Epigenetics - Nature, Nurture, and Gays

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

That analogy doesn't really show anything other than how to relate to someone who either does or does not do whatever they are told to do, including how to feel.

If you're trying to show why someone should not marry or have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, try this analogy instead:  Suppose you had the ability to see each person as a sexually attractive person, regardless of what sex (male/female) each person happened to be, and you were told that it was not good to have sexual relations with anyone of the same sex as yourself even if you truly loved that person and saw them as a sexually attractive person.  And then suppose you asked the person who said that would not be good why they said it would not be good, and that person then told you why it would not be good.  And also suppose that person was an expert on what is good and what is not good.  What would you do then?

Probably question where this person got a PhD in Goodology.

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Probably question where this person got a PhD in Goodology.

Okay, then suppose that person told you he learned what was good and not good from God/his Father in heaven and that he relies solely on personal testimony from  God regardless of what anyone anywhere else will tell him.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Okay, then suppose that person told you he learned what was good and not good from God/his Father in heaven and that he relies solely on personal testimony from  God regardless of what anyone anywhere else will tell him.

Then I think this person is lying on the basis that anyone who had reached that level of reliance solely on God would have been translated. If he responds that he is, in fact, a heavenly messenger than I would stick out my hand and say: "Put her there pal!" just to check. I realize handshaking is discouraged right now but I would make an exception in this instance.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then I think this person is lying on the basis that anyone who had reached that level of reliance solely on God would have been translated. If he responds that he is, in fact, a heavenly messenger than I would stick out my hand and say: "Put her there pal!" just to check. I realize handshaking is discouraged right now but I would make an exception in this instance.

Hmm.  Interesting.  So as of the moment you wrote this you would have said you would choose to believe someone else more than you would choose to believe God and the reason you think you haven't been translated yet is because you, what now?

I think maybe you need to think this over some more.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Hmm.  Interesting.  So as of the moment you wrote this you would have said you would choose to believe someone else more than you would choose to believe God and the reason you think you haven't been translated yet is because you, what now?

I think maybe you need to think this over some more.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Stargazer]

On 2/9/2021 at 12:49 AM, california boy said:

There doesn't seem to be much movement in the straight community to want to "fix" themselves and become gay.  I wonder why?  Everyone knows being gay is way more fun than being straight.  

LOL!

Quote

 

Well the answer to your question is Yes, many would rather be gay than straight.  

I wasn't asking a question, actually. 🙂

Quote

Because even with the threat of execution, they still find ways to connect with someone of the same sex in order to have that love and bonding that all humans need and long for, even if it means their life.

Throwing gays off the tops of buildings, hanging them, torturing them, putting them in prison, stoning them, caneing them in public to the point of near death,  burning them alive, throwing acid on their faces, tying them up and dragging them behind their cars hasn't eradicated those that are attracted to the same sex.   And preventing gay members of the Church from never being able to marry someone of the same sex has not turned those members straight.  Every gay member has a choice: Either stay in the church and never have any type of human companionship that marriage brings, or leave the Church and find happiness and companionship with someone of the same sex.  It has been my experience that the vast majority of gay members leave the Church.  

I can definitely relate to what you say here.

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Stargazer

[MrShorty]

On 2/10/2021 at 2:00 PM, CV75 said:

For me, the principle of complementary opposition (e.g., male and female; passage from one estate to the next, birth, both figuratively and literally, being but one example) is foundational in the pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal perspectives. These patterns are reflected in every estate.

Maybe this is part of what I don't understand. Usually, when this topic comes up, it sounds a lot like every day, run of the mill complementarianism (A quick generic Christian description of complementarianism and egalitarianism: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-are-complementarianism-and-egalitarianism-what-s-the-difference.html). The usual discussions of complementarity almost always seem rooted in commonly believed gender stereotypes, but there are too many examples where individuals run counter to those stereotypes. All those examples lead me to question the entire complementarian bases for this. At the least, it suggests that such complementarity is perhaps at best a murky "through a glass darkly" expression of some vague Platonic or heavenly ideal that is easily obscured by a fallen, mortal world. If your concept of complementary opposition goes significantly beyond what I see rooted in gender stereotypes, then this is a good example of a doctrine that I do not understand, and it seems like a very important doctrine to understand clearly (not through a glass darkly) and have a strong testimony of in order to justify our strong opposition to same-sex romantic/sexual/marriage-like relationships.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe this is part of what I don't understand. Usually, when this topic comes up, it sounds a lot like every day, run of the mill complementarianism (A quick generic Christian description of complementarianism and egalitarianism: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-are-complementarianism-and-egalitarianism-what-s-the-difference.html). The usual discussions of complementarity almost always seem rooted in commonly believed gender stereotypes, but there are too many examples where individuals run counter to those stereotypes. All those examples lead me to question the entire complementarian bases for this. At the least, it suggests that such complementarity is perhaps at best a murky "through a glass darkly" expression of some vague Platonic or heavenly ideal that is easily obscured by a fallen, mortal world. If your concept of complementary opposition goes significantly beyond what I see rooted in gender stereotypes, then this is a good example of a doctrine that I do not understand, and it seems like a very important doctrine to understand clearly (not through a glass darkly) and have a strong testimony of in order to justify our strong opposition to same-sex romantic/sexual/marriage-like relationships.

