Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 9/20/2016 at 0:19 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation.

 

 

I am immature enough that the bolded portion of this post gave me the giggles. 

I am, fortunately, mature enough that I am enjoying the discussion. Carry on, then, with your deep theological discussions.  

[waveslider]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I consider orientation to be among these personal characteristics that are not changed because a person wants it to change.

You can think it is absurd that DNA is something that can be changed (there are science studies that argue with you), your belief doesn't make it so. I can agree to disagree with you because I don't consider orientation to be pre-programmed into people, rather it is a choice and we can control who we are attracted to. The proof is in learning how to love like our Savior. We can even learn to love our enemies, so why can't we learn to love the proper gender as well? I just think it is harder for some people to change than for others, but it is still possible or else it wouldn't be considered an abomination that needs repenting from. Just because our increasing Godless society condones sinful behavior doesn't make it good.

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I view them as victims of society who treat them differently because of who they are.

I partially agree with you here that they are victims of society, but it isn't who they are, it is who they choose to be. If they knew who they were in the pre-Earth life I'm quite certain they would remember that they chose to follow God's plan, not rebel against it in a perversion of his plan for the family unit.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, waveslider said:

I think the confusion lies because of the teaching by science that some people are actually born that way, and that it isn't a choice as a lifestyle.

 

4 hours ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

I assume from these comments (I could be wrong), that you have not had the experience of raising a child who came out as gay at some point.  Maybe you haven’t been a father who has knelt in prayer with a son that desperately wanted this – gayness – to go away, so he could be a “normal” LDS boy like his friends and fellow quorum members. Is it possible you haven't been a parent to a boy with a great testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and a desire to fulfill a mission and marry in the temple…who fasted, prayed, asked for fathers’ blessings and met with numerous bishops and stake presidents to help him “make it go away”?  If not, then maybe that is why you are confused by these teachings of science.

 

 

And to go a little deeper: Have you ever met someone who was willing to be beheaded rather than choose to be straight?  Have you ever met someone who is willing to be set on fire or thrown off a 10 story building rather than choose to be straight?  Have you ever met someone who was willing to be kicked out of their home or fired from their employment rather than choose to be straight?

 

[california boy]

The one truth that can be drawn from every single post in this thread is that the church nor anyone else has any idea whether gay couples can continue into the eternities, or how spirit children are created.  This is all total speculation.  While fun, what it does do is point directly to the fact that not only church members are making assumptions about what happens to gay children of God, but also the church leaders are guessing as well.  NO ONE KNOWS.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

 

And to go a little deeper: Have you ever met someone who was willing to be beheaded rather than choose to be straight?  Have you ever met someone who is willing to be set on fire or thrown off a 10 story building rather than choose to be straight?  Have you ever met someone who was willing to be kicked out of their home or fired from their employment rather than choose to be straight?

 

Have you ever known someone who would rather die than do what he thought was sinful?

Who would not be sexually immoral under any circumstances? 

I guess it depends on who you know.

[waveslider]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, waveslider,

As a citizen of the United States of America, I, for one, do not feel like and would prefer not be viewed as a "helpless victim" because of my homosexual orientation, and would hope no one would view my LGBTQ brothers and sisters as such (speaking of those that are here in the United States).  Our government empowers us to seek out redress for injustice, and we've seen that at play in recent years.  There is still work to be done, and at times, LGBTQ individuals are victims on a case-by-case basis, but in most non-life-threatening cases, there ARE channels to seek help, redress of wrongs, and protection from future injustice.

Instead of a "helpless victim," I'd prefer to be viewed as another amazing, marvelous, and beautiful manifestation of the diversity of God's infinite creation (just as all of my straight brothers and sisters are), and I'd prefer that the love and devotion that I feel and express for my husband to be appreciated as another equal (in scope, even if different in purpose) facet of the same divine and ennobling love that reflects through my heterosexual brothers' and sister's opposite-sex relationships; the love that brings out the best in each of us, according to 'the measure of our creation.'  I'd prefer to be recognized as someone who's sexual orientation is as innate and unchangeable as any of my heterosexual counterparts, with the same capacity to channel and direct my actions according my orientation to the objects of my affection within the scope and bounds of the measure of my creation, just as my heterosexual counterparts channel and direct their actions according to their orientation within the scope and bounds of the measure of their creation towards the objects of their affection.

