God made me that way...

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

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." 

No, I mean functional knowledge exactly...I think that our emphasis on the importance of temple marriage and commitment to the church along with  marrying young means that we as members have a tendency to develop our functional knowledge of attraction less. It means we will tend to be less aware of what attracts us on an individual basis. And therefore spend less time ensuring personal compatibility before we select our companions. I'd say the church activity compensates some for that as a bond, but it doesn't replace the benefit of actually being attracted mind, body, and soul to each other. Not just in a sexual way but in every way.

I'd say that is a bonus--people who experience it and the church commonality are lucky, those who don't have it don't understand what they're missing. Those who don't value it or place importance on it don't understand those who do.

 

 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

 

Shove the scriptures down everyone’s throats? Really? So now merely providing pertinent quotes from the LDS scriptures for consideration (after all this is an LDS Church discussion board, isn’t it?) is the equivalent to Big Brother forcing people to believe things against their own wills or else?” If you can’t stand to hear the word of God quoted on a forum that’s specifically focused on the religion of the Latter-day Saints, why do you torment yourself by your daily participation here? Has the absurdity of the woke culture now fully come to the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, where quoting scripture and the words of the living prophets is now considered to be an intolerable outrage? What’s next, stoning the prophets? 

Edited July 19, 2022 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Shove the scriptures down everyone’s throats? Really? So now merely providing pertinent quotes from the LDS scriptures for consideration (after all this is an LDS Church discussion board, isn’t it?) is the equivalent to Big Brother forcing people to believe things against their own wills or else?” If you can’t stand to hear the word of God quoted on a forum that’s specifically focused on the religion of the Latter-day Saints, why do you torment yourself by your daily participation here? Has the absurdity of the woke culture now fully come to the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, where quoting scripture and the words of the living prophets is now considered to be an intolerable outrage? What’s next, stoning the prophets? 

if you actually bother to read the scriptures it's called "wrested the scriptures" It's from Alma 41:1, It's the big book in the Book of Mormon. The 41 means it's the 41st chapter , the 1 means it's the first verse in the chapter. Thy are doing wonderful things with psychiatry these days, maybe you should sign up after you buy your tiki torch of course

Edited July 19, 2022 by Duncan

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

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. 

You appear to be equivocating.  Hamba was referencing the concept of "sexual identity," not sexual attraction to persons of one's own sex (i.e.same-sex attraction).

And the innovations are not limited to the 19th century, as people are making up new "sexual identities" on a regular basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours 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.

My son Belicosissimo served in the Afghan war. He observed the Afghani officers having boys available in camp for sexual activity…Bacha bāzī. He said the boys become pariahs in their villages.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Shove the scriptures down everyone’s throats? Really? So now merely providing pertinent quotes from the LDS scriptures for consideration (after all this is an LDS Church discussion board, isn’t it?) is the equivalent to Big Brother forcing people to believe things against their own wills or else?” If you can’t stand to hear the word of God quoted on a forum that’s specifically focused on the religion of the Latter-day Saints, why do you torment yourself by your daily participation here? Has the absurdity of the woke culture now fully come to the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, where quoting scripture and the words of the living prophets is now considered to be an intolerable outrage? What’s next, stoning the prophets? 

Over the decades I’ve witness this board mutate from one that vigorously defended our faith from outside critics and self-declared anti-Mormons to one that aggressively divides our faith among each other. It seems to be the trend elsewhere, too. It’s a sad transition that contradicts the Savior’s imperative to be one. 

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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!

That is a good description of the 'social constructionism' argument, but there is another argument in the unsettled debate from the side of the 'essentialists'.

Quote

Essentialists claim that categories of sexual attraction are observed rather than created. For example, while ancient Greece did not have terms that correspond to the heterosexual/homosexual division, persons did note men who were only attracted to person of a specific sex, hence the lack of terminology need not be taken as evidence of a lack of continuity in categories. Through history and across cultures there are consistent features, albeit with meaningful variety over time and space, in sexual attraction to the point that it makes sense of speak of specific sexual orientations. According to this view, homosexuality is a specific, natural kind rather than a cultural or historical product. Essentialists allow that there are cultural differences in how homosexuality is expressed and interpreted, but they emphasize that this does not prevent it from being a universal category of human sexual expression.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#HisDeb

The article I linked to does a good job of outlining and contrasting the different historiographical arguments/debates.