I would say the first and foremost consideration is “in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes,” where there are no gender stereotypes but rather gender prototypes that by covenant form a “perfect union” which cannot be organized in any other way. What is the opposition to prototypes and covenants (two levels of organization)?

Edited February 12, 2021 by CV75

[california boy]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:38 PM, mfbukowski said:

There us more to life than personal fulfillment, more to marriage than companionship and fun, whatever that was supposed to mean.

I wish you the best, but I felt I needed to say that.

You are right.  But the things I value most in life is my relationship with family and friends.  And at the top of that list is my relationship with my partner.  Everything else is a distant second in importance for me.  Do you find that strange?

[MrShorty]

@CV75. I'm a bit intrigued by this idea of "prototypes".; I don't recall seeing or hearing anyone else try to explain this using that concept. Things that immediately come to mind:
How is this different from "Platonic forms/ideals"?
As I noted in my initial response in this thread, one direction this topic often takes me is understanding exactly what we mean when we talk about "God created ...". As I conceptualize a "prototype" (the first item created from which other copies will be made or compared), this feels like an attempt to explore what it means to create, and I find that a lot of creation discussions are filled with more speculation than revelation (since it seems that scripture is mostly silent on so many of the details of creation).

I'm intrigued how you think "prototypes" explain this.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You are right.  But the things I value most in life is my relationship with family and friends.  And at the top of that list is my relationship with my partner.  Everything else is a distant second in importance for me.  Do you find that strange?

Yes, that is deeply weird.

Do you not have a model train set or some kind of sports team you can love more?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@CV75. I'm a bit intrigued by this idea of "prototypes".; I don't recall seeing or hearing anyone else try to explain this using that concept. Things that immediately come to mind:
How is this different from "Platonic forms/ideals"?
As I noted in my initial response in this thread, one direction this topic often takes me is understanding exactly what we mean when we talk about "God created ...". As I conceptualize a "prototype" (the first item created from which other copies will be made or compared), this feels like an attempt to explore what it means to create, and I find that a lot of creation discussions are filled with more speculation than revelation (since it seems that scripture is mostly silent on so many of the details of creation).

I'm intrigued how you think "prototypes" explain this.

Let me first say that the doctrine is very simple and any explanation based on my personal understanding and insight will undoubtedly be confusing!

For me, prototypes can also be metaphorical, as in “the child is the father of the man (Wordsworth).” In the context of the Plan of Salvation, my spirit is the prototype that grows up as a result of this second estate “unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” Like Platonic forms, my spirit (of which gender is characteristic), is perfect and eternally fixed. But unlike the forms, our bodies do not imitate our spirits so much as represent the element connected to them. In the context of the Plan of Salvation, the physical body will eventually become eternally fixed with the spirit (inseparably connected). With the forms, there is no physical connection between the form and the object imitating it, and with the soul, the physical connection between spirit (which acts) and element (which cannot act) does not constitute imitation by the element.

Whatever nuance there may be in organizing (“creating”) spirits that are co-eternal with God, the scriptural references to the earth’s creation show that in principle it very much involves opposition (light/ dark, above/beneath, day/night, nameless/named, alone/together, male/female, separate/one, then/now, etc.). From there we can see how Heavenly Parents, Adam and Eve, etc. are also prototypes in the more mechanical sense you conceptualize it to be.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, that is deeply weird.

Do you not have a model train set or some kind of sports team you can love more?

Well, I don't know about him, but I have a new quadcopter that both the weather and this freaking covid lockdown here in the UK is preventing me from flying!