We each must choose how to channel our romantic and sexual attractions... After a failed and miserable attempt at a mixed-orientation, opposite-sex marriage, it was clear to me that that was beyond the scope of what and how I was created.  To me, there's no higher and happier calling than to love and devote myself to the one man I am blessed to call my husband, just as my loving mother and father demonstrated for me. 

No... I am not a victim of my sexual orientation.  And the love I innately feel blesses, enriches, and ennobles my life and continually urges me to be the best version of myself I hope to continually be.  Thankfully, society has evolved to the extent to allow my husband and I, and others like us, the full and equal opportunity to pursue happiness according the dictates of our own conscience.  LGBTQ individuals around the world may be victims of the very real anti-gay forces attempting to alter or destroy them... but that is the result of said societies, not a natural result of our innate homosexual orientation.

I hope you find the same fulfillment, joy, and happiness in whatever relationship you have chosen to pursue, according to the measure of your creation, as well.

Best to you, your spouse, and your family, whomever they may be, and however they love...

D

I don't think it should be so much about LGBTQ orientation, but sin in general. Unfortunately it is almost always brought down to the LGBTQ movement, because so many vocally identify themselves by that behavior, and society not only condones that behavior but actually caters to it. I am not knocking you or anyone else. I live in too much a glass house for that, because I have my own set of sins that I am constantly struggling against. Just because mine aren't as complex and visible doesn't make mine any better. Some of my weaknesses have actually become strengths, others are still weaknesses and are a work in progress. I could just say, "I tried it once and give up on trying anymore, by saying it is just who I am," but that isn't the way it is with sins. I am not judging anyone for giving into their weakness, especially when we live in a society that tells everyone that their particular weakness isn't a choice but rather a part of identity that can never be changed, and therefore becomes a human right. This is what I meant by being a victim, by telling everyone it isn't a choice but that it is just programmed into identity that can't be changed. Kleptomaniacs aren't given free reign on shoplifting. Drug addicts aren't given a free reign on using illicit substances, etc.., because they aren't considered as being born that way so they don't have a human right to their behaviors. From what I have read in scripture, and from what I know of God, all sins (which are nothing more than choosing to defy God's commandments) are wrong to do, and need to be repented of if we want to live in His presence again. Unfortunately sodomy is one of those sins, just like my own flavor of weaknesses are, when I choose to follow them. It is a struggle each and everyday. It is the reason why I need to have the sacrament offered on a weekly basis. I hope I haven't offended you, or anyone else for that matter because it sure does seem like a bigger hurdle for the SS attraction stuff all because of our society saying it isn't sinful, but is rather something to be rejoiced as part of identity.

I am glad that we have a loving Savior who is aware of all of our flavors of weaknesses, and the circumstances that surround them, who chooses to understand them and have mercy upon us anyway as long as we choose to follow Him. I'm glad it is He who is the judge and not anyone else.

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

I assume from these comments (I could be wrong), that you have not had the experience of raising a child who came out as gay at some point.  Maybe you haven’t been a father who has knelt in prayer with a son that desperately wanted this – gayness – to go away, so he could be a “normal” LDS boy like his friends and fellow quorum members. Is it possible you haven't been a parent to a boy with a great testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and a desire to fulfill a mission and marry in the temple…who fasted, prayed, asked for fathers’ blessings and met with numerous bishops and stake presidents to help him “make it go away”?  If not, then maybe that is why you are confused by these teachings of science.

 

You are correct. I have not raised anyone who turned out to be gay. I have however raised, and am still raising kids who have just as much of a problem with their own weaknesses. Weaknesses that don't work as being a follower of Christ. I have watched my son over come his, and just took him through the temple this very morning. He leaves for his mission on Tues, night. I am not confused, science is.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

......the church nor anyone else has any idea whether gay couples can continue into the eternities......

