Jump to content

God made me that way...


Recommended Posts

So I am saying that in denying ourselves our own personal rules of attraction, we are more likely to expect others to do the same. 

Link to comment
1 hour 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 have seen this as well. FTR record, I do think my parents were an exception--they really do seem that they were in love from the beginning and until their last moments together. 

But Mormons tend to get married young and fast. And several generations of us were taught that any man and woman, if righteous, can find happiness together. That's pretty much being taught that our personal preferences will give way to the blessings of obedience, and that will make us a happy couple.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have seen this as well. FTR record, I do think my parents were an exception--they really do seem that they were in love from the beginning and until their last moments together. 

But Mormons tend to get married young and fast. And several generations of us were taught that any man and woman, if righteous, can find happiness together. That's pretty much being taught that our personal preferences will give way to the blessings of obedience, and that will make us a happy couple.

This was me, as well. Ultimately, it didn't work.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Actually, I do disagree with this frame. I'd say the "general church rule" (inasmuch as it actually exists) shapes personal preferences, as opposed to taking precedence over them. In order to accept the "taking precedence" frame, I would have to accept that people's preferences in marriage timing and the "church rule" were in a state of discord. I just don't see it among my peers. Sure, I don't have third-person omniscience, but that observation does not affirm the proposition that my peers who are getting married are secretly chafing at the fact and would have waited longer were it not for some "general church rule." Absent such a conflict, I would say that no, I don't think the general rule "takes precedence" over personal preferences; they are the same in the majority of cases. 

But that's frankly beating around the bush compared to the real question: yeah, I think it's fine to subject personal preferences to normative rules. Society is built on that principle, and I'm not just talking about criminal law and order. Individual behaviors scale to society-wide effects; therefore, an organization seeking a society with certain characteristics has every right to declare that certain preferences are to be subjected to normative rules if that society is to be realized. Never mind that day-to-day human behavior is regulated by the same sort of principles. Antinomianism is the province of anarchists, not world builders.

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment

I thought to add this to my previous comment, but it would be better to add it separately. 

What do you mean to say by "general church rule takes precedence over personal preferences?" If you're talking about personal preferences in marriage timing, then I have already registered my disagreement. What if, however, you mean that "general church rule about getting married takes precedence over developing one's personal preferences?" If so, then I would say that most people in the church do not view it in such an adversarial manner, I do not view it in such an adversarial manner, I do not think it should be viewed in such an adversarial manner, and I reject your frame. We again bog down in questions of "how much of our personal preferences do we need fleshed out in order to be happy?" I think there's a serious problem of diminishing returns there, and in any case, I very much doubt that things would get better for most people were the church to drop its strong support of conjugal marriage. I see marriage as a good, and I don't see it doing particularly well out there.

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

There are also consequences to not subjecting our personal preferences to general normative rules, aka commandments or laws.  Unless you are a social and spiritual anarchist, you believe in subjecting yourself to general normative rules to some degree. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So I am saying that in denying ourselves our own personal rules of attraction, we are more likely to expect others to do the same. 

If you are only speaking of personal preferences or "rules" of attraction, than I agree that it is personal.  There are no rules.  I don't think people really have control over who or what they are attracted to for the most part.  We can only control how we react to our attractions.  I do believe that some attractions should be fully and completely bridled - to children, animals, etc.  I don't think attraction is a sacred right that we should feel free to on act without restraint. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

I worked with a Persian woman who grew up in Los Angeles who was married to an Iranian in an arranged marriage.  She said they happy in marriage.  She said she had dated a bit, but knew of her family expectations.  

If I remember correctly, the research shows the modern arranged marriages are pretty successful and report high levels of love and affection between the spouses. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

I worked with a Persian woman who grew up in Los Angeles who was married to an Iranian in an arranged marriage.  She said they happy in marriage.  She said she had dated a bit, but knew of her family expectations.  

If I remember correctly, the research shows the modern arranged marriages are pretty successful and report high levels of love and affection between the spouses. 

That research would be interesting as all get out. It was the norm for most of Western history, but I've found myself unable to believe that romance (or some variation on our concept of romance) was a dead letter throughout all that time. Would be relevant to the question of how sociopolitical context effects attractions. If your assessment is accurate it would probably weaken the expressive individualist position. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

That research would be interesting as all get out. It was the norm for most of Western history, but I've found myself unable to believe that romance (or some variation on our concept of romance) was a dead letter throughout all that time. Would be relevant to the question of how sociopolitical context effects attractions. If your assessment is accurate it would probably weaken the expressive individualist position. 

