of people as they are rather than stigmatizing or pathologizing significant characteristics about a person. However, as those characteristics become less stigmatized or pathologized, it becomes more accepted (maybe even more desirable??) to be found with those characteristics.

I really don't know what we do about some of this. Part of me wants to say that maybe we ought to not make a big deal out of any of it. "You have diabetes? That's fine, no big deal, keep in touch with your doctor for treatment, but otherwise, it's no big deal." "You have depression? That's fine, no big deal, keep in touch with your doctor for treatment, but otherwise, it's no big deal." You're LGBTQ+? That's fine, no big deal, in this case, there is no pathology to deal with, but keep in touch with your doctor for any pathologies that arise, but otherwise it's no big deal." Maybe none of it really matters, and we ought to just accept whatever people are or have as no big deal and live and let live? But I don't know if the whole experience of life is intended to be that stoic.

I was thinking about stigmatization the other day and had the thought that in some ways it was/is healthier for a society to stigmatize certain things. Of course the current narrative is that doing so leads to suicide. I think that's clearly nonsense and can easily be seen by the numbers. It strikes me that having something societally disapproved of actually suppresses it. And I don't mean it just keeps everyone "in the closet" about any given matter. It does that too...and I'm not entirely sure that's so bad either...but not what I mean. I think it actually suppresses the existence of certain things in certain people.

I'm not sure on my thinking though. Despite the fact that I had this thought, it's hard for me to buy into a narrative that we should mistreat people. That doesn't seem right. And I can't reconcile the idea that society should stigmatize certain people but we as individuals should not. Maybe at some point in the future I'll unify those ideas somehow and come back and share my brilliant idea with you all. 😋

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 12/24/2022 at 1:39 PM, MrShorty said:

More mainstream, I see many heterosexuals who think sexual fulfillment does matter. I also think many of them are good LDS (and broader Christian) people who believe that sexual fulfillment is important. I have not kept it a secret from the group that my own sexless marriage drove me to wonder about the importance of sexual fulfillment in marriage and to seek out ideas from a variety of sources (perhaps of note to a group like this, but, when I looked to the church for ideas, the church was silent on the importance of sexual fulfillment in marriage). 

The only scriptures I can think of on this subject are the following:

"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.  The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.

Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time only, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not through your lack of self-restraint."  I Corinthians 7: 3-5 (21st Century King James Version)

My own interpretation on these scriptures is husbands and wives should not be continually denying their spouse physical intimacy.  They should seek guidance from the Holy Ghost on this subject. 

In the words of Spencer Kimball:  "Even though sex can be an important and satisfactory part of married life, we must remember that life is not designed just for sex."

[Ironhold]

Conversation I've had with a few people. 

One relatively popular Japanese series from the past decade-plus is the sword & sorcery - type fantasy series "Spice and Wolf". 

In the series, Holo, a female wolf spirit, has spent the past 500 years as the harvest deity for a remote farming region. But with fewer and fewer people paying homage to her, and what is essentially Christianity spreading throughout the land, she's decided to call it a day. She originally hails from lands far to the north, and has decided it's time to return home. When travelling merchant Kraft Lawrence comes to the region with his annual load of preserving salt to sell, she decides to hitch a ride in his wagon. They eventually make a deal to where if she assists his business ventures, he'll take her as far north as he can go. The pair slowly fall in love along the trek, to the point that Holo actually admits she has become jealous of other women. 

Most of the story arcs in the series involve money and finance, with Kraft and Holo scheming to put one over on the corrupt and greedy. For example, in one story arc Holo's sharp hearing provides Kraft with a vital clue to indicate that a kingdom is lowering the silver content in its coins when they've been falsely claiming to be raising the silver content, allowing Kraft to set in motion a plan that makes them a huge profit at the expense of the kingdom's money-changers.

The manga (re: comic / graphic novel) adaptation of the original novel series comes shrink-wrapped and with a warning that it's not intended for younger readers. This is because Holo, as a wolf spirit, is a shape-shifter who can go between appearing as a young woman (with wolf ears and a wolf tail) and appearing as a dire wolf the size of a school bus. As per many classic mythological tales of shape-shifters (like the selkies), however, Holo cannot transform while wearing clothing and so is depicted in some state of undress at least once per volume. In fact, when the pair first meet Kraft assumes her to be a prostitute because she has just transformed into human form and hadn't put any clothing on yet. 

