Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

God made me that way...


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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."

and God knew what choices we would make, and sexuality has options for some people and the environment we would grow up in. I think what you say is reasonable , I wouldn't mind knowing what God knows about sexuality

Link to comment
1 hour 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?"

I am pretty sure that all those traits are not going to be automatically fixed in the next life. We are told to work on them here and we generally can do so. Our leaders have said there is no magic in death that changes people.

Sexuality is the one thing people seem to expect to ‘magically’ shift. Thing is that we say this primarily because we don’t have another solution. That is a really dubious reason to believe it will change.

Link to comment
4 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)?

This is such a common question that is begging the question (the rhetorical use of the word, not society’s) that God created us ex Nihilo.

He did not. Did you read that? He did not create us from nothing.  if he did, these questions would actually hold weight.
 

A more accurate term would be “organized”. 
 

It is becoming exhausting to have to re-explain this. Not necessarily to you, but to the “critical” thinkers that are not friendly to the church.

We are co eternal with God (Doctrine and Covenants 93:28). We have always existed. In pre-earth life, each of us made decisions. Some of us were more faithful than others while others made decisions that excluded us from experiencing mortality (Abraham 3:22, Doctrine and Covenants 29:36). Lastly, we live in a fallen world where there are many issues that arise due to use being separate from God.

Who we are today was not determined by God, but by us. Our decisions in pre-mortal life have a direct affect on who we are today. Living in a fallen world causes us to experiences ailments, sickness, disorders, and weakness that we otherwise would not.

We cannot point to God for our weakness because that is the natural state of things. It is something that Thwart God’s plan and make him cease to be God (Alma 42:20-25)

Whether trans, homosexuality, or any of the other experiences people have in the LGBTQ community is a sickness, weakness, or a predisposition from decision in pre-mortality, I do not know.

 

couple quotes:

“God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”

- Joseph Smith


“You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.”

- Joseph Smith

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Fether said:

This is such a common question that is begging the question (the rhetorical use of the word, not society’s) that God created us ex Nihilo.

He did not. Did you read that? He did not create us from nothing.  A more accurate term would be “organized”. 
 

It is becoming exhausting to have to re-explain this. Not necessarily to you, but to the “critical” thinkers that are not friendly to the church.

We are co eternal with God (Doctrine and Covenants 93:28). We have always existed. In pre-earth life, each of us made decisions. Some of us were more faithful than others while others made decisions that excluded us from experiencing mortality (Abraham 3:22, Doctrine and Covenants 29:36). Lastly, we live in a fallen world where there are many issues that arise due to use being separate from God.

Who we are today was not determined by God, but by us. Our decisions in pre-mortal life have a direct affect on who we are today. Living in a fallen world causes us to experiences ailments, sickness, disorders, and weakness that we otherwise would not.

We cannot point to God for our weakness because that is the natural state of things. It is something that Thwart God’s plan and make him cease to be God (Alma 42:20-25)

Whether trans, homosexuality, or any of the other experiences people have in the LGBTQ community is a sickness, weakness, or a predisposition from decision in pre-mortality, I do not know.

 

couple quotes:

“God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself”

- Joseph Smith


“You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.”

- Joseph Smith

No, it's a fair question, even if we account for coeternality, because our intelligences were organised by the creation of our spirits, and we were organised in the creation of a physical world and physical bodies therein. 

So with coeternality there are those elements of our original intelligence combined with God-created spirits and (indirectly) bodies. We know in this framework that God allowed physical defects that will be one day be made whole in the resurrection. 

We are to change and we are to be changed, but in that I think it's fair to say that we're still meant to keep something of our original identities. We're not meant to be completely erased and turned into Borglike believers. Rather we're meant to magnify the goods we are and have been given.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and God knew what choices we would make, and sexuality has options for some people and the environment we would grow up in. I think what you say is reasonable , I wouldn't mind knowing what God knows about sexuality

I think divine knowledge eventually comes by sanctification through grace. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

Thankfully, by grace, the simplicity of the covenants offers a ray of light in the ambiguity of unanswered questions in the meantime. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In his Apr 2013 talk about chastity, Elder Bednar claimed that "[Intimate Relations] are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential." which suggests to me that something about our sexuality is built into our divine nature. If God didn't make it, does that then mean that something about our sexuality transcends God?

