God made me that way...

[CV75]

6 hours 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?

Regarding the bolded, I would say that the intensity and prioritization of sexuality (or any other attribute such as health, intellect or circumstance -- or the capacity to control them) over other attributes to the point of sin is a by-product of a fallen world. If it wasn't for that, orientation, attraction and celibacy; illness, disadvantage and injustice would all be well-managed from a covenant perspective. The covenants are a by-product of an exalted world extended into a fallen world to overcome the byproducts of that world. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by CV75

[OGHoosier]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

LDS context attraction really is de-emphasized, which results in people not understanding it

We don't know what causes it. Its proper role is disputed among cultures. What is there to "understand?"

I cannot help but feel that "not understanding" in this sentence does not denote a lack of functional knowledge, but rather connotes a lack of a certain attitude, as would be emphasized by your follow-up statement that we place "relatively little value on it." 

Edited July 18, 2022 by OGHoosier

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I didn't say you made a conscious choice to be gay, I said it exists in your mind.

If you don't tell me you are gay, How will I know? is there a blood test? Tissue Samples? 

 

Seriously?  You are doubling down on "being gay is just in my head".  Hilarious 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I know many people who choose to marry people they were attracted to and the marriage failed miserably.  I know people who were married off as children as part of an arranged marriage who's marriages have succeeded. Attraction won't save marriages in trouble, and strong marriages will survive lack of sexual attraction. In the past (and still in many cultures) marriages were made because of economic necessity.  If one remains married long enough, their spouse will not remain attractive, at least not in the sexual sense.  Sexual attraction is important in our culture today, but it hasn't always been that way and I see no reason to expect it to be that way in the eternities. 

Of course, anyone who has made it to the celestial kingdom will be attractive to anyone both male and female for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.  If someone makes it there they will be the kindest, most pure hearted, courageous, faithful, compassionate person one could imagine (probably more attractive than we can imagine). Who wouldn't find that attractive.  Add to that perfected, restricted body.

 

To answer your last question, People who are willing and able to make covenants in the temple should be allowed to do so.  If someone identifies in a way that prevents them from making and keeping those covenants, then they should not make those covenants until they are ready.  That goes for anyone, regardless who they find attractive.  If they want to make these covenants, those covenants need to be more important to them than their physical urges.  That goes for hetrosexual urges as well as homosexual urges. 

Sexual attraction to a gender (or a person) usually also offers the possibility or romantic and affectionate attraction. This is what survives when sexual attraction lessens or goes away though from what I hear about the sexual antics in retirement communities I have my doubts about you saying sexual attraction inevitably dies. I also doubt most people would be content with either a husband or a wife in their old age to give that companionship in old age just because sexual attraction died. I believe it was California Boy who said he offered to Church leaders to live a platonic life with what amounted to an affectionate male roommate/partner but was told that would not be acceptable.

I also question what determines a successful or a failed marriage. Longevity is not necessarily a success. It might just mean divorce was impossible or only marginally worse than staying together. And yes, love matches were the exception rather than the rule in much of recorded history but that doesn’t make it ideal. In those successful marriages were they basically just people bound by duty with no affection for each other when it succeeded or were they fortunate enough to develop romance or at least affection? You realize you are suggesting that people marry with virtually no potential for any feelings like that to develop. At best you might develop a friendship with a very suboptimal sex life.

By your logic there is little point in eternal sealings. Instead you could just make a covenant to be faithful in this life and then since everyone will be perfectly attractive get a random other person who qualified for exaltation to be your spouse. Why keep the same person at all? Clearly those who love the teaching of eternal marriage because they love their spouse and children are just not thinking on an exalted enough level. They could have any spouse and be happy. In fact we could randomly assign children for the eternities too since all the exalted people would make ideal children. Those poor simpletons in the early days of the church that rejoiced that their beloved spouse could be theirs forever were really just emotionally driven fools?

And finally the implication that if they would just stop identifying as gay a marriage would be fine. Go ahead and doom someone else to a life of never feeling desired. I have spent a fair amount of time interacting with and supporting people who are just “coming out”. Some are naive, some are terrified, some finally feel whole for the first time, some are just confused, and some are resigned. The worst and the most heart-rending are the ones who hate themselves, believe their parents and family and friends will hate them, and are convinced God hates them, and will do almost anything if it will cure them and make them straight. Well, maybe second worst. The worst may be the ones who are terrified because they know anyone finding out means familial rejection, loss of economic and social support, and probably homelessness. Then you who presumably have never experienced anything like this wander in and suggest if they would just reject a specific identity everything will be fine. Please don’t do that. You’re NOT HELPING!

