Jump to content

Epiphany, Confession, and the Sexuality with Choice


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have it on good authority that the supreme being of the entire universe gets offended with something as small as the wrong name of the church is used. Seems pretty insecure to me. 

Who by good authority says it is a small thing? Or insecure? Someone who can be nicknamed, “ConfirmingBias”?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly! If it bothers your god, by definition it can’t be a small thing. Convenient that, no?

Huh? That reply might be a convenient sidestep, but my question is: on what/whose good authority do you have the correct name as being a small thing, or that the God referenced by President Nelson is insecure? Circular logic doesn't pass muster. If https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74815-epiphany-confession-and-the-sexuality-with-choice/?do=findComment&comment=1210116115 was just a shallow, biased wisecrack, just say so.

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Huh? That reply might be a convenient sidestep, but my question is: on what/whose good authority do you have the correct name as being a small thing, or that the God referenced by President Nelson is insecure? Circular logic doesn't pass muster. If https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74815-epiphany-confession-and-the-sexuality-with-choice/?do=findComment&comment=1210116115 was just a shallow, biased wisecrack, just say so.

 

It’s based on my judgement. Who else’s? Was anyone else posting under my user name? “Good authority” is your words. The name of the church is a small thing in my estimation. (A rose by any other name would small as sweet). And an all powerful being that could be offended by the wrong name being used? Insecure. In *my estimation. 
 

Signed,

Me.

 

*All opinions expressed in this post are mine. Posted with my judgement as a human. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s based on my judgement. Who else’s? Was anyone else posting under my user name? “Good authority” is your words. The name of the church is a small thing in my estimation. (A rose by any other name would small as sweet). And an all powerful being that could be offended by the wrong name being used? Insecure. In *my estimation. 
 

Signed,

Me.

 

*All opinions expressed in this post are mine. Posted with my judgement as a human. 

Thank you for reiterating that you are referring to yourself as a "good authority" according to your opinion.

But I must remind you that "good authority" are YOUR words, posted under your "name" (not your nickname):

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have it on good authority that the supreme being of the entire universe gets offended with something as small as the wrong name of the church is used. Seems pretty insecure to me. 

I'm wondering what kind of bias so quickly self-confirms that someone hasn't posted a phrase when they clearly posted it.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for reiterating that you are referring to yourself as a "good authority" according to your opinion.

But I must remind you that "good authority" are YOUR words, posted under your "name" (not your nickname):

I'm wondering what kind of bias so quickly self-confirms that someone hasn't posted a phrase when they clearly posted it.

Sorry about your reading comprehension there. “Good authority” refers to the offended part only. The particular good authority I had in mind there  was Russell Nelson (who claims to be Gods mouthpiece on earth). It being a small matter is my own judgement. In a world filled with wars, murders, rape poverty, and hate, “Mormon church” seems trivial and small to me. Ymmv. God’s apparantly does, but what are you going to do. I’m just using the brain he created for me. 
 

So to reiterate, I have it on good authority (Russell Nelson - spokesperson for God), that God is offended by something that is trivial (my opinion). The fact that it is about His name being used seems very very insecure (my opinion). 
 

Good authority only refers to Nelson’s statement that the supreme deity  of the universe was offended. Hope this clears up your confusion. 

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

Sorry about your reading comprehension there. “Good authority” refers to the offended part only. The particular good authority I had in mind there  was Russell Nelson (who claims to be Gods mouthpiece on earth). It being a small matter is my own judgement. In a world filled with wars, murders, rape poverty, and hate, “Mormon church” seems trivial and small to me. Ymmv. God’s apparantly does, but what are you going to do. I’m just using the brain he created for me. 
 

So to reiterate, I have it on good authority (Russell Nelson - spokesperson for God), that God is offended by something that is trivial (my opinion). The fact that it is about His name being used seems very very insecure (my opinion). 
 

Good authority only refers to Nelson’s statement that the supreme deity  of the universe was offended. Hope this clears up your confusion. 

!Giggle! But they are still your words despite your attempt at deflection -- and they are "your words" even more so, given your retrospective waffling --  "good authority" typically means to know or believe something because you have been told that it is true by someone you trust, or you believe this information because you trust the person who told it to you. So you are confused on this point, the correct meaning and application of "good authority," but hey it's your brain. Enjoy!

Link to comment
19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I made a few guesses as to where this thread might go. Arguing over President Nelson’s emphasis on the name of the Church was not on the list.

No Bingo for me this time.

Yes, I’m surprised that happened with such an interesting topic. The notion that a hypothetical god that is also insecure and easily offended by small things creates sexual desires only to call them sins is a departure from the Church teaching that our desires in and of themselves are not sins, no matter our belief concerning the origins of our orientation. Sin, in its most narrow sense, is chosen rebellion.

