Jump to content

Danzo

Members
  • Posts

    3,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Danzo

  1. 13 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

    The research I read 10 or so years ago was that because the families were involved, they worked hard to find a good match and capable spouses.  And the couple had an obligation to their families deeper than in the typical Western marriage. 

    That coworker and her husband were both Muslim, but not overly so.   She said she met him on the wedding day and they just learned about each other and fell in love over time.   

    In such a situation, someone rarely leaves because they no longer are "in love" with their spouse.  Because it isn't a relationship begun out of attraction or passion, it has room to grow inside. 

    I don't think I would have liked to be in an arranged marriage, but maybe we are just all missing out.

    My mother and father in law had an arranged marriage.  He was 18, she was 14 at the time.   According to my mother in law she and her husband moved in with her husband's family and her husbands family continued raising her.  (Her own father had passed away when she was little and her mother couldn't take care of her very well, which was part of the reason she was married so young, normally in their culture they would get married about 16 or 17)

    Their marriage is still going strong 7 children, 20 grand children and 5 Great Grand children.  

  2. 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    We have been told we will be resurrected ‘in our prime’. Extrapolating the nature of an everlasting body in eternity from changes in your own body as it deteriorates seems dubious at best. By this standard senility shows that the ability to think clearly is not a big deal in the life to come. I would argue that it instead argues that age is cruel.

    If  it is that important, then there obviously needs to be more emphasis in the church on sexual performance. They seemed to have omitted that part our eternal progression in scriptures and the teachings of the modern prophets.

  3. 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    Because we have records about people exclusively attracted to their own gender. They existed. They still exist. You keep jumping to the newness of identifying words as if that explains away the problem. 

    If what you say is true it should be easy enough to produce records of people who considered themselves as having, fixed gendered sexual identities prior to the late 19th century.

  4. 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    I also question what determines a successful or a failed marriage. Longevity is not necessarily a success. It might just mean divorce was impossible or only marginally worse than staying together. And yes, love matches were the exception rather than the rule in much of recorded history but that doesn’t make it ideal. In those successful marriages were they basically just people bound by duty with no affection for each other when it succeeded or were they fortunate enough to develop romance or at least affection? You realize you are suggesting that people marry with virtually no potential for any feelings like that to develop. At best you might develop a friendship with a very suboptimal sex life but 

    what makes a marriage successful is what you do after the wedding more than why you got married.

    The ones I know personally, weren't "Fortunate enough to develop romance or at least affections" they worked hard at it.

  5. 4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

    I'm glad that is working for you. The same sense of grace and tolerance that leads me to accept same sex marriages as being just as worthy as my own also leads me to accept marriages where the couple is happy to be less sexual or even Platonic.

    I'm finding as I'm getting older (about half a century now), that my attraction to my wife's celestial attributes is just as strong as it has always been, and my attraction to her sexual attributes is just as strong as it has ever been. I think we need to be careful not to assume that one cannot be attracted to both sexual and celestial attributes -- that it is some kind of dichotomy or zero sum game. I don't know, either, what sexuality looks like in the next life. I know many LDS who believe that sexuality gets a boost in the Celestial Kingdom rather than fading into oblivion, and many of them would cite their continually increasing attraction to their spouse as their relationship thrives. Sometimes I wonder if St. Augustine was ultimately correct -- that, within Celestial perfection, our ability to choose attraction and sexual function and activity and whatever will become perfected. As a couple, we can perfectly choose how much (if any) and what type and everything else about our level of attraction and desire and sexual activities. The point is, I think we need to be careful not to create a false dichotomy in this estate between sexuality and spirituality (I hear rumblings that Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife is working on a book with the intended thesis of breaking down the false dichotomy between sexuality and spirituality).

    I don't know either how important Sexual behavior will be in the Celestial Kingdom, and like you, anything we do in the Celestial kingdom will be Celestial in nature.

    The scriptures and the church have encouraged us to develop many Celestial Attributes.  Charity, Forgiveness, Sacrifice, Repentance, Longsuffering, Patience, Self Control, mercy, Trust in God and in Christ, to name a few. Observing the law of chastity and the higher law of the gospel is one of the things that is emphasized as well.   

    I don't really see much emphasis in developing sexual practices and attractiveness,  which leads me to believe that if it exists in the Celestial Kingdom, it is of a secondary or lesser importance than the attributes we are instructed to develop. 

    In the end we strive for "Thy will be done"

    Too many here seem to be "My will be done" (because God made me that way)

    I believe there will be many relationships with many different people of different sexes in the celestial kingdom.  Any righteous relationship here will exist there.  All of us will be sealed to each other. 

     

     

  6. Just now, Nofear said:

    Indeed so. Nonetheless, the question remains how the Savior would respond to a practicing homosexual?

    I think the Savior's would respond the same way as he would to a practicing heterosexual.

    Come, Follow me

    Take my yoke upon you

    Repent and be baptized. 

    He would have us be saved from our sins, not in our sins. 

