Taylor Petrey'S Dialogue Article

[Calm]

The Church has acknowledged that changes were made to President Packer's original delivered remarks for 'clarifying purposes'. There's really no confusion needed as to whether he just read it wrong, especially since whole phrases were deleted, not added, from the printed version. There were changes in content. it's been officially acknowledged. There's not a conspiracy, or a need for apologetic what-ifs.

Thanks for the info in this case, tonight i wasn't sure what the case was though I remember clarification was offered afterwards (didnt some claim it amounted to an actual change in policy/doctrine. It is not the only time I've seen such comments, sometimes on some very trivial differences. And my mind is wandering tonight due to sleep deprivation; I was thinking of such cases in general and wishing people listed evidence of intent for change just to avoid confusion. The comment was simply an expression of frustration that sometimes time is wasted and understanding hindered, not speculation about conspiracies, etc. Sorry if it came across that way.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, there's this.

That's a start.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

Well, there's this.

...Either it means that the Church does not except the Proclamation as a revelation...

Ah- another one for Calmoriah.

So let me get this straight. If the church does not exclude it as a revelation, then they must accept it as a revelation.

So what are they crabbing about?

[mfbukowski]

For those interested in morality, cooperation (hence, the economic titles), and evolution, see

Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (Henry Holt and Co., 2004).

Michael Shermer, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales From Evolutionary Economics (Times Books, 2008).

Frans B.M. de Waal, "How Selfish an Animal? The Case of Primate Cooperation," Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008).

Sarah F. Brosnan, "Fairness and Other-Regarding Preferences in Nonhuman Primates," Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, ed. Paul J. Zak (Princeton University Press, 2008).

Martin Nowak, SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed (Free Press, 2011).

Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (Viking, 1997).

Dude, you're a walking bibliography!

[Pahoran]

Gender is not an axiom. As many, many scholars have pointed out, our culture's binary gender categories are just as socially constructed as any other type of category. We assume that genitalia are the measure of a person's gender because those are the most visible markers, but there are a range of other biological differences between men and women that are more difficult to observe. (Hormones, for example.) The decision to privilege genitalia over these other types of differences as the marker of gender is basically arbitrary and stems from the human prejudice toward putting people in rigid categories according to external phenotypes. (The existence of intersex persons, moreover, suggests that gender is non-binary even if we do decide to privilege genitalia.)

By the same logic, the existence of polydactyly suggests that the decimal system is not an axiom either.

We have birth defects because we live in an imperfect world. That is it, and that is all of it.

I have to admit that theological innovations proposed by so-called "experts" and other self-appointed ark-steadiers leave me distinctly cold.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Well, there's this.

Which is completely out to lunch. The Proclamation has in no sense been "demoted." If it were, we would hear about it elsewhere than on a blog.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

By the same logic, the existence of polydactyly suggests that the decimal system is not an axiom either.

The decimal system is socially constructed, as well. The decimal system is a base ten numerical system, which is a useful way to do math but certainly not the only way.

We have birth defects because we live in an imperfect world. That is it, and that is all of it.

We have biological variation. That is it, and that is all of it.

Which is completely out to lunch. The Proclamation has in no sense been "demoted." If it were, we would hear about it elsewhere than on a blog.

The point is not that the Proclamation has been "demoted". The point is that the Church made a deliberate change to clarify that the Proclamation is not officially regarded as a revelation. That doesn't mean it's not a revelation, but it does mean there's wiggle room.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

A few cultures have constructed gender differently than we do. The Pueblo Indians and certain groups in India recognized a third category that was essentially comprised of "sacred transvestites". In the Pueblo case, this construct was violently annihilated by Jesuits who found it morally abhorrent. In other words, our gender categories seem axiomatic in part because of how effectively they've been imperialistically imposed.

So how do we decide which is "right"?

Our decision itself is socially constructed. My only point is that this line of argument doesn't go all that far in helping us decide.

Edited December 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

So how do we decide which is "right"?

We don't.

[cinepro]

I felt the paper was fantastic, and resonated in many ways as being similar to Lester Bush's 1973 "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine", which, while highly controversial and provocative in its day (as it suggested ways in which the then-current policy of excluding blacks from the Temple and Eternal Marriage and also current explaining that it had to do with pre-mortal unworthiness was historically and doctrinally unfounded and could and perhaps should be re-eavluated),it is now highly regarded as highly important, powerful, and influential...and even somewhat prophetic.

Without speaking to the matter of homosexuality specifically, this whole discussion does remind me that sometimes the worst judges of the veracity and longevity of a Church doctrine/policy/teaching are those who are living in the now.

