Taylor Petrey'S Dialogue Article

[mfbukowski]

I am not about to say that I understand the physicality of the spirit/body connection- no one does. But I am confident that there is a physical element which persists beyond physical deterioration of the brain, and I believe that this element includes a sense of "self".

Alzheimers patients retain a sense of self, and struggle to survive- and that sense of survival I think is perhaps one of the most basic elements of selfhood- it is in some sense "that which seeks to survive". My mother had severe dementia when she passed away- she did not know that I was her son, though she recognized me as someone she looked forward to seeing; her entire demeanor would change when I entered the room. But she knew that she was confused and that I was someone important to her.

One might argue that she was "not the same person" and clearly the memories of who she was and what she did in her life were gone- but even if she was not "the same person" she clearly knew that she WAS a person.

When the time came, it was clear that she had enough, she wanted to die, and she fought against any intervention, including pulling out IV's etc. She wanted to meet death on her own terms without interference of others. She was not LDS but had a strong spiritual sense her entire life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1958994/

I think the persistence of self even in the presence of advanced brain deterioration may perhaps give some evidence that there might be a physical component independent of the brain.

But of course I do not base my testimony on scientific evidence.

I think that there may be some kind of physical "field" not yet discovered which is what we term the "spirit body" which interacts with the brain in an as yet unknown (scientifically) way.

That's about all I know.

But the fact is that we experience "selfhood".

I personally experience my "self" as something which existed before I was born and will continue after I leave this body. I have always felt that way even before I was a member of the church. I struggled to extinguish that idea while I was an atheist, but could not.

But I recognize that others may not experience that.

[mfbukowski]

Back to Pahoran's comment, manhood and womanhood are immutable and eternal principles, as one can see from Genesis.

Just to clarify "where I am coming from" in regard to this- I have no problem with this statement. I see no conflict with also stating the same principle in the following terms: "Our notions of gender identity are socially constructed".

Another way of putting it, to me, is "Our notions of gender identity are socially constructed according to principles essential to survival of the species" in an evolutionary sense.

"Survival of the species" can also be seen as an "eternal and immutable principle" of natural law created by God if one wants to.

I want to.

I see all of these as saying essentially the same thing, in different contexts.

Edited December 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just one more before I shut up for a while.

I think the difference I saw in my mother's "personality" was clear while her sense of "self" was still there. That's one of the reasons I differentiate between the physical nature of personality and the more persistent notion of "self".

All I know is that when I get really grumpy late at night my wife tells me in no uncertain terms that I really NEED to go to bed, and I always wake up a much nicer person.

[Pahoran]

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

The point of the point is that there are normally constructed bodies and not normally constructed bodies. And it is reasonable to regard those that don't develop normally as being less than perfect.

This includes such developmental abnormalities as harelips, cleft palates, visual impairments, hearing impairments, syndactyly, polydactyly, Down syndrom and -- despite being hyper-vigilantly protected by the current PC jihad -- genital dysmorphism and sexual dysfunction.

Among others.

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

My objection to "biological variation" is not merely that it is "non-prejudicial." It is that it is fundamentally misleading. "Biological variation" accounts for blondes, gingas, short people and assorted pigment variations. Once we get into actual abnormalities, "birth defects" is more honest, even if there's a risk of hurting someone's feelings.

"Room for additional revelation," then.

Honestly, Pahoran. Badger, badger, badger.

Mushroom mushroom.

(Actually I liked it.)

But the Proclamation on the Family is here to stay.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[David T]

But the Proclamation on the Family is here to stay.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Just like the canonized 1835 Statement on Marriage!

Edited December 12, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Chris Smith]

The point of the point is that there are normally constructed bodies and not normally constructed bodies. And it is reasonable to regard those that don't develop normally as being less than perfect.

I would suggest that if a sane person has a relatively harmless biological variant, it should be up to that person to decide whether or not his or her variant should be regarded as a defect. The history of majority groups acting as the arbiters of normalcy (e.g. eugenics, righties trying to "cure" lefties, straights trying to "cure" gays, evangelicals trying to "cure" Mormons, etc.) has produced far too much misery.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Grundelwalken]

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.

Whew, I've spoken English my whole life and I am fairly proficient in reading and writing but I haven't got a clue what this sentence really says. sorry. MW

[Pahoran]

Just like the canonized 1835 Statement on Marriage!

That's right, nack. Because the Church once published a statement that was subsequently superseded, it necessarily follows that absolutely every statement it ever makes will be likewise superseded later on. The fact that the 1835 statement was not written by the President of the Church, while the Proclamation on the Family is a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve has absolutely nothing to do with it.