Edited July 19, 2022 by The Nehor

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm glad that is working for you. The same sense of grace and tolerance that leads me to accept same sex marriages as being just as worthy as my own also leads me to accept marriages where the couple is happy to be less sexual or even Platonic.

I'm finding as I'm getting older (about half a century now), that my attraction to my wife's celestial attributes is just as strong as it has always been, and my attraction to her sexual attributes is just as strong as it has ever been. I think we need to be careful not to assume that one cannot be attracted to both sexual and celestial attributes -- that it is some kind of dichotomy or zero sum game. I don't know, either, what sexuality looks like in the next life. I know many LDS who believe that sexuality gets a boost in the Celestial Kingdom rather than fading into oblivion, and many of them would cite their continually increasing attraction to their spouse as their relationship thrives. Sometimes I wonder if St. Augustine was ultimately correct -- that, within Celestial perfection, our ability to choose attraction and sexual function and activity and whatever will become perfected. As a couple, we can perfectly choose how much (if any) and what type and everything else about our level of attraction and desire and sexual activities. The point is, I think we need to be careful not to create a false dichotomy in this estate between sexuality and spirituality (I hear rumblings that Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife is working on a book with the intended thesis of breaking down the false dichotomy between sexuality and spirituality).

I don't know either how important Sexual behavior will be in the Celestial Kingdom, and like you, anything we do in the Celestial kingdom will be Celestial in nature.

The scriptures and the church have encouraged us to develop many Celestial Attributes.  Charity, Forgiveness, Sacrifice, Repentance, Longsuffering, Patience, Self Control, mercy, Trust in God and in Christ, to name a few. Observing the law of chastity and the higher law of the gospel is one of the things that is emphasized as well.   

I don't really see much emphasis in developing sexual practices and attractiveness,  which leads me to believe that if it exists in the Celestial Kingdom, it is of a secondary or lesser importance than the attributes we are instructed to develop. 

In the end we strive for "Thy will be done"

Too many here seem to be "My will be done" (because God made me that way)

I believe there will be many relationships with many different people of different sexes in the celestial kingdom.  Any righteous relationship here will exist there.  All of us will be sealed to each other. 

 

 

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriously?  You are doubling down on "being gay is just in my head".  Hilarious 

If it is not in your head, where is it?

I'm not saying it isn't real.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Same sex sex has been here as long as sex has, but the idea that there is some absolute, eternal, gendered attraction that is the most important part of ones existence. that is a recent cultural phenomenon. 

What culture is this?

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are very recent inventions which can be fairly easily traced. 

It is interesting that you assume what exists in our culture must exist everywhere because . .   because.

Because we have records about people exclusively attracted to their own gender. They existed. They still exist. You keep jumping to the newness of identifying words as if that explains away the problem. 

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

This whole thread is about what is going to happen to people with sexual attractions that when acted upon, violate the commandments of God.  People think that their attractions and acting on them is so important they should forgo the covenant path to fulfil their "needs"

 I just don't think fulfilling sexual needs is going to be all that important in the celestial kingdom.

And we are back to reducing attraction down to sex to caricature it.

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also question what determines a successful or a failed marriage. Longevity is not necessarily a success. It might just mean divorce was impossible or only marginally worse than staying together. And yes, love matches were the exception rather than the rule in much of recorded history but that doesn’t make it ideal. In those successful marriages were they basically just people bound by duty with no affection for each other when it succeeded or were they fortunate enough to develop romance or at least affection? You realize you are suggesting that people marry with virtually no potential for any feelings like that to develop. At best you might develop a friendship with a very suboptimal sex life but 

what makes a marriage successful is what you do after the wedding more than why you got married.

The ones I know personally, weren't "Fortunate enough to develop romance or at least affections" they worked hard at it.

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because we have records about people exclusively attracted to their own gender. They existed. They still exist. You keep jumping to the newness of identifying words as if that explains away the problem. 

If what you say is true it should be easy enough to produce records of people who considered themselves as having, fixed gendered sexual identities prior to the late 19th century.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Attraction still exists, but not as much in a sexual way.

As I get older, there will always be newer models that are more attractive to me in a purely sexual way, however as I grow older, being attritive in a sexual way just isn't as important is it used to be.   