It's all just one Official Declaration away from this being the way things used to be, at which point we can quickly forget that we ever thought any differently.

Edited December 12, 2011 by cinepro

[Sine Saw Square]

The argument made that pre-mortal spirits must be genderless because there exist temporal cases of chromosomal abnormalities resulting in confused gender identities seems as plausible as arguing that since some people are born with 2 heads or bodies, spirits therefore are not individual entities. I can imagine either or both being true but redefining beliefs at this level would render the LDS doctrine nearly meaningless.

But maybe that's the point.

[Pahoran]

The decimal system is socially constructed, as well. The decimal system is a base ten numerical system, which is a useful way to do math but certainly not the only way.

You know, I regularly do binary-octal-hexadecimal-decimal conversions, but until you pointed it out to me, I would never have realised decimal wasn't the only way.

No-one said it's the only way. The point, Chris, is that the decimal system is derived from the fact that normal humans have ten fingers.

We have biological variation. That is it, and that is all of it.

Oh, is "biological variation" the new PC euphemism for "birth defects," is it?

Thanks for that.

The point is not that the Proclamation has been "demoted". The point is that the Church made a deliberate change to clarify that the Proclamation is not officially regarded as a revelation. That doesn't mean it's not a revelation, but it does mean there's wiggle room.

Ah. "Wiggle room." Could you make it more cynical if you tried?

Incidentally, I have seen no evidence that the big, sinister, faceless "Church" made any change, "deliberate" or otherwise, anywhere. AFAICT, President Packer edited his talk to clarify his intent.

Do you have actual evidence to the contrary?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

The argument made that pre-mortal spirits must be genderless because there exist temporal cases of chromosomal abnormalities resulting in confused gender identities seems as plausible as arguing that since some people are born with 2 heads or bodies, spirits therefore are not individual entities. I can imagine either or both being true but redefining beliefs at this level would render the LDS doctrine nearly meaningless.

I don't know about 2 heads, but the fact that you can essentially split one person into two people by cutting the connections between their brain hemispheres (and change their personality in other ways by similar physical alterations of the brain) certainly does pose a problem for the view that personality is lodged in the spirit.

Other concepts of what the spirit is and what function it plays are, of course, available.

[Chris Smith]

The point, Chris, is that the decimal system is derived from the fact that normal humans have ten fingers.

Ok? So what's the point of the point, then?

Oh, is "biological variation" the new PC euphemism for "birth defects," is it?

Oh, is "PC euphemism" the new heteronormative euphemism for non-prejudicial language?

Thanks for that. Ah. "Wiggle room." Could you make it more cynical if you tried?

"Room for additional revelation," then.

Honestly, Pahoran. Badger, badger, badger.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

We don't.

Oh good. I thought you were saying that the Jesuits were wrong in their views that the "third sex" should be suppressed and that you were also saying that imperialism was wrong.

I believe in social constructivism, but I also believe that there are certain constructions which always work. So I guess it is sort of a hybrid position.

[Chris Smith]

Oh good. I thought you were saying that the Jesuits were wrong in their views that the "third sex" should be suppressed and that you were also saying that imperialism was wrong.

I do think imperialism is wrong. I'm quite happy to invest actions with moral weight.

Categories, however, are another matter.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know about 2 heads, but the fact that you can essentially split one person into two people by cutting the connections between their brain hemispheres (and change their personality in other ways by similar physical alterations of the brain) certainly does pose a problem for the view that personality is lodged in the spirit.

Other concepts of what the spirit is and what function it plays are, of course, available.

I don't think of the "personality" as being synonymous with the "spirit" at all, and it is not clear that that is the LDS position at all.

[mfbukowski]

I do think imperialism is wrong. I'm quite happy to invest actions with moral weight.

Categories, however, are another matter.

Not sure what you are saying. IF gender categories are socially constructed in all cultures, and there are two competing cultures with different gender categories, there is no way to say that one set of gender categories is in some way preferential to another set of gender categories, UNLESS you have a framework from which to do that.

I believe I have such a framework, but that is not the question. I am just trying to understand your position and how "categories are another matter".

[Sine Saw Square]

I don't know about 2 heads, but the fact that you can essentially split one person into two people by cutting the connections between their brain hemispheres (and change their personality in other ways by similar physical alterations of the brain) certainly does pose a problem for the view that personality is lodged in the spirit.

Other concepts of what the spirit is and what function it plays are, of course, available.

Sure there are other concepts "out there" and that's perfectly fine. What I don't think works is to claim them as valid interpretations of LDS teachings. As seen below, pre-earth life spirits are distinctly gendered("brothers and sisters") and individual. Abnormalities in our genetic structure, what ever they be, are part of this physical existence, not indicative of alternate spiritual realities.