On the contrary, we do know that gay couples won't continue into the eternities. The only way they could be is by being sealed for time and all eternity, by one holding the proper priesthood keys, and by being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise as well:

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 18:18

"21  And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.
22  For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23  And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24  And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory."
D&C 88:21-24

"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."
D&C 132:15

I think it is safe to say that if a man marry a man in the world, or if a woman marry a woman in the world, the same would not be enforce when they are dead as well.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The one truth that can be drawn from every single post in this thread is that the church nor anyone else has any idea whether gay couples can continue into the eternities, or how spirit children are created.  This is all total speculation.  While fun, what it does do is point directly to the fact that not only church members are making assumptions about what happens to gay children of God, but also the church leaders are guessing as well.  NO ONE KNOWS.

"The one truth?" Wow.

We do know that all God’s children, along with God, are bound by the same eternal laws. This is enough to encourage us to act in accordance with the doctrine and gospel of Christ in spite of any inclination to do otherwise. Limiting ourselves by what we do not know, like defining ourselves by our inclinations to not act right, is not faith. Telling others what they do not know is even worse!

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

You can think it is absurd that DNA is something that can be changed (there are science studies that argue with you), 1- your belief doesn't make it so. I can agree to disagree with you because I don't consider 2- orientation to be pre-programmed into people, rather it is a choice and we can control who we are attracted to. The proof is in learning how to love like our Savior. 3-We can even learn to love our enemies, so why can't we learn to love the proper gender as well? I just think it is harder for some people to change than for others, 4-but it is still possible or else it wouldn't be considered an abomination that needs repenting from. Just because our increasing Godless society condones sinful behavior doesn't make it good.

 

1- Maybe if I think hard enough about it I can make reality change via mind control

2- Are you still living in the mid 20th century? Claiming that orientation is a choice makes you appear oblivious to the research and scholarship on the subject. Check out the church's website Mormonsandgays.org and see what the church says about SSA as a choice.

3- You're a funny guy. See answer #2

4- Again, you may want to update your understanding of both the research and the LDS church position. You are speaking specifically of attraction and orientation  as an abominable choice, not lifestyle here.

For the purpose of discussion it would be really helpful if you were better prepared with information from this century.

 

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

The one truth that can be drawn from every single post in this thread is that the church nor anyone else has any idea whether gay couples can continue into the eternities, or how spirit children are created.  This is all total speculation.  While fun, what it does do is point directly to the fact that not only church members are making assumptions about what happens to gay children of God, but also the church leaders are guessing as well.  NO ONE KNOWS.

Yes and no. The Church has consistently said that homosexual acts are a sin. It has also consistently said that any unrepented of sin will keep us out of Heaven. We mortals are not to judge the where someone will be in the Eternities, and I leave all such judgments up to God.

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes and no. The Church has consistently said that homosexual acts are a sin. It has also consistently said that any unrepented of sin will keep us out of Heaven. We mortals are not to judge the where someone will be in the Eternities, and I leave all such judgments up to God.

Except mortals are judging. The church is judging and creating policies based on those judgments. If the church wanted to leave the judgments to God then they wouldn't be labeling apostates, nor would they be excommunicating individuals, not only from the temporal church, but from eternal covenants that are essential to salvation. They wouldn't bestow the 2nd anointing on select individuals.

The truth is every person judges other people. The church as an organization judges people and people judge the church. It's really naïve to expect it can be any different

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

The one truth that can be drawn from every single post in this thread is that the church nor anyone else has any idea whether gay couples can continue into the eternities, or how spirit children are created.  This is all total speculation.  While fun, what it does do is point directly to the fact that not only church members are making assumptions about what happens to gay children of God, but also the church leaders are guessing as well.  NO ONE KNOWS.

