President Nelson's Devotional: "The Love and Laws of God"

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Now it's your turn to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't say incapable of receiving revelation. I said incapable of knowing if they are receiving revelation.

Thank you for the clarification.  I'll delve into this a bit more...

Quote

Again, this isn't a minor issue according to you: it was incompatible with the Savior's teachings.

True.  That fallibility thing... it applies to everything.

Quote

Seems like the sort of thing at least one of 15 prophets ought to be able get right.

Well, as I recall, only one of the 15 was claimed to have received revelation on the policy.  That was President Monson (and he wasn't the one who made the claim).

I don't know how the process works for the other 14.  We don't know how they felt or what revelation they may have received on the matter.

It didn't take long to reverse the policy so who knows what was revealed to each of them individually.

Quote

And God can't communicate clearly enough to get through to one of those 15. Or He doesn't care to. Maybe a policy like that just wasn't all that important to him.

If you read this whole thread, a number of theories have been tossed out there.

For me, this really isn't about God's abilities.  It's about what the prophet is asking and listening for.  I really can't speak to that.

Quote

And the push to use the full name of the Church. Wasn't it you who said you didn't think he knew the difference between revelation and waking up in the middle of the night with a thought? 

I don't know if I said/wrote that.  But I do think that President Nelson paints with a broad brush when discussion revelation.

As I mentioned earlier... he seems to feel that the will of the Lord is reached when all 15 are in accord.

So what President Nelson may feel is revelation may not agree with how I use that term.

Edited September 29, 2019 by rockpond

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I found this blog useful in collecting current data and historical examples of social constructs applied to same sex behaviour:

https://othersociologist.com/sociology-of-sexuality/

 

Or it could be hereditary, instead of cultural.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Or it could be hereditary, instead of cultural.

No, very unlikely given the data.  That is what the blog is explaining.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You mock but I cling to what I can to stay in the church.  I hope you never find yourself in this situation.  It's not an easy path nor is it one that I chose.

I meant no mockery of you. I will acknowledge that I was using snarkiness to respond to what I interpreted as condescending patronization. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Thank you for the clarification.  I'll delve into this a bit more...

True.  That fallibility thing... it applies to everything.

Well, as I recall, only one of the 15 was claimed to have received revelation on the policy.  That was President Monson (and he wasn't the one who made the claim).

I don't know how the process works for the other 14.  We don't know how they felt or what revelation they may have received on the matter.

It didn't take long to reverse the policy so who knows what was revealed to each of them individually.

If you read this whole thread, a number of theories have been tossed out there.

For me, this really isn't about God's abilities.  It's about what the prophet is asking and listening for.  I really can't speak to that.

I don't know if I said/wrote that.  But I do think that President Nelson paints with a broad brush when discussion revelation.

As I mentioned earlier... he seems to feel that the will of the Lord is reached when all 15 are in accord.

So what President Nelson may feel is revelation may not agree with how I use that term.

Ok. ✌️

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

So what President Nelson may feel is revelation may not agree with how I use that term.

Now finally after all this, THAT is the answer and I submit it is your definition that creates the problem.

Semantics as usual.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

No, very unlikely given the data.  That is what the blog is explaining.

There are a lot of theories that have been proposed over the years.  And there is conflicting data that people draw their own conclusions on.  I personally did not find the article to be all that conclusive.  I think there is a BIG difference between who you have had sex with and what your orientation is.  I was married for decades.  Would that make me straight?  Would it possibly make me bisexual? No.  During all of at time, I never ever felt that my orientation was straight or even partially.  

Yet on the other hand. culturally, I was raised Mormon and taught that being gay was an abomination to God, gay witch hunts and electric; shock therapy was going on at BYU and the cure to homosexuality was marriage to a woman.

This is the culture I grew up in.  Here is a useful time line on the Church's attitudes towards homosexuality.  I was a freshman at BYU when "The Miracle of Forgiveness" was published with all of Spencer .W. Kimball's statements on homosexuality being an abomination and possibly worse than fornication or adultery.  So read what my environment was that I grew up in.  And while the Church was the major culture I grew up in, outside of that culture was not all that much different.  There is literally NOTHING cultural that supported the idea that I could be gay.  Yet, I have known since I was 12 that I was only attracted to the same sex.  

