Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark

[consiglieri]

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking.

What do you think?

[Ahab]

Gender is an essential characteristic of identity and purpose.

There.  Does that make it easier for you to agree with? 

Just common sense to me.

 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So God made different genders for no good reason?

Odd.

 

[Bob Crockett]

Male and female created he them?  What does it mean to jump the shark?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

It is ironic that you chide LDS by suggesting that gender serves no purpose in postmortality outside of exaltation and then also lambast them for speaking without knowledge about premortality.

So what is your source that gender is pointless outside of exaltation or are you speaking with absolutely no knowledge?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking.

What do you think?

Greetings, where do you get your support that the statement that most Mormons do not think gender is an essential characteristic?  I would have thought the exact opposite based upon our doctrine, but it is just an opinion.

I am most often pretty skeptical of statements by leaders - in other words, I want them to differentiate when something is revelation from God and when they are speaking as a man.  Without such a clarification I generally put it in the opinion box until such time as I receive some degree of spiritual confirmation of what has been said.

In regards to the PofF, I think you have the burden of seeking whether or not it is inspired.  It is a document that I have read countless times and believe it is inspired.  

Cheers,

[smac97]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking.

What do you think?

I think that good faith discussions of LDS doctrine are not really possible where you initiate a thread with a slur against our beliefs ("jumps the shark" indeed).

In the absence of a good faith effort to discuss such sacred things, I will refrain from substantive participation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Male and female created he them?  What does it mean to jump the shark?

Yeah I've heard that phrase for years and just brushed past it without caring what it meant, but this time I decided to track it down.  It originally related to TV shows where there was an incident in an episode that clearly indicated that the show was heading downhill in quality.  It was first related to an episode of Happy Days in the 5th season.  See Jumping the shark.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking.

What do you think?

I think that you are too easily jarred, consiglieri.  Buck up, man!

Actually, I tend to think of the Proclamation on the Family as a revelatory statement.  It's got the signatures of 15 Apostles of the Lord, who presumably receive individually and collectively more spiritual guidance than most other people get.  Or do you require 4,000 year old sources to everything?

When Jesus was among us, the authorities of the day (Pharisees and Saducees) were accustomed to backing up their pronouncements by quoting (or misquoting) scriptures.  And thus they were amazed about Jesus just saying "Thus it is" without feeling like he had to justify his every utterance with a well-chosen scripture.  Not that he didn't use the scriptures when appropriate, but that He was The Authority.

Now, if you consider the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to be just some rarefied committee of more-or-less select guys with various opinions, well perhaps then you might want them to back up every statement or proclamation with some great treatise based on a clever exegesis of the scriptures.  And then you might feel the need to argue with them over whatever points of the gospel you think they didn't get quite right.

But if they are truly what they seem to be, a collegium of priesthood holders whom The Lord has chosen and inspired to be the leaders of His church upon the earth today, then perhaps when they make a proclamation on a supremely important topic, they might know more about what they are talking about than some random guy on the street.  

On the other hand, why wouldn't gender be essential, if one of the first things said in Genesis is that God created male and female in the beginning?

There seems to be loads of evidence in the revealed ordinances of the Gospel for the essential nature of gender.  Men can only be baptized by proxy by other men; and women for women.  Essential differences between wording in ordinances respecting men and women.  And so on.

As for your claim that "Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose."  I think you need to back that up somehow.  I've never heard any Mormon of my acquaintance ever saying anything that would suggest they believe that.  Have you polled a representative sample of Mormons to determine that at least 51% feel the way you say they do?  Somehow, I don't think you have.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think that good faith discussions of LDS doctrine are not really possible where you initiate a thread with a slur against our beliefs ("jumps the shark" indeed).

In the absence of a good faith effort to discuss such sacred things, I will refrain from substantive participation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, come on smac97.  This thread start is so full of holes that it seems almost desperate in its attempt to find something to complain about.  Surely you would have loads of fun shooting it down?