I am so glad you participate on this board; you bring in lightness and laughter, and that is almost always a good thing.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

You are right.  But the things I value most in life is my relationship with family and friends.  And at the top of that list is my relationship with my partner.  Everything else is a distant second in importance for me.  Do you find that strange?

Yes actually.  Obviously though I believe virtually everyone has those as extremely essential, but I find my relationship with God more essential.

Family and friends go away be He doesn't.   But I am not sure why you brought that up

[MrShorty]

On 2/12/2021 at 1:16 PM, CV75 said:

Like Platonic forms, my spirit (of which gender is characteristic), is perfect and eternally fixed. But unlike the forms, our bodies do not imitate our spirits so much as represent the element connected to them.

So do you see the epigenetics talked about in the OP part of how the body correctly imitates the spirit, or are these epigenetic influences part of how the fallen world interferes with the body's imitation of the spirit? In asking this, I cannot help but recall that the Church once incorrectly believed that the genetics around race and skin color were "accurate imitations" of aspects of the premortal spirit. With that precedent in mind, this question might boil down to -- how do we know that the cis-hetero norm that we argue so strongly for is the only correct imitation of pre-mortal spirit creation?

On 2/12/2021 at 1:16 PM, CV75 said:

the scriptural references to the earth’s creation show that in principle it very much involves opposition (light/ dark, above/beneath, day/night, nameless/named, alone/together, male/female, separate/one, then/now, etc.). From there we can see how Heavenly Parents, Adam and Eve, etc. are also prototypes in the more mechanical sense you conceptualize it to be.

You are correct, there are a lot of different opposites evident throughout creation. In thinking about this part, I was reminded of the old sitcom I used to watch called The Odd Couple, where the entire premise of the show was to explore the different "complementary opposites" of the main characters (both men) to comedic effect. In relationships, there are plenty of opposites that don't depend on gender: neat-slob, ambitious-lazy, introvert-extrovert, spender-saver, quiet-talkative, etc.. What is it about the male-female opposition that motivates our staunch opposition to same-sex relationships?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

neat-slob, ambitious-lazy

Or less derogatory division....likes structure—likes looseness, ambitious—likes to be content with the way things are

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So do you see the epigenetics talked about in the OP part of how the body correctly imitates the spirit, or are these epigenetic influences part of how the fallen world interferes with the body's imitation of the spirit? In asking this, I cannot help but recall that the Church once incorrectly believed that the genetics around race and skin color were "accurate imitations" of aspects of the premortal spirit. With that precedent in mind, this question might boil down to -- how do we know that the cis-hetero norm that we argue so strongly for is the only correct imitation of pre-mortal spirit creation?

You are correct, there are a lot of different opposites evident throughout creation. In thinking about this part, I was reminded of the old sitcom I used to watch called The Odd Couple, where the entire premise of the show was to explore the different "complementary opposites" of the main characters (both men) to comedic effect. In relationships, there are plenty of opposites that don't depend on gender: neat-slob, ambitious-lazy, introvert-extrovert, spender-saver, quiet-talkative, etc.. What is it about the male-female opposition that motivates our staunch opposition to same-sex relationships?

I was saying that the body does not imitate the spirit, but with the spirit forms a new entity, the soul; the appearance of the spirit is just as altered by its connection to element as the element is altered by its connection to the spirit. I understand that it is said that the spirit and body look alike. I take this to mean that we can recognize the spirit or body of an individual as belonging to a particular element-spirit pairing, but I think that is probably more than just a visual perception.

So, I think that epigenesis is an interference with the body (which includes the brain and mind) and not so much an interference with the body’s imitation of the spirit. Epigenesis may well affect the element/body in a different way, such that that the spirit and element are imperfectly connected. We have many examples of this, as when mental, physical, emotional and other challenges and illnesses impact the full expression of our spirit.

Thus, I view sexuality not as an imitation of the eternal human character, but that eternal gender (of which sexuality is one aspect) is an expression of the principle of complementary opposition. We advance from estate to estate through covenant, by learning to express sexuality and the other, non-sexual attributes in a godly manner by covenant. Both the temple ordinances and covenants that are unique to men and women, and those common to both further along and as a couple, illustrate this.

I think the “staunch opposition” is a matter of perception when pressing the issue; otherwise, I think there is far more attention and energy given to supporting temple marriage than in opposing same-sex relationships.