So excuse me for not believing the conclusions of the latest researcher who I highly doubt knows anything personally about being attracted to the same sex.  Conclusions from that data is greatly flawed.  The biggest flaw is that people, including myself are not always truthful about a subject that has so much cultural baggage with it.  Despite the advancement on the understanding of homosexuality, there is still so much animosity and hatred towards homosexuality, especially in red states, that even someone who deep down, knows they are gay are likely to deny those feelings even to themselves.   How can you get accurate data under those circumstances.  And how can you possibly formulate guesses on what that data means.  I imagine that if you spent the time, you could find a study that would support just about any theory on what causes someone to be LGBT.  What I do know, is that they can't all be right.  Saying this study or that study has the answer is, imo, not all that supportable.  It is why I have never posted links to studies that have all the answers on what makes a person gay.  What I also know, is that I am gay.  How I got that way, I have no idea.  A fair question would be, do you have any idea why your orientation is heterosexual?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think there is a BIG difference between who you have had sex with and what your orientation is.  

It was not just about who they had sex with, but who they were attracted to. 10% of men who defined their orientation as heterosexual had experienced same sex attraction to other men, for example.  The variations (sometimes extreme) of sexual expression over the years and locations indicates something besides just or primarily biology is going on.

Quote

The biggest flaw is that people, including myself are not always truthful about a subject that has so much cultural baggage with it

Then there would be less reason for men and women who identify as heterosexual to admit they have experienced same sex desires.

Quote

So excuse me for not believing the conclusions of the latest researcher who I highly doubt knows anything personally about being attracted to the same sex.

Lisa Diamond, the scientist I most often link to on this, identifies as a lesbian iirc and gay activist.  The writer of the blog is also an activist.  I didn't look for personal info, so don't know if they used a label or not.

Quote

It is why I have never posted links to studies that have all the answers on what makes a person gay.

Neither have I.  Have you looked at what I have posted or just assumed it was junk?

Quote

A fair question would be, do you have any idea why your orientation is heterosexual?

Why are you even assuming my orientation is heterosexual?

But if I am, it's most likely imo because my culture told me that I am. 

PS:  I don't actually think of myself as heterosexual or anything, but sexual these days.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

... kjhg=-ewq[?vc 

 

18 hours ago, kllindley said:

... Possible typo?

A mysterious bit of code, perhaps?  Is someone trying to hack or to sabotage the site? 🍿  Well, things finally could start getting interesting around here again, for a change!

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

A mysterious bit of code, perhaps?  Is someone trying to hack or to sabotage the site? 🍿  Well, things finally could start getting interesting around here again, for a change!

It's code   I can't talk to straight people about it. I can give you a hint though. Turns out,  a recent study showed that there are no straight people in the Church.  What happens next 3l9f9s93--

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It was not just about who they had sex with, but who they were attracted to. 10% of men who defined their orientation as heterosexual had experienced same sex attraction to other men, for example.  The variations (sometimes extreme) of sexual expression over the years and locations indicates something besides just or primarily biology is going on.

So if I was to say that I find some women more sexually attractive than others, how would I answer the question.  And actually we don't even know how the question was worded.  As you know, that makes a huge difference.

 

Quote

Then there would be less reason for men and women who identify as heterosexual to admit they have experienced same sex desires.

Not really.  Often it is the first step in a person dealing with being gay. Coming to grips with being gay is not an over night thing.  The majority of gay men date women when they are younger and present themselves as being straight.  Some might float the balloon that they are sometimes attracted to the same sex. When in fact, they are faking relationships with women and are indeed attracted to the same sex.  I know this is exactly how I dealt with being gay.  I was so closeted that only one person in all of my friends suspected that I might be gay.  And he figured that out because he knew that something was always just below the surface that I was not willing to talk about.  

Quote

Lisa Diamond, the scientist I most often link to on this, identifies as a lesbian iirc and gay activist.  The writer of the blog is also an activist.  I didn't look for personal info, so don't know if they used a label or not.

just because someone is a lesbian does not mean that they don't have issues or that they are approaching research from an unbias point of view.  Just the fact that she is an activist should raise concerns about objectivity.  Now if you had 10 random professionals collecting a very large data sample on an issue, could you honestly be absolutely sure they would all come to the same independent conclusions?  There are countless studies on this issue.  If it is all so tied up nicely with a bow on top, why do so many come up with differing results and differing theories.  

