Stone holm Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Just because they were not consulted does not mean women were not consulted. This document is the product of great study and prayer, and is considered scripture and official doctrine. Perhaps Sister Okazaki will be surprised that the RS pres was not consulted when the Book of Mormon was translated or when the D&C was produced.Are you saying that the proclamation on familia is Scripture?
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Are you saying that the proclamation on familia is Scripture? Not if what it contains offends your personal preferences or political sensibilities. Then it's just some words you can ignore.
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2013 Author Posted November 6, 2013 Not if what it contains offends your personal preferences or political sensibilities. Then it's just some words you can ignore. It's not scripture as long as it hasn't been presented by the First Presidency as such and accepted by vote by the membership of the church. 1
Stone holm Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Not if what it contains offends your personal preferences or political sensibilities. Then it's just some words you can ignore.Oh great, that is comforting. I don't think it is scripture, butI don't think it will fade away anytime soon, it has too much political utility for that to occur.
Stargazer Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. If I am sealed to the person I love and want to spend eternity with him or her, I would expect that being "fixed" and assigned someone else would be a huge disappointment. There are lots of disappointments. I am disappointed that most of my children have chosen to pretend the Church doesn't exist and go on about in their lives without any concern for spiritual matters. I have one who married out of the Church and joined his wife's church, and that is disappointing, too. It will be a huge disappointment not to have them share the joy of exaltation with them, assuming I myself am worthy. But that is the way it is. I'll bet God is pretty disappointed with all of us, at one time or another.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 (edited) It's not scripture as long as it hasn't been presented by the First Presidency as such and accepted by vote by the membership of the church. Would those who find themselves offended by the Proclamation on the Family be any less likely to dismiss it after this process? Edited November 6, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2013 Author Posted November 6, 2013 Would those who find themselves offended by the Proclamation on the Family be any less offended and therefore less likely to dismiss it after this process? Beats me.
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2013 Author Posted November 6, 2013 There are lots of disappointments. I am disappointed that most of my children have chosen to pretend the Church doesn't exist and go on about in their lives without any concern for spiritual matters. I have one who married out of the Church and joined his wife's church, and that is disappointing, too. It will be a huge disappointment not to have them share the joy of exaltation with them, assuming I myself am worthy. But that is the way it is. I'll bet God is pretty disappointed with all of us, at one time or another. Disappointment based on our choices is fine with me. I do have a hard time with someone making the choices he or she was supposed to make and then being disappointed because God said so.
Stone holm Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. If I am sealed to the person I love and want to spend eternity with him or her, I would expect that being "fixed" and assigned someone else would be a huge disappointment.Here is my primary concern with how present Church doctrine on SSA may be being received. It seems to me, that we should be blunt. In order for a person with SSA to achieve exaltation, they are indeed going to need to be fixed in the hereafter and enter into a marriage with a being of the opposite sex. Same is true of transgender and hermaphrodites. That is the way the eternities work, and we should not leave any doubt on that issue. That is why, although I will defend the right of homosexuals to marry under secular law, I do so with a sense of the tragic as if they invest themselves in a hopeless relationship that is a terrible eternal tragedy for them.
Rob Osborn Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 I feel very confident that gender is eternal. I do believe there are cases where spirits get into bodies that are screwed up gender wise. I feel that these rare cases will be sorted out in the millennium before we achieve salvation. With that said, I do not believe our spirits are genderless or not known until mortality. We all have distinct female or male genders that were distinct before we came here to get a body. As for the churches Proclamation on the Family, it is an official and true document. One could debate on if it is or isnt scripture but in truth the real argument is over whether it is true or false. I believe it to be true.
