God made me that way...

[Nofear]

The tribune has a provocative article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/07/17/gordon-monson-celestial-question/

I tried to summarize his argument but ultimately failed, so reading it would be worthwhile. Even for those that are firmly with the Church and the Covenant Path (such as myself), understanding the struggle of those that personally experience the difficulty or empathize with those that do is a good thing. The article sums up with, "The unanswered question remains: Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?"

How would you respond with empathy and love that would most closely match what our Savior would say to those that struggle with this issue (whether personally or because they empathize with others who struggle)?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?

God commands all of us to be what we aren't. If any of us were really where we needed to be, we wouldn't need to be here any longer.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Thy will, not mine be done."

Part of "the wisdom to know the difference" can involve looking at things from outside the deep grooves of the conventional narratives. 

https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

While not everyone may get the same answer to the question I raise in that essay, the question is at least worth asking. To say "This is just the way I am" is to declare that "I am beyond repentence, I cannot change."   Even given my nature and personality, I do have room to repent and change the things I can change, and that difference may make all the difference in the world.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

To say "This is just the way I am" is to declare that "I am beyond repentance, I cannot change."   

I also think that it can declare "I am perfect the way that I am and I do not need to change anything".  Like Amulek said, none of us are here to stay who we are.  "This is just the way I am" implies there is no need to change, and I disagree with that axiom.  

[Jeanne]

I enjoyed this article.  Thank You!

[longview]

I read his article.  Gordon Monson gives a shallow passing reference to the awesome power of the Atonement of Christ.  He is oblivious to the mercy, grace, overwhelming love, steadfastness, zealous faithfulness of EVERY member of the Godhead.  ALL things are possible with God who is almighty in EVERY aspect of His Work.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

The tribune has a provocative article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/07/17/gordon-monson-celestial-question/

I tried to summarize his argument but ultimately failed, so reading it would be worthwhile. Even for those that are firmly with the Church and the Covenant Path (such as myself), understanding the struggle of those that personally experience the difficulty or empathize with those that do is a good thing. The article sums up with, "The unanswered question remains: Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?"

How would you respond with empathy and love that would most closely match what our Savior would say to those that struggle with this issue (whether personally or because they empathize with others who struggle)?

I see a few questions:

1) Why would God create children, and put them on this Earth, who seem to have no realistic shot at attaining out of this life the highest degree of heaven, God’s greatest glory?

I think the crux if this question lies in the perspective, “seem to have no realistic shot.” Another perspective allows that everyone has a realistic shot through the merits of Jesus Christ. Ask God, “Do I have a realistic shot / how can I see that I have a realistic shot / help thou my unbelief?” and work from there.

2) Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?

Our doctrine allows that the children of God have full potential to be like Him; we become natural men as part of the probationary stage of the plan, and we become saints as we keep His commandments.

3) Why would God create gay or transgender children and assorted other kinds of children with that kind of condemnation baked in?

The condemnation is not baked in, but our divine nature and the atonement of Jesus Christ are. The variations in human attributes that we find in this world are a function of mutually-agreed-upon tests vis-à-vis the covenants of exaltation.

This piece also puts forth ill-informed arguments based on a Kirby-esque view of the gospel to justify questions to preserve the bias that they cannot be satisfactorily answered. The author does not seem to understand that sexual attraction is not charity, and that variation isn’t always affliction / disability / deficiency / trouble / incapacity / challenge, and so completely misrepresents what President Oaks is supposed to be cruelly “suggesting.”

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

God commands all of us to be what we aren't. If any of us were really where we needed to be, we wouldn't need to be here any longer.

If only my parents had made me a college graduate from the time I was born, I wouldn't have had to waste all that time learning the things I had to learn (and failing at them occasionally) in order to get along in this life too.  I really could have been using that time to play video games more often. 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see a few questions:

1) Why would God create children, and put them on this Earth, who seem to have no realistic shot at attaining out of this life the highest degree of heaven, God’s greatest glory?