This is one of the reasons I don't really think sexual attraction will be that big a deal in the life to come.  Already in my life it is becoming less important.  

I am much more attracted to my wife's "celestial" attributes (Kindness, love selflessness generosity) than her "Sexual" attributes.

Just my experience. 

We have been told we will be resurrected ‘in our prime’. Extrapolating the nature of an everlasting body in eternity from changes in your own body as it deteriorates seems dubious at best. By this standard senility shows that the ability to think clearly is not a big deal in the life to come. I would argue that it instead argues that age is cruel.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have been told we will be resurrected ‘in our prime’. Extrapolating the nature of an everlasting body in eternity from changes in your own body as it deteriorates seems dubious at best. By this standard senility shows that the ability to think clearly is not a big deal in the life to come. I would argue that it instead argues that age is cruel.

If  it is that important, then there obviously needs to be more emphasis in the church on sexual performance. They seemed to have omitted that part our eternal progression in scriptures and the teachings of the modern prophets.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If  it is that important, then there obviously needs to be more emphasis in the church on sexual performance. They seemed to have omitted that part our eternal progression in scriptures and the teachings of the modern prophets.

I was taught this at BYU:

 

”if you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorneys, but that is the reason. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p. 312.)”

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

what makes a marriage successful is what you do after the wedding more than why you got married.

The ones I know personally, weren't "Fortunate enough to develop romance or at least affections" they worked hard at it.

Yes, and if there is no possibility of romantic or sexual interest how well do you think that will go?

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I think the Savior's would respond the same way as he would to a practicing heterosexual.

Come, Follow me

Take my yoke upon you

Repent and be baptized. 

He would have us be saved from our sins, not in our sins. 

 

Overall, trust in him, for he is mighty to save. 

Have homosexual attraction isn't a sin and so one couldn't be "saved" from having those feelings in the same way. Fortunately, the atonement does much, much more than simply cover sins. As I asked the question of what the Savior would say, the thought kept going into the back of my head that it would really depend on the individual involved. With his all encompassing knowledge and empathy, he would tailor the message for what the individual could and would hear. And by and large, the message would indeed, come, follow me.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Likewise a same sex couple can have a similar experience, where there is less emphasis on sexual attraction and other lovely attributes become most attractive.

Apparently lesbian death bed is a thing. /shrug

Edited July 19, 2022 by Nofear

[JLHPROF]

God didn't make us the way we are.  The fall did.

There's not a person on the planet that was born without inherent flaws, weakness, predisposed to one sin or another.

It's completely false to say because we were born a certain way that's what God intended for us.  Quite the opposite.  The entire point of existence is to overcome the fall we were born into and become like God.

Just because someone chooses to accept their fallen nature doesn't change the plan to move beyond it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I am confused.  Are you suggesting that because there was no term for it, it didn't exist and is only a modern invention?

That sexual identity of all kinds (including much of what we would label 'attraction') is a novel late 19th-century social construct is not a controversial point amongst historians, anthropologists or linguists, including queer ones (some of whom have even written on the topic).

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That sexual identity of all kinds (including much of what we would label 'attraction') is a novel late 19th-century social construct is not a controversial point amongst historians, anthropologists or linguists, including queer ones (some of whom have even written on the topic).

I am glad for that then because now no one will be throwing OT, NT or DC verses against gay people if gayness didn't exist until the late 19th century. IIRC that's the Edward Shorter theory of this. I think he's wrong

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Apparently lesbian death bed is a thing. /shrug

Also an exaggerated thing based on really old studies and a survey of frequency of sex without defining it. Anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy sees why lesbians might report lower rates of sex if you stick to very specific things that must happen for it to qualify as sex as many people would back in the 80s when the data supporting this theory was collected.

Lesbian bed death is mostly regarded as a popular myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_bed_death

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am glad for that then because now no one will be throwing OT, NT or DC verses against gay people if gayness didn't exist until the late 19th century.

I'm unaware of any verses in the OT, NT, or D&C that address 'gayness' or 'straightness' as identities as opposed to same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behaviour. There's a very good reason for that: it would be an anachronism.

Quote

IIRC that's the Edward Shorter theory of this. I think he's wrong.