Popular Post EllenMaksoud Posted November 6, 2013 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2013 I feel very confident that gender is eternal. I do believe there are cases where spirits get into bodies that are screwed up gender wise. I feel that these rare cases will be sorted out in the millennium before we achieve salvation. With that said, I do not believe our spirits are genderless or not known until mortality. We all have distinct female or male genders that were distinct before we came here to get a body.As for the churches Proclamation on the Family, it is an official and true document. One could debate on if it is or isnt scripture but in truth the real argument is over whether it is true or false. I believe it to be true.This conversation is unspeakably painful. I agree that gender is eternal though a body can be a complete mess. There are numerous conditions that may cause parents and Bishops to mistake gender. Hermaphrodism, AIS, and PAIS are just a a few, and we do not know how brain abnormalities can influence gender. And, the incidence of these sorts of things is much higher than the experts suppose. One article I read yesterday said that the incidence of certain intersex conditions could be as high as 1:300. What I know about the subject, having been directly involved, is depressing. It is unfortunate that certain members of the church would see a Surgeon, for example as an expert in genetics when in my experience even those we would suppose to posess some knowlege actually know nothing. I had to school an Endocrinologist in my particular blood chemistry and she would not listen until tests revealed I was right. I believe in the Prophet hood of the President of the Church, and the power of the Holy Spirit. I think that activists are particularly suspect and there is a very good reason that I do not participate in it. I never planned to be a Member of the Church, and when they were naive enough to Baptize me, I vowed to never do anything to hurt it or its members. Their kindness to me was a complete shock. It has been my intention to quietly serve where needed, not having Temple priveleges, and die happily invisible to the unobservant. If you met me on the street, you would not know of this struggle. 5
Freedom Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Are you saying that the proclamation on familia is Scripture? it considered an official source of doctrine. The church states the following: "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." Although the proclamations have not been canonized, scripture is defined as "whatsoever [God's representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" (D&C 68:2-4; cf. 1:38; 2 Pet. 2:21; 2 Tim. 3:16). Encyclopedia of Mormonism Packer refers to the proclamation as follows: "A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. And at that time, this was a little more than 10 years ago, the Brethren issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It is scripture like in its power." WWLT Feb 2008 1
BCSpace Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Just because they were not consulted does not mean women were not consulted. This document is the product of great study and prayer, and is considered scripture and official doctrine. Perhaps Sister Okazaki will be surprised that the RS pres was not consulted when the Book of Mormon was translated or when the D&C was produced. Are you saying that the proclamation on familia is Scripture? It's better than that. It's doctrine, which is more important than scripture.
Stone holm Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 It's better than that. It's doctrine, which is more important than scripture. Not sure I agree completely with you on either its status as doctrine or that such status makes it more important than scripture. It is of course a very, very important policy and teaching of the Church.
Freedom Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Not sure I agree completely with you on either its status as doctrine or that such status makes it more important than scripture. It is of course a very, very important policy and teaching of the Church. Then go back and read my post #62. It is irrefutably doctrine. There is much in the scriptures that is not doctrine do to errors in translation or transmission.
Darren10 Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 So, having one's sealing canceled has no eternal effects? And if the person is "corrected" to a female in the afterlife, that means no priesthood authority; are you saying loss of priesthood authority has no eternal effect, either? Not sure what you mean here. I assumed by "eternal destiny" you were referring specifically to gender. Rereading your original post I ccan now see that this is not necessarily the case. Now, regarding a temple sealing and priesthood, yes those do have eternal affects but even here what eternal promises are bound to are individual righteousness. Therefore, if any individual were to not be sealed or receive the priesthood despite their righteousness (including not being sealed or having the priesthood for no fault of their own which is the case of the tansgendered situation you cited), they will not be denied any eternal blessing. All things will work out in the end.
mfbukowski Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 So, my question is this: if a premortal female spirit is given a body with male and female genitalia, and the parents decide to make her a "boy," how does this affect the child's eternal destiny? Say the boy grows up, is ordained to the priesthood, serves a mission, and is married in the temple? Does the female spirit then become a male spirit? Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?John if indeed you think as I do in a postmodern way, you would not ask this question Clearly the answer is unknowable, and the question itself is a confusion of metaphors- and you know it. I really question your motivation in asking it in the first place. It seems that you are here just to stir the pot and have a little fun playing with the TBM's- as you might regard them 1
Stone holm Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 it considered an official source of doctrine. The church states the following: "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."Although the proclamations have not been canonized, scripture is defined as "whatsoever [God's representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" (D&C 68:2-4; cf. 1:38; 2 Pet. 2:21; 2 Tim. 3:16). Encyclopedia of MormonismPacker refers to the proclamation as follows: "A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. And at that time, this was a little more than 10 years ago, the Brethren issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It is scripture like in its power." WWLT Feb 2008 One of Packer's talks on this subject was edited to tone down the status he assigned to the Proclamation before it was published was it this one or a more recent one?