Your supposition that bisexual people created the narrative that living as straight or gay is a choice seems to fall under this teaching that orientation and related desires are not sins, but the choice for expressing them can qualify as sin according to our moral sensibilities or education. Given that bisexuality falls along a wide spectrum, more people probably related to this idea without thinking much about, or putting too much weight on, their personal sexual identity. Any notion is easy to allow without much thought or challenge when it doesn't affect someone personally, which is probably most people's lived experience.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I’m surprised that happened with such an interesting topic. The notion that a hypothetical god that is also insecure and easily offended by small things creates sexual desires only to call them sins is a departure from the Church teaching that our desires in and of themselves are not sins, no matter our belief concerning the origins of our orientation. Sin, in its most narrow sense, is chosen rebellion.

Yeah, it just strikes home more deeply than other inborn “flaws”. It also seems to run afoul of the “mighty change of heart” teaching and all desire to do evil fading away and a desire to do good continually being implanted in its place. I haven’t reached that summit but I imagine if that involved the Holy Ghost shifting sexuality someone would have mentioned it by now.

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your supposition that bisexual people created the narrative that living as straight or gay is a choice seems to fall under this teaching that orientation and related desires are not sins, but the choice for expressing them can qualify as sin according to our moral sensibilities or education. Given that bisexuality falls along a wide spectrum, more people probably related to this idea without thinking much about, or putting too much weight on, their personal sexual identity. Any notion is easy to allow without much thought or challenge when it doesn't affect someone personally, which is probably most people's lived experience.

True, it still doesn’t help understand the idea of how it was believed to be a choice by so many for whom no such choice was available.

To be clear I am not suggesting it is a choice for bisexual people as if they can pick a lane and limit their attraction to one gender. You can choose to only date/hook up with/seek out sexual or romantic partners of one gender but it is like choosing to only date people with specific characteristics due to social pressure and not because you actually prefer them more. The experience though is unpleasant and can even feel like (or be) a form of bigotry.

For most the attraction is not a 50/50 split between men and women so those who favor heterosexual relationships often blend in perfectly. Those who strongly favor same-gender relationships have a much harder time if they want to stay closeted or not run afoul of many faith’s moral codes. I am pretty close to 50/50 but I got my own fun limitations with that.

And yeah, I guess it is easy to ignore whether it was a choice for you whether it was or was not a choice.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, it just strikes home more deeply than other inborn “flaws”. It also seems to run afoul of the “mighty change of heart” teaching and all desire to do evil fading away and a desire to do good continually being implanted in its place. I haven’t reached that summit but I imagine if that involved the Holy Ghost shifting sexuality someone would have mentioned it by now.

True, it still doesn’t help understand the idea of how it was believed to be a choice by so many for whom no such choice was available.

To be clear I am not suggesting it is a choice for bisexual people as if they can pick a lane and limit their attraction to one gender. You can choose to only date/hook up with/seek out sexual or romantic partners of one gender but it is like choosing to only date people with specific characteristics due to social pressure and not because you actually prefer them more. The experience though is unpleasant and can even feel like (or be) a form of bigotry.

For most the attraction is not a 50/50 split between men and women so those who favor heterosexual relationships often blend in perfectly. Those who strongly favor same-gender relationships have a much harder time if they want to stay closeted or not run afoul of many faith’s moral codes. I am pretty close to 50/50 but I got my own fun limitations with that.

And yeah, I guess it is easy to ignore whether it was a choice for you whether it was or was not a choice.

I am of the feeling that human sexuality in itself is not a sin to be changed by the Holy Ghost. The variable expressions (including feelings and identity) in convergence with the covenants and even deeper attributes than sexuality (all our heart, might, mind, strength; the mysteries of godliness), yes, they can be changed and perfected, eventually, as the promise goes. Perfection, to me, entails alignment and integration of the perfected parts far more than the perfection of the individual parts. If we have experienced such change to any degree in any area of life, I think we can extrapolate that experience into a hope for perfection in all things, including our current specific struggles. Not that we have much of an idea of what “all” and “perfect” are, but this is a matter of “faith” after all. We become eternally more than merely (fill in the attribute, sexual or otherwise) as we currently conceptualize and prioritize that attribute.

RE: understanding “the idea of how it was believed to be a choice by so many for whom no such choice was available,” I think smart people can believe just about anything; it doesn’t have to make sense to everyone. The best explanation I have found for others’ incomprehensible beliefs and choices is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory .

In a nutshell, our makeup is hard-wired with innate, modular, neurologically ("brain" but more than that)-based social/psychological foundations which drive the origins and variation in human bias and moral reasoning on the personal, social and cultural levels. This also explains why it is easy to ignore/belittle/condemn things that are of utmost importance to others. A book I recommend that gets into this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind , which focuses on the political (and to some degree, cultural) applications.

