The Neurology of Belief....

[_rcrocket]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined. My point continues to be that it is irrelevant to church theology as to whether one feels compelled by biology, for instance, to get the next hit of an opiate (biology does indeed compel that feeling) or molest the next little boy.

P

[_harmony]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined. My point continues to be that it is irrelevant to church theology as to whether one feels compelled by biology, for instance, to get the next hit of an opiate (biology does indeed compel that feeling) or molest the next little boy.

P

You're conflating again, P. We're talking about homosexuality, not child molestation. The two are not the same.

[_Yoda]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined. My point continues to be that it is irrelevant to church theology as to whether one feels compelled by biology, for instance, to get the next hit of an opiate (biology does indeed compel that feeling) or molest the next little boy.

P

You're conflating again, P. We're talking about homosexuality, not child molestation. The two are not the same.

It sounds to me like in his mind, they are.

Care to elaborate, Plutarch?

[_Mister Scratch]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined. My point continues to be that it is irrelevant to church theology as to whether one feels compelled by biology, for instance, to get the next hit of an opiate (biology does indeed compel that feeling) or molest the next little boy.

P

You're conflating again, P. We're talking about homosexuality, not child molestation. The two are not the same.

It sounds to me like in his mind, they are.

Care to elaborate, Plutarch?

What's interesting to me is the fact that Plutarch has dropped his in real life information from the area below his screenname. Just think of all that wasted energy he spent trying to ferret out everyone's in real life names, and now he has reneged. I can hardly stop laughing....

[_rcrocket]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined. My point continues to be that it is irrelevant to church theology as to whether one feels compelled by biology, for instance, to get the next hit of an opiate (biology does indeed compel that feeling) or molest the next little boy.

P

You're conflating again, P. We're talking about homosexuality, not child molestation. The two are not the same.

I'm searching through my posts were I said they were the same. Why would you reach that implication? I could just could have easily been talking about heterosexual pedastery. Tsk tsk you have a politically incorrect mind.

P

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined.

They sure seemed to take that "next step" in these statements:

1. James E. Faust, in the First Presidency message in the September 1995 Ensign (emphasis added), wrote:

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

2. One month later, Dallin Oaks wrote this in his article "Same Sex Attraction" in the October 1995 Ensign (emphasis added):

In contrast to our doctrinal approach, many persons approach the problems of same-sex attraction solely from the standpoint of current science. While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.”

Oaks then goes on to cite various studies that he believes supports the conclusion that homosexuality is not in-born.

[_rcrocket]

There is no proof one way or the other. Interestingly, if there was a genetic link you'd think it would have been found by now.

But, the Church does not teach there is no genetic link, nor does it teach there is a genetic link. Individual brethen may have their opinion, but there is no formal teaching.

I personally think, in counseling such persons, that the debate is meaningless because the drive is so compelling that it is as every bit a compunction as a biological urge. Nonetheless, free will is at the bottom of us all.

P

[_harmony]

There is no proof one way or the other. Interestingly, if there was a genetic link you'd think it would have been found by now.

But, the Church does not teach there is no genetic link, nor does it teach there is a genetic link. Individual brethen may have their opinion, but there is no formal teaching.

I personally think, in counseling such persons, that the debate is meaningless because the drive is so compelling that it is as every bit a compunction as a biological urge. Nonetheless, free will is at the bottom of us all.

P

Just how much more plain does it have to be, P? A member of the FP and a very prominent member of the 12, both in their official capacity, say there is no link. That is not opinion. That is printed in the Ensign, and is about as official as it gets.

[_Yoda]

The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined. My point continues to be that it is irrelevant to church theology as to whether one feels compelled by biology, for instance, to get the next hit of an opiate (biology does indeed compel that feeling) or molest the next little boy.

P

You're conflating again, P. We're talking about homosexuality, not child molestation. The two are not the same.

I'm searching through my posts were I said they were the same. Why would you reach that implication? I could just could have easily been talking about heterosexual pedastery. Tsk tsk you have a politically incorrect mind.

P

Oh, come now, Plutarch. You're really going to try to convince us that, at the very least, you didn't add your comment about child molestation for effect? Give me a break!

[_Coggins7]

Plutarch wrote:
The Church teaches the doctrine of free will in moral issues. It does not take the next step and say that homosexuality is not pre-determined.


They sure seemed to take that "next step" in these statements:

1. James E. Faust, in the First Presidency message in the September 1995 Ensign (emphasis added), wrote:

Quote:
There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.



2. One month later, Dallin Oaks wrote this in his article "Same Sex Attraction" in the October 1995 Ensign (emphasis added):

Quote:
In contrast to our doctrinal approach, many persons approach the problems of same-sex attraction solely from the standpoint of current science. While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.”


Oaks then goes on to cite various studies that he believes supports the conclusion that homosexuality is not in-born.

Oaks and Faust are completely correct here about the science of homosexual "origins", and I think Plutarche's point, if I'm reading is posts correctly, is a philosophical one and not theological. As he mentioned about opioid receptors in the human brain (and as someone with a long history of alcohol use, I can testify that the brain is, indeed, hardwired to be predisposed to certain experiences that can be very reinforcing and habituating), whether or not certain biaes or predispositions exist, rooted in Biology, is not really relevant to the chuch's postion on homosexualiy. This is because our free will allows us a range of options or variable responses to those biological biases.

I think this is fine as far as it goes. The only point I would add is that the idea that homosexuality has a specific, acute "cause' that can be traced and isolated is a figment within the imagination of the modern secular liberal world and is much more rooted in ideology than any sincere search for origins. The search for the "cause" of homosexual behavior and homoerotic ideation is fruitless because no discrete "cause" exists. Its a path one goes down, for any number of reasons, beginning for many, very early in life, within the context of which biology may indeed play a mediating role. But this leaves plenty of room for the exercise of free agency and the modification of both the behavior and the original biases themselves if such is really desired. That, after all, is what the principle of grace is all about.

The morally confused here who insist on excusing and whitewashing homosexual behavior because it makes them feel morally and intellectually superior to those who dissent from prevailing trendy orthodoxies are spitting in the wind as they keep referencing scientific evidence that has never existed.

Loran