 

Quote

Neither have I.  Have you looked at what I have posted or just assumed it was junk?

Of course I looked through what you posted.  I always do when you post these studies.  I didn't say it was junk.  This is actually what I said

There are a lot of theories that have been proposed over the years.  And there is conflicting data that people draw their own conclusions on.  I personally did not find the article to be all that conclusive.

Quote

Why are you even assuming my orientation is heterosexual?

Sorry. my bad.  I just thought you would understand my point better if you could relate to how you feel about your orientation.

Quote

But if I am, it's most likely imo because my culture told me that I am. 

You are going to have to explain why your culture told you that you are before I could respond to that.

Quote

PS:  I don't actually think of myself as heterosexual or anything, but sexual these days.

Interesting. Perhaps that is why you find this study to be more conclusive than I do. What does that really mean to you?  Maybe too personal.  Therapy on a discussion board might not be appropriate.  

Edited September 29, 2019 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 9/28/2019 at 1:09 AM, Tacenda said:

Hamba, how many are in your ward or stake even? ... So maybe your ward/stake have very few as well?

I'm not sure why you think this is about numbers, but for the record, our stake has nearly 3,000 on the membership list. Average weekly sacrament meeting attendance for my ward is around 180 people. We have the second-largest average attendance in the stake.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 9/28/2019 at 1:04 AM, blueglass said:

You are not aware of any saints in your entire stake who are in support of same-sex marriage ...

No. We had one family in our ward some years back, but they removed themselves from the Church, and the mum has gone full apostate.

Quote

... are themselves LGBTQ ...

No.

Quote

 ... or have a sibling, daughter, or family member?

Yes, a few of those. We have two women in our stake who were raised by mums with Lesbian partners. One is very supportive of her mum; the other says it's a miracle she survived. They both feel like finding the Restored Gospel was the best thing that ever happened to them.

We also have an older couple in the stake whose two children (a son and a daughter) have same-sex partners. They were away on a military assignment for awhile and are just newly returned, but previously she had a stake calling.

I'm also aware of one family in our southernmost ward that has a son who identifies as gay and has left the Church.

Quote

Has your stake surveyed GenerationZ youth 12 - 17, and younger millenials 18 - 32y/o to determine their positioning on these policies? 

Why would we need to do this? We know our members, including our younger ones. They are our ministering companions, our friends, our family, our quorum members, and our class members. We visit, worship, attend the temple, minister and serve alongside one another. Three of them will be in my home this Tuesday for spicy samosa chaat night. This is simply not the sort of place where people who reject basic principles of Christian sexuality morality are inclined to be Church members for social or cultural reasons.

Have you considered why you seem so desperate to project your own anxieties on fellow Saints who don't share them? We are not America; we don't slavishly follow your social trends.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It's code   I can't talk to straight people about it. I can give you a hint though. Turns out,  a recent study showed that there are no straight people in the Church.  What happens next 3l9f9s93--

I'm sensing that what I was intending as a bit of lighthearted banter suddenly has taken a darker turn.  I'll bow out.  Thanks.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course I looked through what you posted.  I always do when you post these studies.  I didn't say it was junk.  This is actually what I said

 

I quoted what I was responding to, which was your comment about studies that have all the answers to what makes a person gay.  None of the stuff I post makes that claim.

This is similar to your response to my response about not believing the latest researcher that has no clue personally about being attracted to the opposite sex.

You are shifting the conversation as if you were saying something different originally.  I wasn't responding with a claim she was more objective because she was lesbian, but to your being dismissive of a researcher based on the belief they were pure heterosexual.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sensing that what I was intending as a bit of lighthearted banter suddenly has taken a darker turn.  I'll bow out.  Thanks.

Sorry if I offended you.  I too was making a lighthearted response to your comment.  I didn't mean for you to take it seriously.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I quoted what I was responding to, which was your comment about studies that have all the answers to what makes a person gay.  None of the stuff I post makes that claim.

This is similar to your response to my response about not believing the latest researcher that has no clue personally about being attracted to the opposite sex.

You are shifting the conversation as if you were saying something different originally.  I wasn't responding with a claim she was more objective because she was lesbian, but to your being dismissive of a researcher based on the belief they were pure heterosexual.