Consiglieri needs to come up with better than this, as the phrase "jumping the shark" might seem more applicable to the theme of this particular thread.  Has he reached his zenith in his earlier thread, and now it's downhill all the way?  Are we next going to hear about how the Church has gone too far now that it permits gluten-free bread to be distributed with the Sacrament?  I mean, the Lord didn't have gluten-free bread at the Last Supper, so obviously we're apostatizing.  NO, don't anyone try to respond to that -- I'm not advocating a threadjack.  Start a new thread if you want to discuss that one.

[Stargazer]

There's some more basis on considering gender to be an eternal characteristic and that is the fact that we have both a Father and a Mother in Heaven.  Not a Parent.  A pair of generative beings having disparate but complementary genders.

And then there's Moses 2:26,27:

Quote

 

26 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. And I, God, said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.

 

If gender were not an eternal characteristic, how is it that God made us in His image, and included their gender ("male and female") as one of their characteristics, and in fact one of the characteristics that made us in His image?  If gender weren't important then we would just like certain aphids, eternally reproducing by parthenogenesis. 

It's as clear as the nose on your face, if you would trouble to look in a mirror, that is.  The Proclamation is saying nothing more than the scriptures say.  So, if you need a scripture to back up the Proclamation, well then, there's one.  And a pretty important one.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

#1 is wrong

#2 is wrong

#3 is wrong (and worthy of a CFR)

Just a lot of wrong.

[JAHS]

All humans were created spiritually before physically on the earth (Moses 3:5); therefore, "male and female created He them" (Gen 1: 27) both in the pre-mortal and mortal life. The only thing where there might be a question are those who are born with a very rare Inter-sex condition, where it is not sure whether they should be male or female. And if they choose a sex with surgery, did they choose the right one compatible with their spirit?

 

[volgadon]

Consig, this is a good question. I think that sections 131-132 of the D&C suggest that gender is an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

[hagoth7]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think that you are too easily jarred, consiglieri.  Buck up, man!

Regarding this thread, I'd agree.

Quote

Oh, come on smac97.  This thread start is so full of holes that it seems almost desperate in its attempt to find something to complain about.  Surely you would have loads of fun shooting it down?

I think smac lost all interest when Bob hit the bullseye:

Quote

Male and female created he them?...

 

[Buckeye]

11 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Male and female created he them?  What does it mean to jump the shark?

 

I read that phrase to mean that God's love and plan are universal. They apply to all regardless of gender. I read it the same way I read other similar phrases such as "bond and free" and "black and white." I believe that gender may be a feature of our eternal existence - just like race, eye color, stature, spoke language, etc. may be features of our eternal existence. But none of these features are aspects of the plan of salvation. Salvation comes through emulating Christ, by taking on his attributes. Gender, like race, language, etc., is simply one of the many attributes that may exist, but which do not have any eternal significance.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I already posted this in the other thread, but just in case:

Bad ideas:

The emphasis on marriage being solely between a man and woman is not fair to homosexuals. I don't understand how gender can somehow be an "essential characteristic" of bodiless intelligences. There is an odd sort of reticence to mention Heavenly Mother openly, while most of the implied rhetorical stance focuses on Heavenly Father as the being to whom the term 'God' is referring to. The binary division into male and female doesn't acknowledge transgender/intersex individuals. While I think rituals and ordinances are socially important constructs which give us a symbolic way to express our covenants, I don't think such rituals in themselves are 'magic'; they are not what will allow us to return to God. I don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth (see Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" - this reads to me as creating mankind in general, not two specific individuals, which is how Cain can have a non-incestuous wife, etc.) God's 'command' to be fruitful and multiply actually reads to me more as a blessing than an order; at any rate, I don't think most people need to be commanded to reproduce in the first place. The emphasis on procreation between males and females does not address invitro fertilization or infertile couples and adoption; if invitro fertilization is viable, and if infertile couples can adopt, then why shouldn't homosexuals do the same? There is no way for a husband to 'preside' over a family while simultaneously being an 'equal partner' to his wife; Paul's opinions, while 'scriptural', were written in the context of a harshly patriarchal society, are sexist and wrong, and are not, in my opinion, evidence of 'divine design'. I think both partners should be equally responsible for the 'nurture of their children'. Remember that the Book of Mormon explicitly teaches that the errors of men can become part of the scriptural record, and so whether or not something is 'doctrinal' or 'scriptural' is not the determining factor of whether or not it is true. Scripture cannot be used as an authority; the only authority is ultimately persuasion and truth, not a static and unchanging book of fallible words. 