In the same talk, Elder Bednar quotes Elder Oaks from Nov. 1993 conference, "The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given his children." Perhaps the "divine" part of our sexuality is limited strictly to reproduction? That just doesn't seem right to me, Human sexuality is so much more than "bring sperm and egg together and gestate the resulting zygote/embryo/fetus/child." As @Duncan said, I wish I knew more of what God knew about human (and divine??) sexuality.

One thing I will add, if it is true that sexuality is "not made by God," then there are a large number of LDS (and broader Christians) who are badly misinformed. Would it be important to disabuse us of our misunderstanding?

 

And if the witness of many to is to be believed, people do feel the Divine spark in queer relationships and in transitioned bodies. Who are we to question their personal witness...

... ESPECIALLY when trans people can do good, love others and queer relationships can and do bear very good fruit for the participants and society at large. The fruit of the tree can be good, so the tree can be good.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it's a fair question, even if we account for coeternality, because our intelligences were organised by the creation of our spirits, and we were organised in the creation of a physical world and physical bodies therein. 

So with coeternality there are those elements of our original intelligence combined with God-created spirits and (indirectly) bodies. We know in this framework that God allowed physical defects that will be one day be made whole in the resurrection. 

We are to change and we are to be changed, but in that I think it's fair to say that we're still meant to keep something of our original identities. We're not meant to be completely erased and turned into Borglike believers. Rather we're meant to magnify the goods we are and have been given.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World does teach that gender is an essential and eternal characteristic of our identity. We know that if we are to become partakers of the same activities that our heavenly parents do, that the model they provide for us is of a male-female relationship and the scriptures afford no other possibility. Given that, I think the idea that one is homosexual from before the get go, even before one's acquires a physical body, is problematic. Then it puts God as having instituted a plan that is incompatible with their eternal natures. In many respects it creates a caste like system, but that can't be for God is no respecter of persons.

So, that does indeed put us in a position that says homosexuality is a by-product of the fallen world in which we live. That seems rather reasonable to me (lots of things are like that). Nonetheless, what would a Savior or someone acting for the Savior say to comfort those that struggle? I have MS (high functioning) and while it can be ornery at times, I wouldn't compare it to having same-sex attraction and being asked to live a celibate life. Calm has some health struggles of some nature or another and while I can't speak for her at all, I suspect she would likewise not put her trials in the same category. The comfort I am given is not the same.

In many ways, I suppose I'm asking the wrong crowed. There are those that are homosexual who have heard the Savior's voice and been given comfort. I can look for it. Anybody have some links?

Link to comment
4 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)?

The Lord testified that there are some citizens of the kingdom of God for whom lives of lifelong celibacy or abstinence — whichever  the case might be — would be a requirement. A great sacrificial offering indeed, but one that will turn out to be much more than worth it in the end.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

It's fairly well-known and well-established that LDS thought classifies homosexual behavior as a sin.  We can have a discussion about whether or not that's appropriate.  But we can't have that discussion if, every time this one sin is compared to other sins, someone takes offense. I've seen it happen dozens of time. 

I understand not wanting to compare homosexual behaviors to murder.  I try to avoid that comparison myself.  Even though I have defended such comparisons as LOGICALLY valid, they are too emotionally charged to generate much light in the ensuing discussion.  But I've also seen posters compare homosexual behaviors to other sexual sins and get the same offended response.  And here, it was compared to some relatively minor sins (greed, selfishness, laziness) and the comparison still draws fire.

Are there ANY sins that LDS commenters can use as a comparison to homosexual behaviors without offending the other side?  If not, then the problem is not with the comparison itself, but with the very belief that such behaviors ought to classified as sins. So, let's have THAT discussion instead of diverting down irrelevant side corridors of which sins can justifiably be compared to other sins. 

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Lord testified that there are some citizens of the kingdom of God for whom lives of lifelong celibacy or abstinence — whichever  the case might be — would be a requirement. A great sacrificial offering indeed, but one that will turn out to be much more than worth it in the end.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

That's not what he is saying. He is saying there are 3 kinds of people not fit for marriage,  3 types of eunuchs as illustrated above. Laws have expanded that though, children, people with mental deficiencies. The 3 types of eunuchs, one is God made, "born from their mother's womb" and 2 other types that Christ didn't seem to favor. All of which says nothing about what will happen in the next life and why would God make someone a eunuch? that still doesn't make any sense. Gay people still have working parts

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World does teach that gender is an essential and eternal characteristic of our identity. We know that if we are to become partakers of the same activities that our heavenly parents do, that the model they provide for us is of a male-female relationship and the scriptures afford no other possibility. Given that, I think the idea that one is homosexual from before the get go, even before one's acquires a physical body, is problematic. Then it puts God as having instituted a plan that is incompatible with their eternal natures. In many respects it creates a caste like system, but that can't be for God is no respecter of persons.