Of course we know. There's no such thing as gay children of God there are only children of God and we are all sinners. That is the very clear position of the church. I'm sorry it offends you but that is the very clear position.

The church does not accept gayness has a separate class of humanity

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course we know. There's no such thing as gay children of God there are only children of God and we are all sinners. That is the very clear position of the church. I'm sorry it offends you but that is the very clear position.

The church does not accept gayness has a separate class of humanity

Acknowledging reality doesn't create a separate class of humanity.

Yes, there are gay children of God and there are white children of God, and Asian children of God etc. etc. To deny this denies the value of the individual in favor for an amorphous concept. We are not only children of God, but I am also a child of God. That means I fit in the collective in all the ways that make me similar, but it also recognizes my value as an individual.

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course we know. There's no such thing as gay children of God there are only children of God and we are all sinners. That is the very clear position of the church. I'm sorry it offends you but that is the very clear position.

The church does not accept gayness has a separate class of humanity

You know that the church isn't a monolith, and also that the positions church leaders take on this specific issue have evolved significantly in recent years.  If I were gay and I wanted to consider myself a gay child of god, that is my right to consider myself that, regardless of whether a church leader wants to change the question or say that they don't exist.  

Its a label, and if any group wants to self identify with a label, they have that right to do so.  For you, or any church leader to intentionally ignore them and how they identify, don't you think that's pretty disrespectful?  

Edited September 22, 2016 by hope_for_things

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except mortals are judging. The church is judging and creating policies based on those judgments. If the church wanted to leave the judgments to God then they wouldn't be labeling apostates, nor would they be excommunicating individuals, not only from the temporal church, but from eternal covenants that are essential to salvation. They wouldn't bestow the 2nd anointing on select individuals.

The truth is every person judges other people. The church as an organization judges people and people judge the church. It's really naïve to expect it can be any different

We mortals are commanded not to judge the eternal place where other mortals will be. All the Church can do is sever membership in the Church. It can't and doesn't dictate to God what he will do. The so called Second Anointing is at best a misnomer, and a misplacement by you in this thread.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Second_anointing

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, there are gay children of God and there are white children of God, and Asian children of God

Once again neither science nor religion has demonstrated that homosexuality is an inborn biological trait.
So comparing orientation with race has no more evidence backing it up than those like myself who compare it with a personality trait like a temper.

They may be born that way, but that doesn't make it a fundamental unalterable building block any more than someone who inherited a bad temper gets a pass for anger management issues because they were born that way.

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We mortals are commanded not to judge the eternal place where other mortals will be. All the Church can do is sever membership in the Church. It can't and doesn't dictate to God what he will do. The so called Second Anointing is at best a misnomer, and a misplacement by you in this thread.

SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Second_anointing

I wouldn't have much of a problem with excommunication if it really was only for membership in "the church". But it's much more than that. When a person is excommunicated they have their baptism rescinded, their priesthood removed, their temple covenants cancelled. That is very different than simply having membership revoked.

In a discussion about individuals judging others, I think mention of the Second Anointing is very appropriate because it is man placing an eternal judgment on a person. It's a positive judgment, but it's still a judgment. Not sure why that's a misnomer. Could you please explain that.

Excommunication and the 2nd Anointing are different sides of the same coin and IMO are examples of taking the name of God in vain. IOW- man claiming authority from God in pronouncing judgments with eternal consequences.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wouldn't have much of a problem with excommunication if it really was only for membership in "the church". But it's much more than that. When a person is excommunicated they have their baptism rescinded, their priesthood removed, their temple covenants cancelled. That is very different than simply having membership revoked.

In a discussion about individuals judging others, I think mention of the Second Anointing is very appropriate because it is man placing an eternal judgment on a person. It's a positive judgment, but it's still a judgment. Not sure why that's a misnomer. Could you please explain that.

Excommunication and the 2nd Anointing are different sides of the same coin and IMO are examples of taking the name of God in vain. IOW- man claiming authority from God in pronouncing judgments with eternal consequences.

