I Cant Wrap My Head Around Men Becoming Gods

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

That’s been the Church view for eons. If you don’t recognize that people can be homosexual then you only have to deal with the behavior. If you recognize that people can be homosexual then you have to deal with not only the behavior but also who someone is in their being. This is a much trickier issue to deal with because in essence telling a homosexual to become heterosexual is the same as telling someone they have to give up who they are as a heterosexual and become homosexual. A homosexual may conform to church norms and marry the opposite sex and have children but if they are homosexual in their heart and being it will not be fulfilling. 

:: snickers :: It's also a famous quote by Gore Vidal, who never committed a heterosexual act in his life (his love affairs with women are disputed) and wasn't the religious type. 

Like I mentioned, I'm pro gay marriage and I think some people are born gay or straight. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by MormonGator

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

:: snickers :: It's also a famous quote by Gore Vidal, who never committed a heterosexual act in his life (his love affairs with women are disputed) and wasn't the religious type. 

Like I mentioned, I'm pro gay marriage and I think some people are born gay or straight. 

How can you be "pro sin"?

[BJ64]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not entirely.  There’s a reason that they call it “onanism”.  (Although, yes, I realize there’s more to the story.)

That was not masturbation and it is known that it wasn’t. What he did was to withdraw and spill his seed on the ground instead of giving posterity to his dead brother. He was punished for his disobedience not for masturbation. People like to twist this account to fit their anti masturbation views but they are incorrect. 

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

That was not masturbation and it is known that it wasn’t. What he did was to withdraw and spill his seed on the ground instead of giving posterity to his dead brother. He was punished for his disobedience not for masturbation. People like to twist this account to fit their anti masturbation views but they are incorrect. 

You say "fit their anti-masturbation views" as though it is a bad thing to adhere to the church's policy on the Law of Chastity.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Grunt

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I have access to HB1 but there really isn’t much to quote on this this topic. 

I didn't say there was.  It is what it "doesn't" say that is interesting.  In fact it specifically "doesn't say" something that is included for many other things.  But it does say one thing that is quite interesting.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

How can you be "pro sin"?

Great question. Like I mentioned, I'm against the government telling two people of the same gender they can't get married. Marriage, in the government sense, is a private contract. 

 My concern is that if a religious person tells them how to live their life, then could a non religious person tell a church how to live their life? Which, like I mentioned I'm against that too. 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Great question. Like I mentioned, I'm against the government telling two people of the same gender they can't get married. Marriage, in the government sense, is a private contract. 

 My concern is that if a religious person tells them how to live their life, then could a non religious person tell a church how to live their life? Which, like I mentioned I'm against that too. 

I agree 100%.  The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.  However, that ISN'T what being pro-gay marriage is.  Being for something is supporting it.  If you support gay marriage, you support sin.  That is decidedly different than saying "I think it's sinful but none of my business".

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

That was not masturbation and it is known that it wasn’t. What he did was to withdraw and spill his seed on the ground instead of giving posterity to his dead brother. He was punished for his disobedience not for masturbation. People like to twist this account to fit their anti masturbation views but they are incorrect. 

It’s probably some of both (the scripture isn’t explicit).  I doubt Onan would have been struck dead had he simply declined to go in to his wife.  I think it’s a fair inference that part of the issue (no pun intended) entailed seeking sexual release without being willing to assume the responsibilities typically associated therewith.

[BJ64]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s probably some of both (the scripture isn’t explicit).  I doubt Onan would have been struck dead had he simply declined to go in to his wife.  I think it’s a fair inference that part of the issue (no pun intended) entailed seeking sexual release without being willing to assume the responsibilities typically associated therewith.

He didn’t seek sexual release. He was commanded to have sex with his dead brothers widow in order to give posterity to his brother. He didn’t want to do that so he instead spilled it on the ground to avoid impregnating his dead brother’s wife. It was in the disobedience of refusing to give his brother posterity that he sinned. Not in masturbation. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I said basically this same thing in another thread and was told that I should be released from my calling and have my temple recommend revoked for supporting gay marriage.

47 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Nope you never described any separation of Church and state.  Your actual words described a separation of your opinion from the Church's opinion.  I asked you to clarify your position if I was wrong in that interpretation.  You never did clarify.  That is why I raised the red flag.  You never clarified that it was about legal vs. ecclesiastical.  You said it was about what you would do vs the Church's position.  Again, I asked for your clarification.  And you never offered anything to this effect.