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted November 6, 2013 Popular Post Posted November 6, 2013 This conversation is unspeakably painful. I agree that gender is eternal though a body can be a complete mess. There are numerous conditions that may cause parents and Bishops to mistake gender. Hermaphrodism, AIS, and PAIS are just a a few, and we do not know how brain abnormalities can influence gender. And, the incidence of these sorts of things is much higher than the experts suppose. One article I read yesterday said that the incidence of certain intersex conditions could be as high as 1:300. What I know about the subject, having been directly involved, is depressing. It is unfortunate that certain members of the church would see a Surgeon, for example as an expert in genetics when in my experience even those we would suppose to posess some knowlege actually know nothing. I had to school an Endocrinologist in my particular blood chemistry and she would not listen until tests revealed I was right. I believe in the Prophet hood of the President of the Church, and the power of the Holy Spirit. I think that activists are particularly suspect and there is a very good reason that I do not participate in it. I never planned to be a Member of the Church, and when they were naive enough to Baptize me, I vowed to never do anything to hurt it or its members. Their kindness to me was a complete shock. It has been my intention to quietly serve where needed, not having Temple priveleges, and die happily invisible to the unobservant. If you met me on the street, you would not know of this struggle.Hang in there, stick to what the spirit tells you, forget the #$!%& 's and know that we love you and as you know, so does God. 5
mfbukowski Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 You're fun, Wade.I think so too. Wade is great. 1
EllenMaksoud Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Hang in there, stick to what the spirit tells you, forget the #$!%& 's and know that we love you and as you know, so does God.Shukran Jazillian. I am not this strong activist and yet some I know seem to throw me to the wolves. Heavenly Father is the center of my universe and to not witness of him would be to die. This struggle is not understandable to me, and it sometimes seems crazy that I should imagine the right to even live.
EllenMaksoud Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 John if indeed you think as I do in a postmodern way, you would not ask this question Clearly the answer is unknowable, and the question itself is a confusion of metaphors- and you know it. I really question your motivation in asking it in the first place. It seems that you are here just to stir the pot and have a little fun playing with the TBM's- as you might regard themWhat is TBM? As to JKwilliams question, the answer is that people like that should die. This conversation makes me feel, not safe and I can not imagine how to do it. I have felt safe with Mormons it was never my intention to be part of this struggle within the church. Others who know the answers should solve this.
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2013 Author Posted November 6, 2013 John if indeed you think as I do in a postmodern way, you would not ask this question Clearly the answer is unknowable, and the question itself is a confusion of metaphors- and you know it. I really question your motivation in asking it in the first place. It seems that you are here just to stir the pot and have a little fun playing with the TBM's- as you might regard them I wasn't trying to stir any pots. I just wondered what people thought would happen doctrinally and so on.
ERayR Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 I wasn't trying to stir any pots. I just wondered what people thought would happen doctrinally and so on. Doctrinally the millennium is set aside to right such wrongs and no body is forced into an eternal role that does not fit them.
jkwilliams Posted November 6, 2013 Author Posted November 6, 2013 Doctrinally the millennium is set aside to right such wrongs and no body is forced into an eternal role that does not fit them. That was my question: if the eternal role is set in the premortal existence, how does one not be forced into the "correct" role? I am truly not meaning to offend or stir the pot, but I'm genuinely curious as to how other posters work this out. And I apologize that in bringing this up I inadvertently caused pain to people who are dealing with these issues personally. I was not aware of that.
Recommended Posts