 

Individuals will be among our judges.
The 12 Apostles will judge us by tribe.
The Saints judge the world.
Joseph Smith will judge all who have lived in this dispensation.
Our priesthood heads will judge us also.

Whether the judgments are pronounced in mortality or at the judgment bar, we will all be judged by men given authority from God.

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wouldn't have much of a problem with excommunication if it really was only for membership in "the church". But it's much more than that. When a person is excommunicated they have their baptism rescinded, their priesthood removed, their temple covenants cancelled. That is very different than simply having membership revoked.

In a discussion about individuals judging others, I think mention of the Second Anointing is very appropriate because it is man placing an eternal judgment on a person. It's a positive judgment, but it's still a judgment. Not sure why that's a misnomer. Could you please explain that.

Excommunication and the 2nd Anointing are different sides of the same coin and IMO are examples of taking the name of God in vain. IOW- man claiming authority from God in pronouncing judgments with eternal consequences.

 

That is still not telling God what he must do. There is only one sin that can not be forgiven. That is not repenting.

So we should have no discipline for members who willfully violate their oaths?

No they are not the two sides of the same coin. Good thing the Church doesn't do that.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Once again neither science nor religion has demonstrated that homosexuality is an inborn biological trait.
So comparing orientation with race has no more evidence backing it up than those like myself who compare it with a personality trait like a temper.

They may be born that way, but that doesn't make it a fundamental unalterable building block any more than someone who inherited a bad temper gets a pass for anger management issues because they were born that way.

Assuming you identify as heterosexual, how would you respond if someone compared your opposite sex attraction to having a bad temper.  If you could just take some anger management classes you'll no longer be attracted to the opposite sex anymore! 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is still not telling God what he must do. There is only one sin that can not be forgiven. That is not repenting.

Didn't say it was telling God what to do but it is claiming to act with God's authority in severing a person's relationship with God. But I agree. God could definitely ignore the church's judgments.

So we should have no discipline for members who willfully violate their oaths?

That's not what I said. The church, as an organization, can manage it's membership however they choose. But they claim to do much more than that by passing judgments that impact a person eternally. I don't think the church can rescind a baptism, priesthood, or temple covenants which impact eternity. Leave that judgment to God.

No they are not the two sides of the same coin. Good thing the Church doesn't do that.

How does the church NOT do that? Please explain your point. Also, you still haven't answered how the 2nd Anointing is a misnomer. I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on that as well.

*Side note* I find it interesting to think about what church membership really is. There is no legally organized church, but rather a legally organized corporation with many ancillary corporations. Are we members of the corporation? No, because it's a corporation sole, meaning it has one member, the President of the corporation who is known to the congregants as the President of the CoJCoLdS. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a trademark of the corporation. Can one be a member of a trademark which is owned by a corporation? Or is membership in the "church" a social construct/fiction?

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Assuming you identify as heterosexual, how would you respond if someone compared your opposite sex attraction to having a bad temper.  If you could just take some anger management classes you'll no longer be attracted to the opposite sex anymore!

Always the appeal to feelings over reason.  No wonder there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth after God follows the unalterable law.

Personally I do believe sexual attraction to be a function of mortality. 
Is sexuality eternal?  I don't know.  Christ and Paul didn't think much of physical attractions but love to the point of sacrificing self was a correct principle.
Is sexual procreation eternal?  I think so based on the teachings of President Young and D&C 132 and others.  But does that come from a sexuality or some other source?

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Always the appeal to feelings over reason.  No wonder there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth after God follows the unalterable law.

Personally I do believe sexual attraction to be a function of mortality. 
Is sexuality eternal?  I don't know.  Christ and Paul didn't think much of physical attractions but love to the point of sacrificing self was a correct principle.
Is sexual procreation eternal?  I think so based on the teachings of President Young and D&C 132 and others.  But does that come from a sexuality or some other source?

Personally I believe that only those that will experience weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth are those those that choose that.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Personally I believe that only those that will experience weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth are those those that choose that.

And some will choose that here first.