I spent 14.5 years of my life associating closely with fellow historians, anthropologists and linguists across three universities on two different continents. I was awarded my PhD in history at a university whose postgraduate history program was then ranked fourth in the world. I'm not making up what the consensus is.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Nofear]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also an exaggerated thing based on really old studies and a survey of frequency of sex without defining it. Anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy sees why lesbians might report lower rates of sex if you stick to very specific things that must happen for it to qualify as sex as many people would back in the 80s when the data supporting this theory was collected.

Lesbian bed death is mostly regarded as a popular myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_bed_death

 

cool, we cited the same source

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm unaware of any verses in the OT, NT, or D&C that address 'gayness' or 'straightness' as identities as opposed to same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behaviour. There's a very good reason for that: it would be an anachronism.

you would say "gayness" or "straightness" isn't the same as sexual behaviour? how does that work? I am pleased to read that we can call off this nonsense of throwing scriptures at homosexuals condemning them for something that they historically never were, big waste of time

 

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I spent 14.5 years of my life associating closely with fellow historians, anthropologists and linguists across three universities on two different continents. I was awarded my PhD in history at a university whose postgraduate history program was then ranked fourth in the world. I'm not making up what the consensus is.

I get that but you also know that historians rarely agree on anything. take for example Louis Riel, Canadian founding father or traitor? Historians are on all sides of that issue. FWIW I only heard about the Edward Shorter theory from a historian who doesn't believe it.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

Surely you must have evidence for gendered sexual identity that predates the mid 19th century? 

Perhaps we should hear your research in how sexual identity was viewed in the past.  How common it was, how important it was.

There is plenty of physically testable evidence for downs Syndrome.   Lets discuss the evidence for fixed,  gendered sexual attraction.  Since you view it as an eternal attribute, part of the human condition, there should be plenty of evidence.  Not everyone was Christian, you know, some cultures regularly practiced same sex behavior. They can't all have failed to notice this  thing, most important above all other things that is so powerful that it dooms part of humanity to misery if they can't consumate this desire.

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That sexual identity of all kinds (including much of what we would label 'attraction') is a novel late 19th-century social construct is not a controversial point amongst historians, anthropologists or linguists, including queer ones (some of whom have even written on the topic).

 

I understand that the concept of sexual identity of all kinds is a social construct novel to the late 19th century - including heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc.   This fact is not in question.  While these terms and identities are modern social constructs, clearly the traits and attractions that contribute to these modern identities are ancient.  Do we disagree on that?  

There are all sorts of novel modern identities that are social constructs based on human traits.  Though these modern identities are novel and modern, the human traits they are based on are as ancient as time.  For example, there is the color code where people identify as either red, blue, white, or yellow.  While such identities did not exist in the ancient world, and while these identities are all just human constructs, the traits that contribute to these modern identities and terms are ancient.  I don't think it is any different with modern sexual identities which are based on ancient traits/attractions/characteristics. 

Danzo, please don't put words in my mouth.   I never said anything about eternal attributes (that is beyond my scope of knowledge and experience) but yes, these traits (the nature of attraction to different sexes) are part of the human condition, and always has been.  I think that is beyond dispute.  

Our language evolved, not our very human traits.  Our language forms our identities.  Without the language, the identities don't exist.  But that is to say nothing of the traits themselves.  

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1790/lgbtq-in-the-ancient-world/

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you would say "gayness" or "straightness" isn't the same as sexual behaviour? how does that work?

Exactly. The former is an identity -- fixed, gendered, and sexual (i.e., based on the assumption that attraction is sexual). The other is just something that happens in a variety of contexts. For example, in many pre-Christian Melanesian societies, all boys engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour with adult male mentors before growing up and marrying women.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

While these terms and identities are modern social constructs, clearly the traits and attractions that contribute to these modern identities are ancient.  Do we disagree on that?

Yes, fully disagree on that. Sexuality, gender, and even 'attraction' have been socially constructed in a bewildering array of different ways across both space (culture) and time (history). None of this is even remotely universal.

Totalising discourses always seek to mask their genealogies by creating/supporting/propagating narratives that they have 'always already' existed. Critically seeing through those claims is precisely what good historians, anthropologists and other researchers do.

Prophets too!

Edited July 19, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly. The former is an identity -- fixed, gendered, and sexual (i.e., based on the assumption that attraction is sexual). The other is just something that happens in a variety of contexts. For example, in many pre-Christian Melanesian societies, all boys engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour with adult male mentors before growing up and marrying women.

I am going to use this the next time some homophobic numnut on here shoves scriptures down everyone's throats, thanks!

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Duncan