I think the crux if this question lies in the perspective, “seem to have no realistic shot.” Another perspective allows that everyone has a realistic shot through the merits of Jesus Christ. Ask God, “Do I have a realistic shot / how can I see that I have a realistic shot / help thou my unbelief?” and work from there.

2) Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?

Our doctrine allows that the children of God have full potential to be like Him; we become natural men as part of the probationary stage of the plan, and we become saints as we keep His commandments.

3) Why would God create gay or transgender children and assorted other kinds of children with that kind of condemnation baked in?

The condemnation is not baked in, but our divine nature and the atonement of Jesus Christ are. The variations in human attributes that we find in this world are a function of mutually-agreed-upon tests vis-à-vis the covenants of exaltation.

This piece also puts forth ill-informed arguments based on a Kirby-esque view of the gospel to justify questions to preserve the bias that they cannot be satisfactorily answered. The author does not seem to understand that sexual attraction is not charity, and that variation isn’t always affliction / disability / deficiency / trouble / incapacity / challenge, and so completely misrepresents what President Oaks is supposed to be cruelly “suggesting.”

One thing as well is if gay people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about them here? if they'll be changed and why even create them gay in the first place to be only changed later on? it doesn't make any sense.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

One thing as well is if gay people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about them here? if they'll be changed and why even create them gay in the first place to be only changed later on? it doesn't make any sense.

I'm not suggesting that gay people will actually be changed in the next life.  That idea has never sat well with me. 

But, the idea that God would not give us challenges here in this life that will cease in the next doesn't really make sense to me either.  There are many examples of people born in ways that we do believe will not have that same characteristic after death.  There are also many reasons why something might be a challenge or a trial for us in mortality that will cease once mortality is over.

So though I don't believe that gay people will be straight in Heaven, I don't think "what's the point of making someone gay if it will only be for mortality" works as an argument against that idea.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

One thing as well is if gay people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about them here? if they'll be changed and why even create them gay in the first place to be only changed later on? it doesn't make any sense.

I think the same question can be asked about any attribute 

"If Angry people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them angry in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" 

"If selfish people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them selfish in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" 

"If greedy people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them greedy in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" 

"If murderous people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them murderous in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"

"If adulterous people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them adulterous in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"

"If lazy people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them lazy in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think the same question can be asked about any attribute 

"If Angry people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them angry in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" 

"If selfish people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them selfish in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" 

"If greedy people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them greedy in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" 

"If murderous people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them murderous in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"

"If adulterous people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them adulterous in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"

"If lazy people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them lazy in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"

Quite the category we have there: “greedy, selfish, lazy, adulterous, murderous, and gay”. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

The article sums up with, "The unanswered question remains: Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?"

God doesn't command us to be anything we aren't.   We have no control over what we are, we only have control over what we do, and God's commands are always about what we can control - what we do.   

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quite the category we have there: “greedy, selfish, lazy, adulterous, murderous, and gay”. 

yup

We all have things we need to work on. What are you working on?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

yup

We all have things we need to work on. What are you working on?

Deleted. Too flippant

Edited July 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rpn]

We don't know that God created people to be _______________________________.   He may (probably does) know a spirit is going into a body with the challenges of Down Syndrome, or epilepsy, or mental health issues, or same gender  attraction without having anything at all to do with creating any of those things in the first place.   What He asks of each of us is to get over and around and through everything that is earthly, as part of us understanding and becoming like Them.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The usual atheist stuff. Trying to rein in my murderous rapist rage while telling other people how to live. 

Well, we all have something to work on.  Good luck

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

One thing as well is if gay people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about them here? if they'll be changed and why even create them gay in the first place to be only changed later on? it doesn't make any sense.

That would be addressed in the principle that this life is a reconciled test. I expect everyone’s sexuality in exaltation is experienced and expressed quite a bit differently than it is here. I think God intentionally creates some of our individual attributes (for some people), we create some of them as pre-earthly spirits or as mortal souls, and some are a function of agency (including agency that impacts the agency and attributes of others) and chance in a fallen probationary world. I don't think sexual orientation can be stamped, "Made By God."

Edited July 18, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not suggesting that gay people will actually be changed in the next life.  That idea has never sat well with me. 