It seems that the social constructionists argue the cause is a product of 'nurture', while essentialists lean more towards 'nature' as the cause.  I am not confident that the debate is so clearly settled.  I personally don't think one or the other is 100% explanatory, and think it is more likely that both nature and nurture play a role.  I simply cannot dismiss the role of nature, it seems more explanatory to me in many cases historical and modern.  

Beyond historical and anthropologist debates, there is the scientific research into the issue which points to "substantial heritability" and possible epigenetic influences. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23397798/

https://www.science.org/content/article/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18530

Edited July 19, 2022 by pogi

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

I'm not saying it isn't real.

What is your point? Because what is also in my head is that your statement makes no sense to me.  Everything in my life is in my head.

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I mean functional knowledge exactly...I think that our emphasis on the importance of temple marriage and commitment to the church along with  marrying young means that we as members have a tendency to develop our functional knowledge of attraction less. It means we will tend to be less aware of what attracts us on an individual basis. And therefore spend less time ensuring personal compatibility before we select our companions. I'd say the church activity compensates some for that as a bond, but it doesn't replace the benefit of actually being attracted mind, body, and soul to each other. Not just in a sexual way but in every way.

I'd say that is a bonus--people who experience it and the church commonality are lucky, those who don't have it don't understand what they're missing. Those who don't value it or place importance on it don't understand those who do.

 

 

Or go the way of arranged marriages and commit to each other to make it work.

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Over the decades I’ve witness this board mutate from one that vigorously defended our faith from outside critics and self-declared anti-Mormons to one that aggressively divides our faith among each other. It seems to be the trend elsewhere, too. It’s a sad transition that contradicts the Savior’s imperative to be one. 

 

Growth isn't always comfortable.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Shove the scriptures down everyone’s throats? Really? So now merely providing pertinent quotes from the LDS scriptures for consideration (after all this is an LDS Church discussion board, isn’t it?) is the equivalent to Big Brother forcing people to believe things against their own wills or else?” If you can’t stand to hear the word of God quoted on a forum that’s specifically focused on the religion of the Latter-day Saints, why do you torment yourself by your daily participation here? Has the absurdity of the woke culture now fully come to the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, where quoting scripture and the words of the living prophets is now considered to be an intolerable outrage? What’s next, stoning the prophets? 

Your martyrdom fetish is getting a little out of hand.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is a good description of the 'social constructionism' argument, but there is another argument in the unsettled debate from the side of the 'essentialists'.

The article I linked to does a good job of outlining and contrasting the different historiographical arguments/debates.

It seems that the social constructionists argue the cause is a product of 'nurture', while essentialists lean more towards 'nature' as the cause.  I am not confident that the debate is so clearly settled.  I personally don't think one or the other is 100% explanatory, and think it is more likely that both nature and nurture play a role.  I simply cannot dismiss the role of nature, it seems more explanatory to me in many cases historical and modern.  

Beyond historical and anthropologist debates, there is the scientific research into the issue which points to "substantial heritability" and possible epigenetic influences. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23397798/

https://www.science.org/content/article/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18530

Another point of view is the morality of honouring someone else's perspective about themselves. Of course there must be considerations beyond that, like how much we'll act to respect it--those costs aren't always assumable. But there is the possibility there of constructing morality out of the premise of personal perspective, ours and everyone else's.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Growth isn't always comfortable.

Depends on what the definition of “growth” is.

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Depends on what the definition of “growth” is.

Good growth is challenging and difficult. It requires teachableness and soft heartedness. 

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Good growth is challenging and difficult. It requires teachableness and soft heartedness. 