Anyone with clear eyesight could see that the book series is not intended for children. 

Why do I bring this up? 

Remember the to-do over various politicians and school boards here in Texas wanting to ban certain books from school libraries? 

One of the books that triggered it was a graphic novel that featured a fully uncensored gay sex scene. 

This book was found in a middle school library, where kids had open access to it. 

Everyone I've spoken with about this has been floored, asking how it is that a book with such content was considered safe and appropriate for a school setting when the publishers of the former have gone out of their way to ensure a book with lesser content was known to be unsuited. 

This, folks, is why you need to keep an eye on what your kids are reading and watching. Far too many people who should be serving as gate-keepers regarding content appropriateness for minors aren't doing their jobs and may even be allowing inappropriate content in to where kids can see it because they believe that the material is for some reason "important" or "diverse" enough to where the inappropriate material is worth overlooking. 

[Traveler]

I think I will take a slightly different approach with this post – not as a Latter-day Saint but as a scientist.  Perhaps after establishing what we know from science we can consider religious (spiritual) implications and responses – both for ourselves and towards others.   Let’s begin with the famous Pavlov’s dog experiment.  Granted humans are not dogs but the experiment brings to light the empirical foundation of how intelligent species learn through associations.  The association is often referred to as “the trigger” and the learned or acquired behavior as the learned or conditioned response.  This is also called the lowest cognitive level of learning.

Now let’s talk about how intelligent species come by attractions or preferences.  This happens in what is called the “ventral tegmental area”, or VTA part of the human brain.  This area is triggered when a cognitive recognition associated to a desire, or an expectation of a reward takes place.  This area begins producing a chemical we call dopamine, which is the “feel-good” neurotransmitter.  What I intend to make perfectly clear is that humans with average (normal or functional) intelligent capacities are not pre-wired to any preferences that are associated to any cognitive recognitions.  They are all learned, acquired or conditioned through associations.  Specifically, humans cannot have a “feel-good” sexual experience without some level of conditioning – the science of the human nervous system simply does not support unacquired or unlearned attractions to anything – including sexual attractions.

There is a problem associated with learned attractions – once learned or acquired the human brain becomes hard wired to that association.   It is not impossible to override this hard wiring, but this is a dark side of science often referred to as “brainwashing” and championed by researchers like Joseph Goebbels.  Therefore, I believe that two principles apply to sexual behaviors.  First – the earlier feel-good associations take place the more likely that association will predicate in society.  Second – changing feel-good associations comes with certain levels of risk or difficulty.

All this will explain why children are quickly becoming the center of importance in establishing acceptable social sexual norms.  It is quite possible that society will eventually have to determine which is more important – the long term stability (through many generations) or individual personal acceptance. 

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Excellent responses everyone.  Y'all a bunch of rock stars.

20 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Elder Bendar answers this question wonderfully here:

["There are no homosexual members of the church"]

Amazing video, full of truth.  I get what he's trying to say.  

I also like what Elder Oaks had to say about it, in an old eternal marriage student manual.

And what Brigham Young had to say about passions, appetites, feelings and emotions in talk about his temper, in terms of how he has learned to master passions, appetites, feelings and emotions. 

The subject continues to be on my mind, decade after decade, as my list grows of folks I know personally who come out and identify as this or that.  Some of 'em are trying their hardest to be faithful believing saints.  If I judge them with my insufficient mortal tools, all of 'em are trying to be good people, and struggle to this or that extent with what that means.

 

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:46 PM, scottyg said:

A great talk I remembered that addresses "identifying" with something is "What Manner of Men" by Elder Donald L. Hallstrom from the April 2014 conference. Specifically paragraphs 4-7, but the whole thing is good and applicable.

https://basic.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/what-manner-of-men?lang=eng

I liked this part of talk.  They talked about visiting a Brother in India with his family who had been members of the church for many years.

"On this visit to the Nulu home, we were accompanied by the mission president. He was there to interview Brother Nulu, his wife, and his children—for the parents to receive their endowments and be sealed and for the children to be sealed to their parents. We also presented the family with arrangements for them to travel to the Hong Kong, China Temple for these ordinances. They wept with joy as their long-awaited dream was to be realized."