The research I read 10 or so years ago was that because the families were involved, they worked hard to find a good match and capable spouses.  And the couple had an obligation to their families deeper than in the typical Western marriage. 

That coworker and her husband were both Muslim, but not overly so.   She said she met him on the wedding day and they just learned about each other and fell in love over time.   

In such a situation, someone rarely leaves because they no longer are "in love" with their spouse.  Because it isn't a relationship begun out of attraction or passion, it has room to grow inside. 

I don't think I would have liked to be in an arranged marriage, but maybe we are just all missing out.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

The research I read 10 or so years ago was that because the families were involved, they worked hard to find a good match and capable spouses.  And the couple had an obligation to their families deeper than in the typical Western marriage. 

That coworker and her husband were both Muslim, but not overly so.   She said she met him on the wedding day and they just learned about each other and fell in love over time.   

In such a situation, someone rarely leaves because they no longer are "in love" with their spouse.  Because it isn't a relationship begun out of attraction or passion, it has room to grow inside. 

I don't think I would have liked to be in an arranged marriage, but maybe we are just all missing out.

My mother and father in law had an arranged marriage.  He was 18, she was 14 at the time.   According to my mother in law she and her husband moved in with her husband's family and her husbands family continued raising her.  (Her own father had passed away when she was little and her mother couldn't take care of her very well, which was part of the reason she was married so young, normally in their culture they would get married about 16 or 17)

Their marriage is still going strong 7 children, 20 grand children and 5 Great Grand children.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

But I used it first. :P

 

PS: For the record, I wasn't trying to be too serious with the lesbian death bed comment... quite the opposite in actuality.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

But I used it first. :P

 

PS: For the record, I wasn't trying to be too serious with the lesbian death bed comment... quite the opposite in actuality.

That was what I meant by the irony being intentional. ;) 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair to that teaching which came mostly from President Kimball he grew up with a different playbook. He grew up in the era of courtship and even semi-arranged marriages. The word “date” as in modern dating was first used the year after he was born and dating was basically seen as a cover for prostitution. Dating didn’t become at all normal until the 20s and didn’t become common until after the Second World War. Surveys show that both men and women ranked what we would call romance as way down on their list of priorities in a good spouse in the late 19th century but by the 60s and 70s it was #1 on both lists. President Kimball didn’t disapprove of love in marriage but he was raised in a culture that valued it much lower than every generation still alive in the United States today. In that context his advice is less harsh.

I am not 100% sure which approach is better. I personally favor the current approach but I am biased by taking it in from birth. The irony is that this culture is what allowed the lgbt community to flourish. For this also I am very grateful. I would probably be even more messed up than I am now in a culture in which I couldn’t contextualize my desires as easily as I can now.

The thing about that context is that it wasn't carried over in the teaching of it later for however many decades it was repeated.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

I think we as a culture, society, tribe put way too much emphasis and concern on sexual preferences based on gender. The sexual spectrum is incredibly diverse, but it is easy to focus on a binary (or 3 class) view. Being attracted to a specific gender is one way to slice it, but what about being attracted to red heads? what about sexual preferences focused on height? weight? hair length? feet? body hair? 

We arbitrarily focus on gender because it is the easiest to identify, but we are all more complex than that. And this is a good thing. Diversity in preferences make this world work. My assumption is that once you start classifying peoples preferences, the % of people that are gay will be totally normal when compared to other groups. 

Why do we care where others find love and comfort? 

Our message is that we find ultimate love and comfort in Christ, and He has given us covenants so we can ultimately obtain that. The natural, granular specifics of personal identity change in priority as we become as “little children” with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Sexual preference is a small part of our character and personality, but in and of itself not the source of love and comfort.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So I am saying that in denying ourselves our own personal rules of attraction, we are more likely to expect others to do the same. 

Very true, those that lash out at gays in an extreme way, not those on this board particularly, could be gay themselves. Probably not where you were going with this, but maybe you were.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Our message is that we find ultimate love and comfort in Christ, and He has given us covenants so we can ultimately obtain that. The natural, granular specifics of personal identity change in priority as we become as “little children” with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Sexual preference is a small part of our character and personality, but in and of itself not the source of love and comfort.