So, that does indeed put us in a position that says homosexuality is a by-product of the fallen world in which we live. That seems rather reasonable to me (lots of things are like that). Nonetheless, what would a Savior or someone acting for the Savior say to comfort those that struggle? I have MS (high functioning) and while it can be ornery at times, I wouldn't compare it to having same-sex attraction and being asked to live a celibate life. Calm has some health struggles of some nature or another and while I can't speak for her at all, I suspect she would likewise not put her trials in the same category. The comfort I am given is not the same.

In many ways, I suppose I'm asking the wrong crowed. There are those that are homosexual who have heard the Savior's voice and been given comfort. I can look for it. Anybody have some links?

Eternal gender can actually be taken as subversive to the no-trans paradigm and it is neutral to the homosexual paradigm. For instance, what if a male spirit is born into a female body? After all, there's no way to object to the fact that God does not always put males in male bodies and females in female bodies, because intersex people exist. (Unless intersex is another gender but that subverts it too.)

That said, the Proclamation might be believed, but it's not necessarily true, especially in the understanding that only male-female marriages are valid to God. It wouldn't be the first time that leaders were mistaken.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment

I agree with all of the "we are here to change and grow and improve and overcome" stuff. To me, the hard part of this question is discerning what are the parts that need changing/improving. I don't believe in Calvin's "total depravity;" I believe we have good and evil tendencies. Change just for the sake of change is not the goal of our existence, but learning to judge good from evil and choose the good. The question that I don't see the Church adequately answering (except through prophetic fiat) is exactly what part of same-sex marriage (or maybe sexual expression in a same sex marriage) needs overcoming to the extent that they would prefer same sex couples not marry (or maybe even date).

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's fairly well-known and well-established that LDS thought classifies homosexual behavior as a sin.  We can have a discussion about whether or not that's appropriate.  But we can't have that discussion if, every time this one sin is compared to other sins, someone takes offense. I've seen it happen dozens of time. 

I understand not wanting to compare homosexual behaviors to murder.  I try to avoid that comparison myself.  Even though I have defended such comparisons as LOGICALLY valid, they are too emotionally charged to generate much light in the ensuing discussion.  But I've also seen posters compare homosexual behaviors to other sexual sins and get the same offended response.  And here, it was compared to some relatively minor sins (greed, selfishness, laziness) and the comparison still draws fire.

Are there ANY sins that LDS commenters can use as a comparison to homosexual behaviors without offending the other side?  If not, then the problem is not with the comparison itself, but with the very belief that such behaviors ought to classified as sins. So, let's have THAT discussion instead of diverting down irrelevant side corridors of which sins can justifiably be compared to other sins. 

Just don't compare it. That's lazy anyway.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In his Apr 2013 talk about chastity, Elder Bednar claimed that "[Intimate Relations] are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential." which suggests to me that something about our sexuality is built into our divine nature. If God didn't make it, does that then mean that something about our sexuality transcends God?

In the same talk, Elder Bednar quotes Elder Oaks from Nov. 1993 conference, "The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given his children." Perhaps the "divine" part of our sexuality is limited strictly to reproduction? That just doesn't seem right to me, Human sexuality is so much more than "bring sperm and egg together and gestate the resulting zygote/embryo/fetus/child." As @Duncan said, I wish I knew more of what God knew about human (and divine??) sexuality.

One thing I will add, if it is true that sexuality is "not made by God," then there are a large number of LDS (and broader Christians) who are badly misinformed. Would it be important to disabuse us of our misunderstanding?

 

Absolutely: something about our divine nature is built into our capacity for sex (human sexuality) by the principle that gender is an essential, eternal characteristic and that we are connected spirit and element, each quickened individually and together by the light of Christ.

A more complete quote of my post better represents my point: “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 [as an attribute] can be stamped, "Made By God." – meaning, I don’t believe that sexual orientation is made by God alone.

Regarding disabuse and miscomprehension, there is a big difference between “sexuality is made by God,” “sexual orientation is made by God,” and “sexual orientation is not made by God alone.” I had previously explained that orientation or attraction are not the same as capacity, and that this capacity for sexual experience and expression (sexuality) is overall the more fundamental and universal attribute of the human "proper and perfect frame" (Alma 40: 23).