But I promise you this: whatever any self-appointed ark-steadier imagines, the Church is not about to give its blessing to sexual perversion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I would suggest that if a sane person has a relatively harmless biological variant, it should be up to that person to decide whether or not his or her variant should be regarded as a defect. The history of majority groups acting as the arbiters of normalcy (e.g. eugenics, righties trying to "cure" lefties, straights trying to "cure" gays, evangelicals trying to "cure" Mormons, etc.) has produced far too much misery.

If all humanity was homosexual, the species would die out in a generation. I don't think that's "relatively harmless."

OTOH, if all humanity lived the Gospel, do you know what would die out in a generation?

AIDS. That's what.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Grundelwalken]

Just like the canonized 1835 Statement on Marriage!

It seems that the change to this came about as a result of further revelation to a prophet of God. Sound reason to make a change. I doubt there will be a corresponding change to the Proclamation on the Family. MW

[mfbukowski]

Whew, I've spoken English my whole life and I am fairly proficient in reading and writing but I haven't got a clue what this sentence really says. sorry. MW

It requires an understanding of the philosophy of Pragmatism

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pragmatism

One of its originators, William James, wrote a book called "Varieties of Religious Experience" showing how religious experience could be seen as logically "valid" in certain senses. William James was also known as sympathetic to Mormonism and in my opinion, more and more Mormons are seeing him as having a philosophy they can espouse

http://www.juvenilei...-and-mormonism/

Edit: What it means roughly, is that certain principles of behavior objectively work better than others, and that can be seen as creating a standard or "axiom" around which one could construct a morality.

For example, deciding that all the cars should drive down one side of the street (on the right in the US, on the left in the UK etc) is preferable to all the cars driving on both sides of the street, whatever they randomly decided. This could be seen as a pragmatic "axiom" to "drive on one side of the street". Accidents are avoided, traffic flows better and life in general is "better" because all obey the pragmatic axiom (in the US) to "drive on the right".

In England, the practice is to drive on the left. Which is better and more "moral"? Neither because it doesn't matter which one does in an absolute sense,

But yet the "axiom" "All people should drive on the same side" can be seen as a pragmatic rule true everywhere.

So the point was being made that morals may differ according to societies, but there can be pragmatic axioms which can be "true" and useful for all mankind in all places. Perhaps "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" can be seen both as a commandment of God and also a pragmatic axiom which has evolved because it has survival value and makes for a peaceful society which is a desire of all mankind.

I believe that pragmatic truths can be seen as "natural laws" for all mankind, and thus, in LDS language be considered "absolute truths".

The attempt here is to show how LDS thought is compatible with humanistic and other secular philosophies to some extent at least.

Edited December 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Senator]

I doubt there will be a corresponding change to the Proclamation on the Family. MW

I'm sure there where a few members of the church who said the same thing about the doctrine of polygamy prior to 1890.

[William Schryver]

That's right, nack. Because the Church once published a statement that was subsequently superseded, it necessarily follows that absolutely every statement it ever makes will be likewise superseded later on. The fact that the 1835 statement was not written by the President of the Church, while the Proclamation on the Family is a joint statement of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve has absolutely nothing to do with it.

But I promise you this: whatever any self-appointed ark-steadier imagines, the Church is not about to give its blessing to sexual perversion.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I like your sig line. D&C 1 (and 133) are two of the most amazing revelations of the restoration. In the context of this particular thread, I think this verse is also particularly apropos:

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

We are living in a day when an increasing number of Latter-day Saints (so-called) are fashioning their own theology; their own interpretation of gospel doctrine and principles; their own agenda for how the Kingdom should be built.

[Pahoran]

I'm sure there where a few members of the church who said the same thing about the doctrine of polygamy prior to 1890.

Be sure to let us know when the US Supreme Court finds that the Church of Jesus Christ can no longer refuse to "marry" same sex couples.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

Somewhat in relation to this subject is a question I've had regarding Matthew 19:12.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

First of all, the question needs to be asked; is Jesus' use of the eunuch illustration simply metaphorical? (meant to speak to the sacrifice/consecration necessary to enter into a "no divorce" marital covenant). If not, then what in the world would be the purpose of a men "making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake"? What role would a emasculated man have in the church?

[Chris Smith]

If all humanity was homosexual, the species would die out in a generation. I don't think that's "relatively harmless."