Good ideas:

All humans - male and female - are created in the image of God - though I'd prefer if they'd just openly say 'Gods', since we need to stop trying to look like the absolute monotheisms, and be more forward about recognizing the divine feminine. The sacredness of the physical body and the potential to become perfectly compassionate servants working to bring to pass the immorality and eternal life of all other coexisting intelligences as part of our 'divine destiny as heirs of eternal life'. The ability to maintain family relationships perpetuated beyond the grave. The recognition that sexuality - 'the means by which mortal life is [sometimes] created' - should be seen as divine, not some sort of bestial lesser-evil necessitated by the Fall. The sanctity of life and its importance. The solemn responsibility of a husband and wife to love and care for each other and for their children, provide for the physical and spiritual needs of the family, teach them to love and serve one another and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. The honoring of vows with complete fidelity. The recognition that individual circumstances may necessitate adaptation, and that extended families should lend support. The warning against abuse of spouse or offspring. 

...

The Proclamation is now twenty years old. It is, by its own admission, merely a Proclamation, not a binding Revelation. Nowhere is it stated that God dictated it or even inspired it; it is simply the best summary and interpretation that some well-meaning men (with no women in sight) could do at the time. Treating it as if it were timeless, when there have been so many advances in our understanding of the world since then, seems misguided to me. 

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking.

What do you think?

I think the plan of salvation makes no sense if gender is not an essential characteristic of our eternal life.

And considering the brethren are declaring doctrine in the proclamation I don't see how you can seriously argue it's not doctrine.

Talk to the Lord about it. If you want to know this sacred truth He can reveal it to you

[Avatar4321]

I would also second (or third) the cfr for most Mormons not believing gender is essential. Are we really to believe most members don't believe in the proclamation? Really?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

Check out Moses 3:5-7.

Regarding pre-mortal gender of Adam and Eve, “… I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. …And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; …And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.”

All the children of men were created male and female (first spiritually in heaven and then naturally in paradise):

Gen. 1: 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Gen. 5: 2, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

D&C 20: 18, “And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them…”

Moses 2: 27, “And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.”

Moses 6: 9, “In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.”

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

There is an odd sort of reticence to mention Heavenly Mother openly . . .

I find it fascinating that people, like you, JeremyOrbe-Smith, who obsess over Heavenly Mother and the "divine feminine" (based on your posting history), turn around and say things like, "I don't understand how gender can somehow be an "essential characteristic" . . . 

If gender is not an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose, then why do you care so much about the "divine feminine" or Heavenly Mother? 

It's just interesting. 

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Gender is an essential characteristic of identity and purpose.

There.  Does that make it easier for you to agree with? 

Just common sense to me.

 

Thanks, Ahab!

But if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same, would I not still be me?

In other words, would my identity have fundamentally changed?

If not, how can we hold that gender is an essential characteristic of identity in the here and now?

Not to mention in the there and then?

Edited December 16, 2015 by consiglieri

[consiglieri]

To ask a related question, if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same, how would my purpose have changed?

I believe it would not have changed at all, except in respect to one thing only--the ability to have procreative sexual relations.

If this is correct, this statement in the Proclamation suggests that our fundamental "purpose" is to have procreative sexual relations.

Not only in the here and now, but also in the eternities.

And for some reason, even back into the premortal existence.

To me, it is a mass of confusion.

Not to mention demeaning of the qualities in men and women superior than just their ability to make babies.

[Meadowchik]

The existence of a Heavenly Father as we doctrinally understand would mean that gender does have eternal significance.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by bluebell