Still depends on your definition.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[OGHoosier]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I mean functional knowledge exactly...I think that our emphasis on the importance of temple marriage and commitment to the church along with  marrying young means that we as members have a tendency to develop our functional knowledge of attraction less. It means we will tend to be less aware of what attracts us on an individual basis. And therefore spend less time ensuring personal compatibility before we select our companions. I'd say the church activity compensates some for that as a bond, but it doesn't replace the benefit of actually being attracted mind, body, and soul to each other. Not just in a sexual way but in every way.

I'd say that is a bonus--people who experience it and the church commonality are lucky, those who don't have it don't understand what they're missing. Those who don't value it or place importance on it don't understand those who do.

 

 

In other words, we neglect to sufficiently reflect on our own appetites? 

Miss me with that one. I am one of the young people you describe. I know all about my attractions that I care to know. I suspect you will respond that I don't know what I am missing. I respond in turn that I don't care. If I never know, it does not take away what I now have. If the opportunity cost of having more time with spouse and family is a less fine-tuned sense of my own attractions (as if those were set in stone), then that cost is one I will gladly pay. 

Quote

I'd say the church activity compensates some for that as a bond, but it doesn't replace the benefit of actually being attracted mind, body, and soul to each other. Not just in a sexual way but in every way.

Funny, I don't see there really being a lack there. Perhaps your experience is different - if so, I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to take your judgement on the matter as dispositive. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

In other words, we neglect to sufficiently reflect on our own appetites? 

Miss me with that one. I am one of the young people you describe. I know all about my attractions that I care to know. I suspect you will respond that I don't know what I am missing. I respond in turn that I don't care. If I never know, it does not take away what I now have. If the opportunity cost of having more time with spouse and family is a less fine-tuned sense of my own attractions (as if those were set in stone), then that cost is one I will gladly pay. 

Funny, I don't see there really being a lack there. Perhaps your experience is different - if so, I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to take your judgement on the matter as dispositive. 

Nor is your experience and judgment necessarily representative of the whole. You are a sample size of 1.

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Nor is your experience and judgment necessarily representative of the whole. You are a sample size of 1.

Your point being...

Meadowchik made a statement about a hypothetical structural effect of the Church's praxis regarding marriage. She offered no backup, which leads me to presume lived experience. My own lived experience disagrees. Therefore, what am I supposed to take from the observation that my sample size is 1?

Edited July 19, 2022 by OGHoosier

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Your point being...

Meadowchik made a statement about a hypothetical structural effect of the Church's praxis regarding marriage. She offered no backup, which leads me to presume lived experience. My own lived experience disagrees. Therefore, what am I supposed to take from the observation that my sample size is 1?

That generalizing your own experience onto everyone else, as a sort of retort to Meadowchick, is likely folly.

[OGHoosier]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That generalizing your own experience onto everyone else, as a sort of retort to Meadowchick, is likely folly.

I'm doing my best to avoid being too flippant, so I will simply say this:

Meadowchik offers a hypothesis about how the church impacts perception. I state that I don't think the Church has had that impact, and if so, it's a price I'm well willing to pay. And you come out accusing me of "generalizing my experience onto everyone else" as if Meadowchik's hypothesis was not offered as a similar generalization and normative statement on what is good. In short, her sample size of 1 is enough, but mine isn't apparently. 

If this is folly, then I am unrepentant. 

Edit: philosophically controversial opinion here, but I might as well out and state it - all normative statements, or statements about what is good, are generalizations of our own experience, no matter how many degrees removed it might be. Generalization is de facto permissible and is in fact necessary for human social skills to function. If you don't agree with the generalized statement, then you are free to say so, as I did. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by OGHoosier

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Nofear said:

cool, we cited the same source

I too found it ironic that you used that as a source. I just wasn’t sure if it was intentional.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm doing my best to avoid being too flippant, so I will simply say this:

Meadowchik offers a hypothesis about how the church impacts perception. I state that I don't think the Church has had that impact, and if so, it's a price I'm well willing to pay. And you come out accusing me of "generalizing my experience onto everyone else" as if Meadowchik's hypothesis was not offered as a similar generalization and normative statement on what is good. In short, her sample size of 1 is enough, but mine isn't apparently. 

