Jump to content

Meadowchik

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meadowchik

  1. My estimation of Joseph Smith's character plays a very important role in my relationship to the church. Therefore it has been a huge factor in my life inasmuch as my leaving the church has been a huge factor. It was probably decades ago and when I was still deeply believing that I ceased to believe he was without guile. I can pinpoint it as about that time as a child that I was learning that not everyone was innocent and transparent. It wasn't an admission I made of any guilt on his part in my mind, but an admission that he was a complex man with competing concerns, especially when it came to leading a church into Restoration.
  2. I think age is actually difficult to judge on a visual basis, especially across time periods. Oftentimes we'll judge people of earlier times our own age to actually be older than ourselves. There's many factors at play: longevity, nutrition, habitual exposure, hygiene, and fashions can all impact our visual perception of age.
  3. Or as exaltation includes the state where man is not alone.
  4. Not necessarily, but in a more general way. Sometimes it's quite like, "I had to put up with these rules of doing it *God's way* and so do you." *Presuming they know what God's way is for everyone.
  5. The thing about that context is that it wasn't carried over in the teaching of it later for however many decades it was repeated.
  6. I have seen this as well. FTR record, I do think my parents were an exception--they really do seem that they were in love from the beginning and until their last moments together. But Mormons tend to get married young and fast. And several generations of us were taught that any man and woman, if righteous, can find happiness together. That's pretty much being taught that our personal preferences will give way to the blessings of obedience, and that will make us a happy couple.
  7. So I am saying that in denying ourselves our own personal rules of attraction, we are more likely to expect others to do the same.
  8. One way to look at it is simply that a general church rule takes precedence over personal preferences. Do you disagree? I say that there is a consequence to subjecting our own personal preferences to a general normative rule.
  9. Good growth is challenging and difficult. It requires teachableness and soft heartedness.
  10. If there is a problem, make it better. Don't tell me it's hopeless. I have received effective pre and post natal care through government help.
  11. Another point of view is the morality of honouring someone else's perspective about themselves. Of course there must be considerations beyond that, like how much we'll act to respect it--those costs aren't always assumable. But there is the possibility there of constructing morality out of the premise of personal perspective, ours and everyone else's.
  12. Growth isn't always comfortable.
  13. No, I mean functional knowledge exactly...I think that our emphasis on the importance of temple marriage and commitment to the church along with marrying young means that we as members have a tendency to develop our functional knowledge of attraction less. It means we will tend to be less aware of what attracts us on an individual basis. And therefore spend less time ensuring personal compatibility before we select our companions. I'd say the church activity compensates some for that as a bond, but it doesn't replace the benefit of actually being attracted mind, body, and soul to each other. Not just in a sexual way but in every way. I'd say that is a bonus--people who experience it and the church commonality are lucky, those who don't have it don't understand what they're missing. Those who don't value it or place importance on it don't understand those who do.
  14. I think that actually in the LDS context attraction really is de-emphasized, which results in people not understanding it, and understanding same-sex attraction even less. How can same-sex sexual attraction be legitimate when the culture places relatively little value on all sexual attraction in the first place?
  15. Likewise a same sex couple can have a similar experience, where there is less emphasis on sexual attraction and other lovely attributes become most attractive.
  16. And for others, their love fulfiled in a same sex relationship is faithful, too, and definitely not a departure from God's path.
  17. That sure seems like an implication that naturally results from many of the arguments against same-sex coupling. I don't agree with it, but if you prioritize procreation *that much*, then there you have it.
  18. On the other hand, they might scoff at the way some of us pedestalise suffering as if it's a virtue.
  19. And for what?? What's the profit of preventing or prohibiting love and personal identity? It's a net negative. Those judgments are in place--doesnt make them right--and they hurt people.
  20. Just don't compare it. That's lazy anyway.
  21. Eternal gender can actually be taken as subversive to the no-trans paradigm and it is neutral to the homosexual paradigm. For instance, what if a male spirit is born into a female body? After all, there's no way to object to the fact that God does not always put males in male bodies and females in female bodies, because intersex people exist. (Unless intersex is another gender but that subverts it too.) That said, the Proclamation might be believed, but it's not necessarily true, especially in the understanding that only male-female marriages are valid to God. It wouldn't be the first time that leaders were mistaken.
  22. And if the witness of many to is to be believed, people do feel the Divine spark in queer relationships and in transitioned bodies. Who are we to question their personal witness... ... ESPECIALLY when trans people can do good, love others and queer relationships can and do bear very good fruit for the participants and society at large. The fruit of the tree can be good, so the tree can be good.
  23. No, it's a fair question, even if we account for coeternality, because our intelligences were organised by the creation of our spirits, and we were organised in the creation of a physical world and physical bodies therein. So with coeternality there are those elements of our original intelligence combined with God-created spirits and (indirectly) bodies. We know in this framework that God allowed physical defects that will be one day be made whole in the resurrection. We are to change and we are to be changed, but in that I think it's fair to say that we're still meant to keep something of our original identities. We're not meant to be completely erased and turned into Borglike believers. Rather we're meant to magnify the goods we are and have been given.
  24. And in this context specifically, the interpretation works and it works as directly as any other spiritual gift works. Most of not all spiritual gifts can be expressed as ideas. Sharing those ideas is one way to share the spiritual gift. The interpretation in the OP is pretty spot on.
  25. There is an element of "God made me this way" in most beliefs...it's just what *that way is* that differs. For instance, one might say God made them a person who can only accept marriage between a man and woman, that there's nothing to repent of in that. But, they could indeed be wrong. That's where spiritual humility comes in. Most of us probably believe there's an aspect that we're supposed to be. And that doesn't need repenting.
×
×
  • Create New...