All humanity is not homosexual. Homosexuals are a relatively small minority in the population, and there are positive social functions they can perform-- such as raising adopted children-- that may well be adaptive at the level of group selection. Certainly when one compares the self-described characteristics and interests of homosexual males to those of heterosexual males, one is struck by the relative harmlessness of the gay group:

Furthermore, even if homosexuality could be shown to be evolutionarily maladaptive, a certain number of maladapted individuals is perfectly "normal" in any population. I see no reason to invest this fact with moral weight.

[mfbukowski]

If all humanity was homosexual, the species would die out in a generation.

I agree and I find this the best objection to their position really. I think that moral principles should be able to be universalized to all. I think gay marriage clearly requires some people to remain heterosexual for humanity to survive. In my opinion, that makes it almost a parasitic culture.

[Senator]

Be sure to let us know when the US Supreme Court finds that the Church of Jesus Christ can no longer refuse to "marry" same sex couples.

Regards,

Pahoran

Of course I was not speaking to any cause of change in doctrine. Merely that GW's statement was probably heard before.

But I think you already knew that.

[Chris Smith]

To put the conversation on a potentially more productive footing, doing away with the Proclamation may not be necessary. The Proclamation's teaching that "gender is an essential characteristic" doesn't necessarily require that gender be binary, static, or determined entirely by one's reproductive equipment.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[David T]

We are living in a day when an increasing number of Latter-day Saints (so-called) are fashioning their own theology; their own interpretation of gospel doctrine and principles; their own agenda for how the Kingdom should be built.

I for one am glad that individuals - including Presidents of the Church - questioned, studied, and repeatedly petitioned the Lord for further knowledge as to if the policy of banning blacks from the priesthood was really necessary.

I don't think we would have had the 1978 revelation if thinking, pondering, working out the historical underpinnings, etc and bringing the Lord a conclusion hadn't been part of the equation. President Kimball studied (and directed others to study) the research that had been done on the subject in the past. It was part of what led to his conclusion that he brought to the Lord and had ratified.

Nobody is advocating Temple Sealers go rogue and begin sealing gay couples. What is being presented is historical and pragmatic information that will be a resource for the GAs - especially the president of the Church - to ponder, think about, and bring to the Lord in prayer.

The GAs aren't the only ones allowed to question the veracity of dogmas. They just happen to be the ones authorized to officially overturn or adapt them in ecclesiastical practice.

Edited December 12, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Chris Smith]

I agree and I find this the best objection to their position really. I think that moral principles should be able to be universalized to all. I think gay marriage clearly requires some people to remain heterosexual for humanity to survive. In my opinion, that makes it almost a parasitic culture.

Just like males, who require some people to remain females in order for humanity to survive. Curse those goldurn parasites!

[cinepro]

We are living in a day when an increasing number of Latter-day Saints (so-called) are fashioning their own theology; their own interpretation of gospel doctrine and principles; their own agenda for how the Kingdom should be built.

It does make you long for the good ol' days when members of the Church didn't have their own ideas about "theology", gospel doctrine or principles, or how the Kingdom should be built.

[Pahoran]

Just like males, who require some people to remain females in order for humanity to survive. Curse those goldurn parasites!

And females likewise need males. Which makes the relationship symbiotic rather than parasitic.

And where do "gays" fit into all of this? Who actually needs them to ensure the survival of the species?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

And where do "gays" fit into all of this? Who actually needs them to ensure the survival of the species?

Gays contribute to society through their labor, if nothing else. The idea that they are "parasites" just because society could survive without them is ridiculous and offensive. Society could survive without Mormons, too. More to the point, society could survive without people who are infertile or disinclined to have children. Are all those people "parasites" just because they don't pass on their genes like good little heterosexual drones?

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Pahoran]

All humanity is not homosexual.

Thankfully.

Homosexuals are a relatively small minority in the population,

Many of whom frequently seem to think everything is all about them.

and there are positive social functions they can perform-- such as raising adopted children

Only if the wellbeing of those children is considered to be less important than helping "gays" feel good about themselves.

-- that may well be adaptive at the level of group selection. Certainly when one compares the self-described characteristics and interests of homosexual males to those of heterosexual males, one is struck by the relative harmlessness of the gay group:

That is interesting. What is the source of that graphic?

And if "horny" means what I think it means, how does it account for the fact that homosexual men are the most promiscuous people around anywhere?

Furthermore, even if homosexuality could be shown to be evolutionarily maladaptive, a certain number of maladapted individuals is perfectly "normal" in any population. I see no reason to invest this fact with moral weight.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. In my view, when evaluating the moral desirability of any X, the question of "How would it be if everyone did X" is a valid one.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily the only one, or that it should be the overriding one; but it remains a valid one, nonetheless.

Regards,

Pahoran