What I am saying is that I don't think anyone knows the answer as to why someone is gay.  And I don't think any consistent conclusions have ever been drawn from countless studies.  At this point, they all remain theories.

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry if I offended you.  I too was making a lighthearted response to your comment.  I didn't mean for you to take it seriously.

I'm not offended.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

As I said before, if you want to convince me that what you call a step-wise approach to revelation is something other than trial and error, you'll need to start by explaining (albeit hypothetically) what the first step revealed to the Brethren on this policy may have been.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything; we are exchanging ideas.

A step-wise approach is not, by definition, a trial-and-error approach, so offering a hypothetical first step is not relevant.

That said, I already offered a number of possible “first steps” in describing the Lord's step-wise approach (when He uses it) in my response. The Lord might have: revealed to our leaders the policy out of nowhere; confirmed their proposal through the keys of revelation and power of the Holy Ghost; inspired them on what to propose and to pray for. Pending the exercise of agency of all involved, any number of possible subsequent steps (if any, but some did) would come about in any of the same ways. Probably more if I took more time to think about it.

But my interest is now about how members go about successfully praying to know what is true (or as Alma put it, what is real; or the truth of something as Moroni put it) as President Nelson invited us to do. I personally think this is going to become a topic of great interest given the new initiative for youth.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

What I am saying is that I don't think anyone knows the answer as to why someone is gay.  And I don't think any consistent conclusions have ever been drawn from countless studies.  At this point, they all remain theories.

I agree about not knowing the why at this point, but I think we can tell what categories causes have a higher probability of falling into.  If something varies over social communities, chances are there are social causes/constructs involved.  If something varies according to biological family lines, genetics.  If something varies in regard to other biological influences, such as sex hormone exposure to the fetus, chances are there are biological causes involved.

I suspect there are numerous influences that occur both initially (biological) and over time (based on findings of sexual fluidity for a significant portion of populations and how this is expressed).

What I would like to find are longitudinal brain scan studies that start as young as possible and follow the individual throughout their lifetime to see how much brain structure involvement changes over time with various behaviours, as some behaviours can change the brain and probably others don't have that significant of an effect (the whole brain training industry involves claims about changing brain functionality through behaviours).  

One of the areas I would like to see focused on is sexual attraction and expression as this could help clarify what is going on (given the differences between brains of those identifying as herterosexual and homosexual, I think this a useful topic) and lessen conflict hopefully.  Another is math and science (studies show little or no difference in math skills of male and female when younger while gender differences grow with age...is this because math and science use different skills/different brain areas as it gets more complicated or because girls have often been framed in our culture as not as good or interested in STEM topics; as a girl who excelled in these areas but lost opportunities (primarily mentors and training opportunities, but also job) that were still  available to boys/men as I got older I would really be interested to see if I was actually gifted/had a weird brain for a female or just didn't listen to people telling me math was a chore and instead did it all the time which led to changes in my brain/whatever).  Another is language as I have struggled with that since high school (I can't follow speaking), but see a huge benefit for those who are multilingual and think if we could come up with educational ways to keep the ability to pick up language longer, it would be a real gift to humanity.  Music is another interest.

[Jake Starkey]

On 9/27/2019 at 3:28 PM, kllindley said:

No one here had stated or even suggested that God doesn't love his children. It is disingenuous to suggest that. 

I understand that it is popular to throw out this kind of unsubstantiated accusation. But it seems very hypocritical when it comes from LGBT former members and progressive heterosexual "allies" as though their opinion is supposed to be more value than the perspective of LGBT members. 

 

I find it disingenuous for you to throw out the unsubstantiated inference that if children, who Jesus repeatedly taught were to be brought to him, to not be harmed, are blocked from baptism, confirmation, moving along with their peers in classes and the priesthood, are somehow being blessed, I suggest you ponder thoughtfully and pray about this issue. 

Such is not the love of God.

Look instead at the two most responsible for the original proclamation.

Those holding the the leaders up to the mirror are the alphas of this generation, they are the alphas who unflinchingly and without hesitation hold their leaders to the mark, to accountability before mankind.  If the alphas fail to influence the FP to do right, the sin is not on the watchmen and women.  They are doing their job, and they won't quit.