     

    Overall, trust in him, for he is mighty to save. 

  7. 3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

    Oh no, definitely not.

    1) Just because the physical plumbing doesn't work, attraction can still exist.

    2) The plumbing isn't the only sexual organ. It is often said that the brain is the largest sexual organ (following closely by the skin). There are plenty of ways to enjoy sensual/sexual pleasure and intimacy even when the plumbing isn't working right.

    In cases where the plumbing isn't working, most sex therapists recommend broadening our idea of what constitutes "having sex" and figure out what the "new normal" is going to look like. The real problem scenarios when plumbing stops working is those cases where one or both spouses then retreats into themselves and won't do anything sexual.

    Attraction still exists, but not as much in a sexual way.

    As I get older, there will always be newer models that are more attractive to me in a purely sexual way, however as I grow older, being attritive in a sexual way just isn't as important is it used to be.   

    This is one of the reasons I don't really think sexual attraction will be that big a deal in the life to come.  Already in my life it is becoming less important.  

    I am much more attracted to my wife's "celestial" attributes (Kindness, love selflessness generosity) than her "Sexual" attributes.

    Just my experience. 

  8. 2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

    As I see it, before we can talk about what happens to people who violate commandments of God, we have to come to some consensus as to what God has commanded. It seems to me that most of the debate distills down to, "Someone said that homosexual behavior is against the commands of God." to which someone replies, "That might be his/her opinion, but I don't think it is against God's commands." And so we spiral round and round people's differing opinions about what exactly is and is not a command of God.

    I view the covenant in the temple about the law of chastity to be a commandment from God.   For me it is a matter of faith.  

  9. 4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

    From what I have seen roaming sexology/sex therapy/sex self-help groups, most sex therapists and sexologists would probably agree with the first half, but would disagree on the second half. I think many would say that a marriage without sexual attraction is probably not as strong as it looks from the outside, or they would say that it may survive but will not likely thrive. In many ways, this might be a core part of this discussion -- trying to figure out exactly what the proper and appropriate place and role of sexuality in our lives and marriages.

    Are you saying that marriages of people above a certain age, where the plumbing isn't working correctly are weak marriages?

  10. 15 minutes ago, pogi said:

    I am confused.  Are you suggesting that because there was no term for it, it didn't exist and is only a modern invention?

    Hmmm...it must not have existed before it was first described and named in literature, right?  

     

    Surely you must have evidence for gendered sexual identity that predates the mid 19th century? 

    Perhaps we should hear your research in how sexual identity was viewed in the past.  How common it was, how important it was.

    There is plenty of physically testable evidence for downs Syndrome.   Lets discuss the evidence for fixed,  gendered sexual attraction.  Since you view it as an eternal attribute, part of the human condition, there should be plenty of evidence.  Not everyone was Christian, you know, some cultures regularly practiced same sex behavior. They can't all have failed to notice this  thing, most important above all other things that is so powerful that it dooms part of humanity to misery if they can't consumate this desire.

     

  11. 17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    Oh boy. So you want to discount the virtually universal acknowledgement that same sex sex has occurred in virtually every culture in human history that we have adequate records of because two relatively isolated tribes either didn’t have anyone with same-sex attraction or didn’t tell outsiders about it when asked? That is wishful thinking at its worst. If we could just eradicate the word gay the gay will go away!

    We should do that with other things labeled as sinful. We could eliminate selfishness by crossing a few words out of the dictionary. Pride? Boom, gone. Misery…..misery will never see it coming. Why stick with half-measures? We can rebuild Eden by crossing out the words for good and evil.

    You are being ridiculous.

     

    Pride and misery have been in most languages for  a long time (how many languages do you speak anyway, you seem to know a lot about how other languages work)

    Same sex sex has been here as long as sex has, but the idea that there is some absolute, eternal, gendered attraction that is the most important part of ones existence. that is a recent cultural phenomenon. 

    Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are very recent inventions which can be fairly easily traced. 

    It is interesting that you assume what exists in our culture must exist everywhere because . .   because.

    This whole thread is about what is going to happen to people with sexual attractions that when acted upon, violate the commandments of God.  People think that their attractions and acting on them is so important they should forgo the covenant path to fulfil their "needs"

     I just don't think fulfilling sexual needs is going to be all that important in the celestial kingdom.   

    That people in our time culture think otherwise says a lot about us and very little about the Celestial Kingdom.

  12. 1 minute ago, pogi said:

    Truth is, it isn't easy for them either.  Nor should we diminish their suffering as a "first world problem".   

    There is also a difference in that gay people may be very eligible emotionally/spiritually/physically appealing as prospects for marriage but are required to make the sacrifice to avoid it.      I wonder how many of those people (which you claim there are "a lot" of) who have no hope of getting married who would willingly make the sacrifice of not getting married if they themselves were a highly eligible and appealing prospect for marriage by people they are also drawn to.   I bet that number would be just as small as the number of gay Mormons who commit to a life of celibacy.   It simply is a significant and enormous sacrifice and should not be diminished.  