 

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've answered your question.  Now it's your turn.  Answer mine, then ask me this question again, then I'll answer it.

You claimed that the Church's official position has changed to accept TWO points.  The first I readily agreed with.  I'm waiting for you to either back up the second (that the Church supports the idea that people cannot change their orientation) or back off and say that the Church has not said that.

Your silence is deafening.

[BJ64]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

Your silence is deafening.

I posted an answer. I don’t know what happened to it. 

[BJ64]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

Your silence is deafening.

From mormonandgay.lds.org

 

The intensity of same-sex attraction is not a measure of your faithfulness. Many people pray for years and do all they can to be obedient in an effort to reduce same-sex attraction, yet find they are still attracted to the same sex. Same-sex attraction is experienced along a spectrum of intensity and is not the same for everyone. Some are attracted to both genders, and others are attracted exclusively to the same gender. For some, feelings of same-sex attraction, or at least the intensity of those feelings, may diminish over time. In any case, a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.

Edited May 17, 2018 by BJ64

[BJ64]

4 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

For some, feelings of same-sex attraction, or at least the intensity of those feelings, may diminish over time. 

Intensity of sexual feelings diminishes in many if not most people over time. It’s called low hormone levels. 

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

“... it [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation – practiced with another person of the same sex – and thence into total homosexuality.”

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 78

i've seen some very good people be profoundly and almost irreversibly damaged by reading that book.  i'd like to say a whole lot about it, but out of respect for the forum, will just let it speak for itself.

Another quote from it.

"There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity- realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world."

 

[BJ64]

11 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i've seen some very good people be profoundly and almost irreversibly damaged by reading that book.  i'd like to say a whole lot about it, but out of respect for the forum, will just let it speak for itself.

Another quote from it.

"There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity- realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world."

 

I will withhold comment as well. 

I guess I’m not a true Later Day Saint because I believe in the power of the atonement to overcome sin and receive forgiveness.

I will not comment on “To Young Men Only” either.

 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

The intensity of same-sex attraction is not a measure of your faithfulness. Many people pray for years and do all they can to be obedient in an effort to reduce same-sex attraction, yet find they are still attracted to the same sex. Same-sex attraction is experienced along a spectrum of intensity and is not the same for everyone. Some are attracted to both genders, and others are attracted exclusively to the same gender. For some, feelings of same-sex attraction, or at least the intensity of those feelings, may diminish over time. In any case, a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.

That statement I can agree with.  That is quite different from "Orientation cannot be changed."

I believed this idea of a spectrum years before I ever heard the official statement from the Church.  I even told a liberal friend of mine about this theory.  His wife gave me a big thumbs up and agreed with me.  He kinda shook his head because he couldn't find a logical argument around it.  Not that there isn't one.  There are.  But he just couldn't think of one at the time and it frustrated him.

I believe that there are some (extremely few) people so far on one side that they are humanly (while nothing is impossible with God) unable to change that about them.  But I believe this to be about the same as people with brain chemical imbalances that make their violent behavior unmanageable.  Yes, I'm saying it is a physical abnormality that should be treated as an abnormality.  I just refuse to accept it is supposed to be accepted as normal.  It obviously isn't.  And God will be merciful for someone with such extreme challenges.  I believe this number to be a very small percentage.  Considering the homosexual population is very small to begin with, the homosexuals who cannot change are such a small percentage that we don't make rules around them.  They are the outliers and we can discuss exceptions.  But they are not the rule.

I believe that others are given some inclinations of some form or other, be they sexual or otherwise that may be acceptable to civil government or not, that may or may not be acceptable to God.  But we have these weaknesses given to us to make us strong.  I believe the vast majority of people CAN change their orientation.

You asked me if I could change my orientation.  Of course I could.

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

So you are saying that you could leave your wife and decide to become gay?

That's not what you asked me, now is it?

You're trying to reverse roles and claim that I would be singing a different tune.  Yes, I would.  But not in the way you think.  So, let's get into this hypothetical role reversal.