But, the idea that God would not give us challenges here in this life that will cease in the next doesn't really make sense to me either.  There are many examples of people born in ways that we do believe will not have that same characteristic after death.  There are also many reasons why something might be a challenge or a trial for us in mortality that will cease once mortality is over.

So though I don't believe that gay people will be straight in Heaven, I don't think "what's the point of making someone gay if it will only be for mortality" works as an argument against that idea.

Paraphrasing D&C 130: 2, "...that same sociality [including sexuality, or capacity for sexual experience and expression] which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." Orientation or attraction is not capacity, which is more fundamental and universal for the human "proper and perfect frame" (Alma 40: 23).

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

The tribune has a provocative article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/07/17/gordon-monson-celestial-question/

I tried to summarize his argument but ultimately failed, so reading it would be worthwhile. Even for those that are firmly with the Church and the Covenant Path (such as myself), understanding the struggle of those that personally experience the difficulty or empathize with those that do is a good thing. The article sums up with, "The unanswered question remains: Why would God create children he loves to be what they are and then command them to be what they aren’t?"

How would you respond with empathy and love that would most closely match what our Savior would say to those that struggle with this issue (whether personally or because they empathize with others who struggle)?

I would first have to be assured the other legitimately struggles with this concept rather than wanting an argument (my experience tells me it is the latter far too often). That being said, it's the 'I am what I am' argument to which I would respond - "That's true though we can all change if we have sufficient reason to". It first seems an academic exchange about whether the other accepts an involved God in their life. If the individual does, then there can be a conversation had about what this deity might be hoping for said individual.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Paraphrasing D&C 130: 2, "...that same sociality [including sexuality, or capacity for sexual experience and expression] which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." Orientation or attraction is not capacity, which is more fundamental and universal for the human "proper and perfect frame" (Alma 40: 23).

Maybe.  I'm agnostic on how it's all going to work out in the next life when it comes to sexual attraction.

[InCognitus]

I think what we "are" now is based on two things:

1. What we were like as spirits before we chose to come here and take a shot at what God was offering us
2. What the gene pool and circumstances of this fallen world have dished out to us in providing our physical body

Sometimes #2 can provide some significant challenges, but that reminds me of the talk by Elder Clark G. Gilbert in the October 2021 General Conference, The Parable of the Slope.  It is not where we start but where we are headed that matters most.  Quoting a relevant portion of his talk:

"Our future will be determined far less by our starting point and much more by our slope. Jesus Christ sees divine potential no matter where we start. He saw it in the beggar, the sinner, and the infirm. He saw it in the fisherman, the tax collector, and even the zealot. No matter where we start, Christ considers what we do with what we are given. While the world focuses on our intercept, God focuses on our slope. In the Lord’s calculus, He will do everything He can to help us turn our slopes toward heaven."  

What we can become is up to us and is based on the choices we make while we are here.  If we want to make use of the atonement of Christ and use the opportunities that God provides for us to progress, that's a choice we can either accept or reject.   And we're not judged by where we start out, but where we end up relative to where we started (i.e. where much is given, much is required). 

Edited July 18, 2022 by InCognitus

[Meadowchik]

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.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

God commands all of us to be what we aren't. If any of us were really where we needed to be, we wouldn't need to be here any longer.

Very true. It's not the theology that I have any issues with, it's the approach that lacks clarity and how we minister to those that are struggling (themselves or by proxy).

One part does seem to be deny that being Christian is easy as many want to suppose that Christ's Gospel is easy and that all we have to do is love each other (and ourselves). "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Nevertheless, I don't see it as a completely satisfactory answer. It dodges the question about why a homosexual person has a trial that would potentially deny them exaltation -- that they are "lesser" somehow. For example, californiaboy (if I recall correctly) has stated that if he can't spend eternity in heaven with his life companion, he wants no part of that "heaven".  How would the Savior respond to that? "Ok. Don't go to heaven."? That doesn't seem like that would be his response.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quite the category we have there: “greedy, selfish, lazy, adulterous, murderous, and gay”. 

I know right? 😒