    I agree that attraction is not the only factor to consider in eternal companionship, but it is not an insignificant one.  "I wouldn't marry you if I didn't feel that I had to" probably isn't the best way to start a healthy eternal marriage dynamic.  

    Just curious, are you suggesting that gay Mormons should be trying to marry someone of the opposite sex?  Because it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.  If I remember right, that is not something the church encourages anymore after history taught them a lesson or two.  

    I know many people who choose to marry people they were attracted to and the marriage failed miserably.  I know people who were married off as children as part of an arranged marriage who's marriages have succeeded. Attraction won't save marriages in trouble, and strong marriages will survive lack of sexual attraction. In the past (and still in many cultures) marriages were made because of economic necessity.  If one remains married long enough, their spouse will not remain attractive, at least not in the sexual sense.  Sexual attraction is important in our culture today, but it hasn't always been that way and I see no reason to expect it to be that way in the eternities. 

    Of course, anyone who has made it to the celestial kingdom will be attractive to anyone both male and female for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.  If someone makes it there they will be the kindest, most pure hearted, courageous, faithful, compassionate person one could imagine (probably more attractive than we can imagine). Who wouldn't find that attractive.  Add to that perfected, restricted body.

     

    To answer your last question, People who are willing and able to make covenants in the temple should be allowed to do so.  If someone identifies in a way that prevents them from making and keeping those covenants, then they should not make those covenants until they are ready.  That goes for anyone, regardless who they find attractive.  If they want to make these covenants, those covenants need to be more important to them than their physical urges.  That goes for hetrosexual urges as well as homosexual urges. 

     

     

  13. Just now, The Nehor said:

    This isn’t the convincing argument you imagine it to be. Lots of cultures have no words for things that happen within a culture.

    I'll have to disagree with you there, I have found that they usually have a word for something they think is important, although often when something comes in that they are not familiar with, they go with the word used by the culture introducing it.

     

  14. 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    Yep, and I have my doubts that there was no same sex sexual activity going on in those tribes.

    of course you have your doubts, how could they think differently than you do? 

  15. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

    Of course not. Some (quite possibly the majority) were what we call bisexual. Some used sodomy for specific cultural purposes without attraction. When a practice is forbidden nuance tends to be lost. When someone was called a sodomite the punisher was unlikely to question the defendant and ask him if he has an interest in women too.

    Yet you make the assumption that they must have categorized themselves the same you categorize them.  They must have same fetishes, attractions and categorizations of those attractions that our culture has today. They must have been bi or homo or whatever because it is not imaginable that cultures in the past were obsessed with sexual classification the way we are today. 

    Of course, we must discount the way they saw themselves because that couldn't have been right, if only they were more enlightened, like we are today, then they would agree with us.  Because we have everything figured out and that makes us better.  

  16. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

    No, it didn’t escape their attention. Those with the predisposition were deprived in silence, kept it secret, found a socially acceptable method to gratify it (openly or covertly), etc.

    Did you read the article?

  17. Just now, The Nehor said:

    No, it didn’t escape their attention. Those with the predisposition were deprived in silence, kept it secret, found a socially acceptable method to gratify it (openly or covertly), etc.

    but no word for it, interesting.

  18. 17 minutes ago, california boy said:

    I will add this comment to the list of must read for anyone who is Gay inquiring about the Church.  You just have to wake up from this dream life you have invented because being gay is soooo cool.  Who wouldn't want to think they are gay?

     

    I didn't say you made a conscious choice to be gay, I said it exists in your mind.

    If you don't tell me you are gay, How will I know? is there a blood test? Tissue Samples? 

     

  19. 51 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

    I still believe there were “gay” people but because it was so taboo they wouldn’t have even thought to name their “team.” 

    In other words, you cannot believe other people in other times and places see things differently than you do. 

    a "Gay " person is only "Gay" because they think they are.  If a person doesn't know what "Gay" means, they cannot be "Gay".

     

  20. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

    The Greeks allowed it but only in heavily constrained ways. Attempting to live some kind of monogamous homosexual life in Ancient Greece would have been a source of shame to the practitioner except in very specific circumstances.

    While the concept is new the predisposition behind it is very real.

    yet such predisposition seemed to escape everyone's attention until the latter half of the 19th century. And still seems to escape some cultures attention today

  21.  

    1 hour ago, pogi said:

    We all have probably experienced rejection from a person we have wanted to be with at some point in our lives.  While that hurts, the hurt is dulled by the hope of finding someone else that we will be attracted to and want to be with.  There may be no such hope in the case of homosexual people. 

    I think a lot of people today and throughout history don't have a hope for to be with someone they are attracted to.  Not being attracted to the person one is with is one of the most common excuse for divorce.   Luckily, being with someone you are attracted to is not one of the prerequisites for any gospel blessings.  as far as wanting to be with someone, that is a choice that, in the long run doesn't hinge on attraction.

×
×
  • Create New...