Before we were born, we lived with God in heaven as spirits. All of our spirit brothers and sisters were there, too—everyone who has lived or will live on earth including Jesus Christ. In this “pre-earth life,” each of us was an individual with a divine nature and destiny. God gave all of us the gift of agency, or the right to choose for ourselves. Because He is the Father of our spirits, we call Him our Heavenly Father.

source: http://lds.org/plan/...th-god?lang=eng

I'm a total noob here (as if my post count doesn't give that away) so forgive me Chris if I don't know whether you coming at this from within or outside of the LDS faith. Do you claim there are alternate views for the nature of spirit within an LDS framework or are you saying these physical variations present problems for the veracity of the LDS belief system entirely?

[Chris Smith]

Not sure what you are saying. IF gender categories are socially constructed in all cultures, and there are two competing cultures with different gender categories, there is no way to say that one set of gender categories is in some way preferential to another set of gender categories, UNLESS you have a framework from which to do that.

I believe I have such a framework, but that is not the question. I am just trying to understand your position and how "categories are another matter".

Let's put it this way: I do see how a pragmatist could use behavioral rules as an axiom in arguing that a particular categorization scheme is preferable to other categorization schemes.

However, the poster I was responding to (rcrockett) was doing the opposite. He was using a particular categorization scheme as an axiom in arguing for a set of behavioral rules. And that is what I regard as invalid. I see no way for a nominalist to regard one categorization scheme as inherently, axiomatically morally superior to other schemes.

[Chris Smith]

I'm a total noob here (as if my post count doesn't give that away) so forgive me Chris if I don't know whether you coming at this from within or outside of the LDS faith. Do you claim there are alternate views for the nature of spirit within an LDS framework or are you saying these physical variations present problems for the veracity of the LDS belief system entirely?

Well, the idea of spirit prison and paradise sort of throws a monkey wrench into interpreting the spirit as a non-personal "vital principle," as other faiths have done. But maybe that view could still be sustained. Alternatively, perhaps a notion of the spirit as a sort of "carbon copy" of the brain could suffice. But yes, I agree that this problem seems much more difficult within an LDS framework. Perhaps mfbukowski could share how he makes sense of it.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Calm]

I don't think of the "personality" as being synonymous with the "spirit" at all, and it is not clear that that is the LDS position at all.

There are temperamental characteristics that appear to be genetically linked so I see a very good part of personality being a physical component, after all we all know that people tend be grumpier, shorter tempered, etc. when tired or physically stressed, people can be more outgoing due to the chemical effect of alcohol. If short term personality attributes are associated with short term physical states, then why not long term with long term? Of course the longest term physical/material structures of ours includes the spirit so I see it as possible the eternal foundation aspects of personality may be linked with the spirit, but considering how so many of our spiritual attributes appear to be dormant in mortality, it is easy to accept that our material physical bodies have a greater contribution to our external behaviour, etc than our material spiritual structures.

[Sine Saw Square]

I didn't refer to "personality" in qualifying LDS concepts of spirit. I have problems with and questions about "personality" in the eternal scheme of things. (Could be a cool thread on it's own maybe?). I referred to the LDS.org use of the term "individual with a divine nature and destiny". That seems clear enough to rule out nebulous "vital principle" interpretations.

[mfbukowski]

Let's put it this way: I do see how a pragmatist could use behavioral rules as an axiom in arguing that a particular categorization scheme is preferable to other categorization schemes.

However, the poster I was responding to (rcrockett) was doing the opposite.

OK gotcha

[Bob Crockett]

However, the poster I was responding to (rcrockett) was doing the opposite. He was using a particular categorization scheme as an axiom in arguing for a set of behavioral rules. And that is what I regard as invalid. I see no way for a nominalist to regard one categorization scheme as inherently, axiomatically morally superior to other schemes.

And, interestingly, Petrey, when arguing against a nominal binary and axiomatic gender set repeatedly and indiscriminately used "man and woman" to refer to people; it was like he didn't realize the inherent conflict in his turgidness.

Back to Pahoran's comment, manhood and womanhood are immutable and eternal principles, as one can see from Genesis. But, on occasion, there are deviations. They perhaps may be physical or even genetic (I am willing to consider the possibility of a "gay" gene, but no proof yet) aberrations, or mental disturbance (it is not stereotypical to note that there is a significant relationship between being molested by a same-gender adult while a child, and being gay), but there is no theological basis in Mormondom to suppose gender bending.

On the other hand, and by way of disclaimer, other than my religious feelings, I see nothing wrong with being gay.

Edited December 12, 2011 by rcrocket