If this is folly, then I am unrepentant. 

Let me expand, and the fault may be mine because I know exactly what Meadowchick is talking about but didn't say so. Recognizing that my observations are anecdotal, it has been my experience that many people who leave the church soon discover the ways in which growing up in the church and following the aforementioned pattern resulted in stunted emotional development. The statement made by Meadowchick is consistent with what I have both seen and heard from quite a number of former members, both individually and collectively.

[The Nehor]

20 hours 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.

You may have skipped a few things in the Bible.

[OGHoosier]

27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let me expand, and the fault may be mine because I know exactly what Meadowchick is talking about but didn't say so. Recognizing that my observations are anecdotal, it has been my experience that many people who leave the church soon discover the ways in which growing up in the church and following the aforementioned pattern resulted in stunted emotional development. The statement made by Meadowchick is consistent with what I have both seen and heard from quite a number of former members, both individually and collectively.

I see. Thank you for clarifying. 

I regard the concept of "stunted emotional development" with considerable suspicion. Namely, I think it imports teleological suppositions to which it has no claim. The usage of the term "development" denotes a normative, progressive process - development can only be measured directionally, or where one stands relative to a projected direction of change. Simple change would better be described as "evolution" or some such equivalent - "development" implies that there is a state which one should attain and towards which one progresses. It's not possible to get there without a mass of normative statements, re generalizations.

When it comes to "emotional development", any statement of what one should attain is going to be a normative statement - which defaults to being a generalization of one's own opinion. For myself, I have no desire to further explore my own attractions. I'd rather get on with the purpose for which they were given - a teleological approach which my theistic worldview makes possible. Further consideration just seems like navel-gazing, and if I lose out on benefits oh well - I cannot lose what I didn't care to get in the first place. I reject the claim that the life I intend to live will be one of "stunted emotional development," because I do not share the premises regarding what our emotions are supposed to be developing towards and how far we should go along that path. And I have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in the morass of modern sexual life, in part because I see it as overly concerned with the self. 

There is no escaping the generalization of one's own experience here for either side, so I won't bother to avoid it. I will simply state that I have different priorities for my emotional evolution. I do not regard them as "stunted" in the way you appear to. I believe there are limits to the virtue and reliability of introspection. And I outright reject the claim that your's and Meadowchik's interpretation of emotional evolution is and ought to be accepted as a general rule. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I see. Thank you for clarifying. 

I regard the concept of "stunted emotional development" with considerable suspicion. Namely, I think it imports teleological suppositions to which it has no claim. The usage of the term "development" denotes a normative, progressive process - development can only be measured directionally, or where one stands relative to a projected direction of change. Simple change would better be described as "evolution" or some such equivalent - "development" implies that there is a state which one should attain and towards which one progresses. It's not possible to get there without a mass of normative statements, re generalizations.

When it comes to "emotional development", any statement of what one should attain is going to be a normative statement - which defaults to being a generalization of one's own opinion. For myself, I have no desire to further explore my own attractions. I'd rather get on with the purpose for which they were given - a teleological approach which my theistic worldview makes possible. Further consideration just seems like navel-gazing, and if I lose out on benefits oh well - I cannot lose what I didn't care to get in the first place. I reject the claim that the life I intend to live will be one of "stunted emotional development," because I do not share the premises regarding what our emotions are supposed to be developing towards and how far we should go along that path. And I have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in the morass of modern sexual life, in part because I see it as overly concerned with the self. 

There is no escaping the generalization of one's own experience here for either side, so I won't bother to avoid it. I will simply state that I have different priorities for my emotional evolution. I do not regard them as "stunted" in the way you appear to. I believe there are limits to the virtue and reliability of introspection. And I outright reject the claim that your's and Meadowchik's interpretation of emotional evolution is and ought to be accepted as a general rule. 

One way to look at it is simply that a general church rule takes precedence over personal preferences. Do you disagree?

I say that there is a consequence to subjecting our own personal preferences to a general normative rule.