I guess the best we can do is to get people to explain or justify their moral bias, and they will likely recount their experience (but which came first?). Those who have suffered an inability to blend in, I believe, can find grace of another kind until the perfect day (as the promise goes).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I am of the feeling that human sexuality in itself is not a sin to be changed by the Holy Ghost. The variable expressions (including feelings and identity) in convergence with the covenants and even deeper attributes than sexuality (all our heart, might, mind, strength; the mysteries of godliness), yes, they can be changed and perfected, eventually, as the promise goes. Perfection, to me, entails alignment and integration of the perfected parts far more than the perfection of the individual parts. If we have experienced such change to any degree in any area of life, I think we can extrapolate that experience into a hope for perfection in all things, including our current specific struggles. Not that we have much of an idea of what “all” and “perfect” are, but this is a matter of “faith” after all. We become eternally more than merely (fill in the attribute, sexual or otherwise) as we currently conceptualize and prioritize that attribute.

There is an element of fear as well. If God does “heal” it that does not sound pleasant. Taking roughly half of my memories of pleasant dreams, fantasies, and experiences and turning them into something either repulsive or banal sounds horrible. I can definitely see why gay and lesbian members are generally even more eager to run away from that “healing” when it is so much more to taint. I used to think that I had experienced that change to a degree but I now doubt it.

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

RE: understanding “the idea of how it was believed to be a choice by so many for whom no such choice was available,” I think smart people can believe just about anything; it doesn’t have to make sense to everyone. The best explanation I have found for others’ incomprehensible beliefs and choices is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory .

In a nutshell, our makeup is hard-wired with innate, modular, neurologically ("brain" but more than that)-based social/psychological foundations which drive the origins and variation in human bias and moral reasoning on the personal, social and cultural levels. This also explains why it is easy to ignore/belittle/condemn things that are of utmost importance to others. A book I recommend that gets into this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind , which focuses on the political (and to some degree, cultural) applications.

I guess the best we can do is to get people to explain or justify their moral bias, and they will likely recount their experience (but which came first?). Those who have suffered an inability to blend in, I believe, can find grace of another kind until the perfect day (as the promise goes).

I have read up some on these concepts in the past and read that book. I don’t agree with it being tied to different moralities. Furthermore based on Christian or Church values it is the individualists that generally end up as prophets and exemplars in scripture. Jesus couldn’t sink into the “hive” if He tried. The ideal ordered conservative society focuses on stability and supposed happiness in being part of the whole but flies in the face of the radical egalitarianism of Jesus and the Old Testament prophets telling everyone to stop oppressing everyone. Too much “don’t rock the boat” for me to stomach it as morality.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is an element of fear as well. If God does “heal” it that does not sound pleasant. Taking roughly half of my memories of pleasant dreams, fantasies, and experiences and turning them into something either repulsive or banal sounds horrible. I can definitely see why gay and lesbian members are generally even more eager to run away from that “healing” when it is so much more to taint. I used to think that I had experienced that change to a degree but I now doubt it.

I have read up some on these concepts in the past and read that book. I don’t agree with it being tied to different moralities. Furthermore based on Christian or Church values it is the individualists that generally end up as prophets and exemplars in scripture. Jesus couldn’t sink into the “hive” if He tried. The ideal ordered conservative society focuses on stability and supposed happiness in being part of the whole but flies in the face of the radical egalitarianism of Jesus and the Old Testament prophets telling everyone to stop oppressing everyone. Too much “don’t rock the boat” for me to stomach it as morality.

I can understand the fear, too, but I tried to convey that the “healing” is on a much deeper “module” than what we have conceived it to be or should be. Many people assert personality traits that are not exactly helpful to the cause of Zion, but they can’t imagine, and even fear, giving them up, as if they were a kind of dependence or co-dependence with the self: “I won’t be me anymore.” I felt that for years after joining the Church. These traits are not necessarily evil or sinful of themselves, but when they are experienced as Christ does rather than the way we do on our own, we contribute to the greater happiness of all concerned/involved. Society as we have it today may put more pressure on bisexuals than heterosexuals, but everyone experiences this internal pressure as part of personal spiritual growth (and not always sexual in nature) aside from society’s pressures.

Disclaimer; I have absolutely no clinical training in this regard, just the experience as I describe it.

The moral foundations theory uses the conservative/liberal labels not as political designations but to delineate complimentary fundamental attitudes (all are useful). While the theory can be used to study political phenomenon, it is not a political theory. My reference to it is to support the answer as to why relatively well-adjusted people see things so differently. Meyers-Briggs offers a similar reference; an ISFP experiences and deals with their sexuality and moral choices differently than an ENTJ.

So, theory would hold that sexual orientation is not tied to our fundamental morality, but our biases and choices in relation to our orientation are. This is basically the same discussion as above. As I understand the theory, our “morality,” or expressed moral sense, is an outgrowth of the inherited innate moral foundation modules interacting with other factors in our internal and external environment, and that with awareness and practice we can choose to overcome our moral bias and not fear seemingly counterintuitive choices which prove to be better individually and collectively (we teach it as moral agency). This must have a spiritual application somewhere; sounds familiar to me!

Complete resolution of course does not occur in this life, but we can have an expectation that eventually the blessings / healing will come.

Edited by CV75
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...