• I'm born heterosexual into a world where homosexuality is the norm.  Not only the norm, but the LORD's WILL.
• I am raised to believe my heterosexual nature is a sin.
• I pray about it and find that it is true.  The Lord really wants me to be homosexual.
• I "fall in love" with a woman.
• I WOULD STAY AWAY FROM HER!!!
• I WOULD NEVER MARRY HER!!!
• I WOULD NOT LEAVE A WIFE I NEVER MARRIED!!!
• I WOULD OBEY GOD'S LAW!!!
• Then I would decide to become gay and do everything I could to become gay.
• I would probably have periods of backsliding.  Don't we all when trying to overcome sin?
• I would then find a man I could truly find could be my partner through thick and thin.  A man who I could admire.  I'd want him to look like Chris Evans.  Man, I could... a-HEM.  You get the point.
• I'm sure that from time to time I'd have times of attraction to women.  But I'd contain it.  I'd control it.  And I'd dedicate myself to my man and no other.

How can I be sure this would all be true?

• I have other tendencies that are just as primal, just as visceral as sexuality, that are not considered acceptable before God.
• I have been raised to believe these are sinful.  Some also illegal, some not.
• I have prayed about them to know that what I've been taught is true.  The Lord really wants me to change.
• I have felt the dire urge and pull to go off the deep end with some of my desires.
• I RESIST AND STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM COMMITTING THESE SINS AS POSSIBLE.
• I SIMPLY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT.
• I OBEY GOD'S LAW
• I make the decision to overcome these urges.
• I have periods of backsliding.
• I continue to get better every single day and every single year.
• I'll always have some pangs, but for the most part, I know I'll never give in.  I've contained it.  I'm controlling it.  I've dedicated my life to God.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I posted an answer. I don’t know what happened to it. 

I see you're still not responding to the other question.  If you don't want to have the discussion, don't have the discussion.  But don't keep barking up this tree if you don't want someone to drop apples on you.

[BJ64]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I see you're still not responding to the other question.  If you don't want to have the discussion, don't have the discussion.  But don't keep barking up this tree if you don't want someone to drop apples on you.

What was the other question?

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i've seen some very good people be profoundly and almost irreversibly damaged by reading that book.  i'd like to say a whole lot about it, but out of respect for the forum, will just let it speak for itself.

Another quote from it.

"There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity- realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world."

 

MOF was, I think, useful to the culture in which it was produced; though Kimball himself apparently did later say he wished he had used a softer touch at some spots.  Even now it still isn’t hard to find Mormons who will rave about the book—in a good way.  But in the last few decades, as a society we are less idealistic generally and have sort of gotten away from the idea that some things are worse than death.

(Also, FWIW, the quote you cite actually originated within Heber J. Grant.  And I think it is a useful counterpoint to the sin-now, repent-later attitude many even within Mormonism take towards LoC violations.  I wonder sometimes how many Mormons today actually go to hell and back in their repentance process.  I have/am; and yes, I would rather have died.)

And, @BJ64, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that Kimball’s rhetoric suggests he was unacquainted with or doubtful of Christ’s atoning power.  The last few chapters of MOF suggest quite the opposite.  Rather, I think he understood the material and psychological and spiritual ramifications of sexual sin in a way that was becoming increasingly rare in his own generation, and that modern society has chosen to completely ignore. 

If we, as Mormons, believe that you can’t pray away the gay, or that victims of rape or child abuse or other trauma will suffer flashbacks or PTSD or other psychological fallout for the rest of their mortal lives in spite of the Atonement; then why do we insist on believing that the effects of porn use or fornication or adultery can be so easily painted over?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[BJ64]

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

MOF was, I think, useful to the culture in which it was produced; though Kimball himself apparently did later say he wished he had used a softer touch at some spots.  Even now it still isn’t hard to find Mormons who will rave about the book—in a good way.  But in the last few decades, as a society we are less idealistic generally and have sort of gotten away from the idea that some things are worse than death.

(Also, FWIW, the quote you cite actually originated within Heber J. Grant.  And I think it is a useful counterpoint to the sin-now, repent-later attitude many even within Mormonism take towards LoC violations.  I wonder sometimes how many Mormons today actually go to hell and back in their repentance process.  I have/am; and yes, I would rather have died.)