I’m not sure what people mean by some members of a family transcending others. We are all in this together as exemplified by our Atoning Savior.

My understanding is that the “power to create mortal life” involves agency and intent, a mind that channels or rejects the light of Christ through a body that co-channels the light of Christ on a different basis -- for better or worse -- and I’m sure this is what was meant in 1993. That talk was about chastity, and sexuality was not directly addressed. Morals, not physiology. The proper moral channeling of our sexuality might be inferred from that talk.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure that all those traits are not going to be automatically fixed in the next life. We are told to work on them here and we generally can do so. Our leaders have said there is no magic in death that changes people.

Sexuality is the one thing people seem to expect to ‘magically’ shift. Thing is that we say this primarily because we don’t have another solution. That is a really dubious reason to believe it will change.

Pretty sure sexual identity s a human social construct that will shift as soon human society changes. Nothing eternal about it. Throughout most of time people had more important things to worry about than classifying their attractions and I am pretty sure people in the next life will have more important things to worry about as well. 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And if the witness of many to is to be believed, people do feel the Divine spark in queer relationships and in transitioned bodies. Who are we to question their personal witness...

... ESPECIALLY when trans people can do good, love others and queer relationships can and do bear very good fruit for the participants and society at large. The fruit of the tree can be good, so the tree can be good.

I don’t take the Church to be second-guessing anyone’s claim of carrying the divine spark; I would say they affirm that all the children of God have it, no matter where they are in relation to the covenant path. This particular talk is about the importance of the law of chastity, and nowhere does it accomplish that by juxtaposing obedience with LGBTQ+ identity.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just don't compare it. That's lazy anyway.


And the accusations that homosexuality occupies some unique position in LDS thought? 

In another thread, one over-the-top poster accused an LDS leader of believing that homosexuality is "the single greatest threat to the souls of humanity."  The defense against that insane accusation is to demonstrate that homosexuality is treated no differently than other sins within the LDS paradigm. 

How does one go about doing that without making any comparisons at all?

 

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's fairly well-known and well-established that LDS thought classifies homosexual behavior as a sin.  We can have a discussion about whether or not that's appropriate.  But we can't have that discussion if, every time this one sin is compared to other sins, someone takes offense. I've seen it happen dozens of time. 

I understand not wanting to compare homosexual behaviors to murder.  I try to avoid that comparison myself.  Even though I have defended such comparisons as LOGICALLY valid, they are too emotionally charged to generate much light in the ensuing discussion.  But I've also seen posters compare homosexual behaviors to other sexual sins and get the same offended response.  And here, it was compared to some relatively minor sins (greed, selfishness, laziness) and the comparison still draws fire.

Are there ANY sins that LDS commenters can use as a comparison to homosexual behaviors without offending the other side?  If not, then the problem is not with the comparison itself, but with the very belief that such behaviors ought to classified as sins. So, let's have THAT discussion instead of diverting down irrelevant side corridors of which sins can justifiably be compared to other sins. 

I believe it should be classified as a sin outside of marriage. So yes, I can classify the behavior as a sin just like it is a sin for heterosexuals to have sexual relations outside of marriage. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Pretty sure sexual identity s a human social construct that will shift as soon human society changes. Nothing eternal about it. Throughout most of time people had more important things to worry about than classifying their attractions and I am pretty sure people in the next life will have more important things to worry about as well. 

They were also worried about being killed, or jailed, or chemically castrated, if they didn’t conform to the norm. Kind of gives people a reason not to put a name to something. 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Calm has some health struggles of some nature or another and while I can't speak for her at all, I suspect she would likewise not put her trials in the same category. The comfort I am given is not the same.

I definitely would not…though I have had rls for so long (don’t remember not having it actually), it is part of my identity, but only my mortal one.  In no way does it feel like it is part of the true me, which is how many and possibly the vast majority of queer individuals feel about their sexuality and gender identity, even if perhaps it is not (I personally don’t think we understand what the eternal gender identity is and we are messing up when we tie it as identical to what is likely a distorted expression of a small part of it).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

They were also worried about being killed, or jailed, or chemically castrated, if they didn’t conform to the norm. Kind of gives people a reason not to put a name to something. 

Its interesting how people just assume that the way they see things now are the way they have always been seen.   

Western colonialism at its finest. 

Link to comment
5 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 just try to be kind to everyone and leave judgment to God.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...