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

I find it disingenuous for you to throw out the unsubstantiated inference that if children, who Jesus repeatedly taught were to be brought to him, to not be harmed, are blocked from baptism, confirmation, moving along with their peers in classes and the priesthood, are somehow being blessed, I suggest you ponder thoughtfully and pray about this issue. 

😀 It's amusing that you think I've pondered or prayed about this issue any less than you.  

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Such is not the love of God.

I'll trust God to tell me about his love. 

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Look instead at the two most responsible for the original proclamation.

Those holding the the leaders up to the mirror are the alphas of this generation, they are the alphas who unflinchingly and without hesitation hold their leaders to the mark, to accountability before mankind.  If the alphas fail to influence the FP to do right, the sin is not on the watchmen and women.  They are doing their job, and they won't quit.

 

What are you even talking about? 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree about not knowing the why at this point, but I think we can tell what categories causes have a higher probability of falling into.  If something varies over social communities, chances are there are social causes/constructs involved.  If something varies according to biological family lines, genetics.  If something varies in regard to other biological influences, such as sex hormone exposure to the fetus, chances are there are biological causes involved.

I suspect there are numerous influences that occur both initially (biological) and over time (based on findings of sexual fluidity for a significant portion of populations and how this is expressed).

What I would like to find are longitudinal brain scan studies that start as young as possible and follow the individual throughout their lifetime to see how much brain structure involvement changes over time with various behaviours, as some behaviours can change the brain and probably others don't have that significant of an effect (the whole brain training industry involves claims about changing brain functionality through behaviours).  

We have both seen studies that support all of these possibilities.  And certainly cultural influences directly, imo, allow someone to be more open in understanding their sexual orientation.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

One of the areas I would like to see focused on is sexual attraction and expression as this could help clarify what is going on (given the differences between brains of those identifying as herterosexual and homosexual, I think this a useful topic) and lessen conflict hopefully.  Another is math and science (studies show little or no difference in math skills of male and female when younger while gender differences grow with age...is this because math and science use different skills/different brain areas as it gets more complicated or because girls have often been framed in our culture as not as good or interested in STEM topics; as a girl who excelled in these areas but lost opportunities (primarily mentors and training opportunities, but also job) that were still  available to boys/men as I got older I would really be interested to see if I was actually gifted/had a weird brain for a female or just didn't listen to people telling me math was a chore and instead did it all the time which led to changes in my brain/whatever).  Another is language as I have struggled with that since high school (I can't follow speaking), but see a huge benefit for those who are multilingual and think if we could come up with educational ways to keep the ability to pick up language longer, it would be a real gift to humanity.  Music is another interest.

I do think that people are born with gifts and talents.  And there is a strong possibility that part of that is genetic.  I have seen in in my own children.  I am a very creative and artistic person.  So are all of my children.  While all but one daughter have poor math skills.  Last night I started to watch a new Netflix series entitled "Inside Bills Brain".  It is about Bill Gates.  Even as a young 12 year old, this guy had amazing math skills and focus.  I see kids on "America's Got Talent" that at age 4 can seen far superior than I can, even though I would really like to be able to carry a tune.  I have seen amazing paintings by Picasso at age 12.  The examples of very early special gifts are abundant.

Clearly the human mind is complicated and not a cookie cutter product that is the same in every individual.  Thank goodness.  And I guess that it is logical that not all of us have a cookie cutter sexual orientation.  Why would we?  I have no idea why I am gay.  And at this point in my life, I don't really need to know why.  

Probably like most of us that are interested in this subject,  it is fascinating  to read these studies.  And all of us can't help but weigh the conclusions with our own life experiences.  Given my social construct, the last possible reason I am gay is because of cultural influences.  But perhaps that did play a big role in another persons world experience.  I have no idea.  And I am smart enough to not discredit anyone else life experience since at this point nothing seems to conclude that there is one single factor in development of their sexual orientation.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

I suggest you ponder thoughtfully and pray about this issue.

Would you describe the process you went through to ponder and pray about this issue? To simplify, would you choose one particular point within the broader issue that you pondered and prayed about? Thank you,

[Jake Starkey]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

😀 It's amusing that you think I've pondered or prayed about this issue any less than you.  

I'll trust God to tell me about his love. 

What are you even talking about? 

Thank you.  You don't get that God is telling you about love in scripture, tradition, and sermons, and it skips right over your head.  The proclamation was not godly.  End of subject.