This is a lofty unattainable goal IMO. Christ isn't here in the physical, if at all. Maybe for a select few out of many. But that would be a lonely existence. Especially if given the charge to make Christ the only entity that is needed and one trying to get that, and not finding it, or maybe it happens and I'm definitely not there yet.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Why do we care where others find love and comfort? 

I hear a LOT of complaining and resistance about how gayness is being shoved in our face.  Ironically, I think the strong cultural resistance is in fact having the opposite desired effect and is in fact the fuel that is igniting the gay movement.  

 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25927352/

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Very true, those that lash out at gays in an extreme way, not those on this board particularly, could be gay themselves. Probably not where you were going with this, but maybe you were.

Not necessarily, but in a more general way. Sometimes it's quite like, "I had to put up with these rules of doing it *God's way* and so do you." 

*Presuming they know what God's way is for everyone.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Our message is that we find ultimate love and comfort in Christ, and He has given us covenants so we can ultimately obtain that. The natural, granular specifics of personal identity change in priority as we become as “little children” with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Sexual preference is a small part of our character and personality, but in and of itself not the source of love and comfort.

This just is not the case for me. Ultimate love in my live i found in those around me; my kids, spouse, family, and friends. The amount of love, "ultimate love," is via physical contact and connection. 

Can you expand on "The natural, granular specifics of personal identity change in priority as we become as “little children” with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost."?Not sure if i am tracking what you mean. 

Sexual preference is not a small part of our character and personality, IMHO, it is a major aspect.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

I think we as a culture, society, tribe put way too much emphasis and concern on sexual preferences based on gender. The sexual spectrum is incredibly diverse, but it is easy to focus on a binary (or 3 class) view. Being attracted to a specific gender is one way to slice it, but what about being attracted to red heads? what about sexual preferences focused on height? weight? hair length? feet? body hair? 

The reason for the focus is people who like blond hair or tall people are not accused of “grooming” children to be the same way, are not seen as a moral rot, and do not have a significant minority of the nation wanting them dead or rounded up in camps.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is a lofty unattainable goal IMO. Christ isn't here in the physical, if at all. Maybe for a select few out of many. But that would be a lonely existence. Especially if given the charge to make Christ the only entity that is needed and one trying to get that, and not finding it, or maybe it happens and I'm definitely not there yet.

There’s always a “bu..bu..bu…but…,”isn’t there? It’s hard for everyone – is for me – but my experience tells me it is attainable over time by degrees. Why complain if you’ve already found love and comfort elsewhere? Why cross off Christ as an option if you’ve never found love and comfort anywhere?

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

This just is not the case for me. Ultimate love in my live i found in those around me; my kids, spouse, family, and friends. The amount of love, "ultimate love," is via physical contact and connection. 

Great – my object is to make all that, which is what I have also, even more satisfying with the restored covenants.

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

Can you expand on "The natural, granular specifics of personal identity change in priority as we become as “little children” with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost."?Not sure if i am tracking what you mean. 

The “granular specifics” is my way of covering all the examples you offered in your post, and alluding to more. I think hair color/length, height, weight, feet, body hair were sufficient to make the point about prioritizing love and comfort in Christ over these. This is done in our faith with the companionship of the Holy Ghost – all good things become richer in our experience as a result of it. If you are averse to such a religious approach, and use some other discipline to find greater happiness in these areas, you might understand, on some level, why some choose the gospel covenants instead.

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

Sexual preference is not a small part of our character and personality, IMHO, it is a major aspect.

Sexual preference can mean a lot of things to a lot of people in terms of definition, and in terms of finding love and comfort of various kinds – that is what you were suggesting in the first place. But you were also challenging the importance of prioritizing where we obtain love and comfort, or on what object /subject, which results in many kinds of love and comfort, some of higher priority than others.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Our message is that we find ultimate love and comfort in Christ, and He has given us covenants so we can ultimately obtain that. The natural, granular specifics of personal identity change in priority as we become as “little children” with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Sexual preference is a small part of our character and personality, but in and of itself not the source of love and comfort.

Or as the scripture says: “It is good for man to be alone. Keep the extra rib.” This is while Adam was in the presence of the Father and the Son. If the Son was enough you can argue Eve was redundant.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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