And, @BJ64, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that Kimball’s rhetoric suggests he was unacquainted with or doubtful of Christ’s atoning power.  The last few chapters of MOF suggest quite the opposite.  Rather, I think he understood the material and psychological and spiritual ramifications of sexual sin in a way that was becoming increasingly rare in his own generation, and that modern society has chosen to completely ignore. 

If we, as Mormons, believe that you can’t pray away the gay, or that victims of rape or child abuse or other trauma will suffer flashbacks or PTSD or other psychological fallout for the rest of their mortal lives in spite of the Atonement; then why do we insist on believing that the effects of porn use or fornication or adultery can be so easily painted over?

My comment on the atonement was directed to the saying better dead than unclean which was used in the church from at least some time in the early 20th century until the late 60’s or early 70’s. I feel that as a concept it denies the power of the atonement. Sort of like saying that I’d rather have my children die before baptism than to have them sin. It was also a statement that made victims of sexual abuse feel it would be better if they were dead and it was also told to women that it would be better for them to die rather than to allow themselves to be raped. Making rape victims guilty for being raped instead of dying. 

[Maureen]

5 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

It absolutely applies to men as well....Who is more likely to wear something immodest to church?...

But modesty for LDS does not just apply to church. Since you're male (haven't checked your profile, assuming based on your username), how do you teach boys and men in your church to be modest with clothing?

M.

[BJ64]

26 minutes ago, Maureen said:

But modesty for LDS does not just apply to church. Since you're male (haven't checked your profile, assuming based on your username), how do you teach boys and men in your church to be modest with clothing?

M.

I know this question isn’t for me but I will say that I don’t teach modesty to boys. I can’t remember when I’ve seen a boy or man dresses immodestly. Perhaps dressed inappropriately for the given occasion but not immodestly. In my view it is women and girls who dress immodestly. While men can dress immodestly, immodesty seems to be an almost exclusively female thing. 

As an example look at how men and women dress for the academy awards or for a formal party or dance. The men are almost without exception covered from head to toe while the women are pushing the bounds of decency. 

[Maureen]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I know this question isn’t for me but I will say that I don’t teach modesty to boys. I can’t remember when I’ve seen a boy or man dresses immodestly. Perhaps dressed inappropriately for the given occasion but not immodestly. In my view it is women and girls who dress immodestly. While men can dress immodestly, immodesty seems to be an almost exclusively female thing. 

As an example look at how men and women dress for the academy awards or for a formal party or dance. The men are almost without exception covered from head to toe while the women are pushing the bounds of decency. 

OK, so how would an LDS define dressing modestly or immodestly when it comes to men in your church? Let's say in a casual setting, what kind of clothing would be considered immodest for a guy?

M.

[BJ64]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

Your silence is deafening.

Do these two statements conflict with each other?

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

 

Alma 34:34 ...Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

My comment on the atonement was directed to the saying better dead than unclean which was used in the church from at least some time in the early 20th century until the late 60’s or early 70’s. I feel that as a concept it denies the power of the atonement. Sort of like saying that I’d rather have my children die before baptism than to have them sin. It was also a statement that made victims of sexual abuse feel it would be better if they were dead and it was also told to women that it would be better for them to die rather than to allow themselves to be raped. Making rape victims guilty for being raped instead of dying. 

No, not better dead than “unclean”.  Better to die than to knowingly, deliberately perpetrate particularly harmful sins.  From Grant’s and Kimball’s perspective it was the act, not the state, that was preferable to death.  Once one was unfortunate enough to have gotten into the state, the remedy was repentance—as Kimball, Grant, and pretty much everyone else made abundantly clear.

You are, of course, welcome to suggest that such an approach diminishes or denies the atonement; just as others are free to conclude that your own position is calculated to be soft on sin.  But I don’t think either view would be accurate.

As for sex abuse victims:  trauma does funky things to the brain that we’re just beginning to understand (I was in a seminar on it just this afternoon).  One result of that is that trauma victims are unfortunately often going to interpret things in ways they were not meant to be interpreted.  The only surefire way to make Mormon rape victims quit feeling culpable or “dirty” would be for the Church to drop this “chastity” business entirely.  I’m not against being sensitive and using measure language whenever reasonably possible; but at some point there’s a larger duty to warn against evil that still needs to be carried out even if it wounds some of the innocent.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy