Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark

[Ahab]

Hopefully none of us hold Bruce in such high esteem that even if he did mean that none of us should have any type of personal relationship with Jesus Christ that we would think:

Oh, okay, if Bruce doesn't think I should have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ then I suppose I shouldn't.

I mean, I like the man, and he did say a lot of good things but, come on, Bruce isn't someone I would worship as if he was perfect. 

 

 

[Ahab]

Oops, wrong thread.  Oh well. I'm not perfect either.

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

> But the crux of the issue is that any speculative answers seem to remove "gender as an essential characteristic of individual . . . eternal identity and purpose."

> Contrary to the Proclamation.

==So if anonymous online speculation contradicts the Proclamation given to us by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, your preference is to . . . jettison the Proclamation?

==Well . . . okay.

-Smac

I never said anything about jettisoning the Proclamation.

Again with the straw man, Smac?

Why is this such a popular apologist tactic?

[Tony Frank]

On 12/21/2015 at 7:44 AM, consiglieri said:

Your comment also brings up the question as to how God is supposed to keep the men and women in the lesser kingdoms from having procreative sexual relations unless some kind of action is taken.

This is where I think Joseph Fielding Smith was going with his speculations.

If everybody's "parts" are still up and working through the resurrection, how are they to be kept separated?

I mean, we know they won't do as they are told, right?

That's what got them into a lesser kingdom in the first place.

 

Those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms cannot progress any further. Hence, there is no "purpose" to functioning genitalia in those kingdoms.

The Proclamation on the Family is true:"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

[mfbukowski]

On 12/21/2015 at 7:25 AM, consiglieri said:

You baptismal covenants included "conquering nicotine addiction"?

Probably already answered but one can go to the temple for baptisms for the dead immediately after baptism because following the Word of Wisdom is part of receiving a baptismal recommend.

One covenants to all the membership requirements at baptism.

The only difference between having a recommend to attend the temple for baptisms and the endowment is the priesthood for men and the usual waiting period between baptism and the endowment for all.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/21/2015 at 7:44 AM, consiglieri said:

Your comment also brings up the question as to how God is supposed to keep the men and women in the lesser kingdoms from having procreative sexual relations unless some kind of action is taken.

This is where I think Joseph Fielding Smith was going with his speculations.

If everybody's "parts" are still up and working through the resurrection, how are they to be kept separated?

I mean, we know they won't do as they are told, right?

That's what got them into a lesser kingdom in the first place.

 

Easy answer, the three kingdoms are postulated to have different kinds of "flesh"

1 Cor 15

 

Quote

 

35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I don't know the answer either, JLH.

But the crux of the issue is that any speculative answers seem to remove "gender as an essential characteristic of individual . . . eternal identity and purpose."

Contrary to the Proclamation.

Which is really the point of this entire thread.

Which we seem to keep coming back to.

And which I think continues to prove my point.

 

Come on, this is  just plain a very poor argument.

There is no evidence for any of this.  God decided to make it that way and it's all over.  That is the only possible answer.

It's like arguing with a Star Trek writer about whether or not "reversing the coils" would "really" have the effect of remedying whatever problem it was supposed to remedy.

All of this is taken on faith- you are arguing as if it is a science fiction physics problem.  Just an extremely poor argument!

God made it that way.  End of discussion.  Accept it or don't.  Who cares if you do or not?  This is not science- speculating on it is fruitless.  Nobody knows how any of this works and there is no way to decide who is right.  It's pointless.

If that proves your point, your point is worth about as much as a Star Trek episode theologically speaking. I mean let's argue about something substantial like how angels materialize and the nature of spirit matter and if it can be generated in a warp coil.

THAT would be a discussion.  You are really reaching on some of these topics!

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

Oops, wrong thread.  Oh well. I'm not perfect either.

That's ok

I can't tell the difference any more either.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I never said anything about jettisoning the Proclamation.

Again with the straw man, Smac?

Why is this such a popular apologist tactic?

So then what IS the point of the thread?  What's its purpose?

Why is it the tactic of critics to bring up pointless criticisms that are totally irrelevant to anything important?

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

Oops, wrong thread.  Oh well. I'm not perfect either.

Welcome to the club!

[consiglieri]

9 hours ago, Tony Frank said:

Those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms cannot progress any further. Hence, there is no "purpose" to functioning genitalia in those kingdoms.

The Proclamation on the Family is true:"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

But according to this line of reasoning, the Proclamation is "true" only insofar as it describes the small group of LDS who are exalted.

It has no applicability whatsoever to the vast majority of humanity who will obtain only lesser kingdoms.

Without making such a clarification, the Proclamation is misleading at best.

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Easy answer, the three kingdoms are postulated to have different kinds of "flesh"

1 Cor 15

 

 

Man flesh!

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So then what IS the point of the thread?  What's its purpose?

Why is it the tactic of critics to bring up pointless criticisms that are totally irrelevant to anything important?

The purpose is to question the doctrinal foundation of one particular sentence in the Proclamation.

I thought I made that clear in the OP but I know how it is easy to lose track of such things given the different directions threads can go.

[smac97]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I never said anything about jettisoning the Proclamation.

Again with the straw man, Smac?

Why is this such a popular apologist tactic?

What's the point, then, of pointing to "speculative answers" that contradicts the Proclamation?  Your point here is to undermine the Proclamation, is it not?  To falsify its claim that "gender as an essential characteristic of individual . . . eternal identity and purpose".  And you propose to do this by pointing to alternative authorities in the form of . . . "speculative answers" that, in your view, "remove" (that is, falsify) the foregoing statement in the Proclamation.

So if you are not pointing to these "speculative answers" as binding or persuasive authorities superior to the Proclamation, then what are you doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But according to this line of reasoning, the Proclamation is "true" only insofar as it describes the small group of LDS who are exalted.

It has no applicability whatsoever to the vast majority of humanity who will obtain only lesser kingdoms.

Without making such a clarification, the Proclamation is misleading at best.

Ah yes, so mankind should have nothing to strive for because most will only have only more eternal happiness than anyone here dcan imagine.

Gotta keep everyone downtrodden after all, no matter how much they strive!  I just got back from Eastern Europe.  I don't think that was the best plan or the best model of belief for humanity, unfortunately.  Without the belief in limitless human potential, there is no reason to get out of bed in the morning- at least not for me.

Maybe it should have a few footnotes, like "Subject to your faithfulness, your results may vary but eternal happiness will be yours regardless"?

Edited December 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The purpose is to question the doctrinal foundation of one particular sentence in the Proclamation.

I thought I made that clear in the OP but I know how it is easy to lose track of such things given the different directions threads can go.

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

Our eternal identity and purpose is described by the Father: immortality and eternal life (Moses 1:39) as begotten sons and daughters unto God in the flesh (D&C 76:24) and in the spirit (Mosiah 5:7; 27:25). Depending on the estate, the sons and daughters of God can present themselves as spirit or connected spirit and flesh, both “separably” (as mortals) and inseparably (as immortals).

Premortal and mortal references to gender: Moses 2:37 in concert with 3:3-7. Eternal references: D&C 132:19-20.

As far as gender being essential, “…neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12). We also have the principle of opposition in all things, where gender cannot exist without opposing male and female elements forming the necessary compound in one, meaning the opposite genders are essential for the other to exist. “Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. …wherefore, all things must have vanished away.” (2 Nephi 2: 11-15)

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The purpose is to question the doctrinal foundation of one particular sentence in the Proclamation.

I thought I made that clear in the OP but I know how it is easy to lose track of such things given the different directions threads can go.

And I suppose there is a reason you have ignored most of my posts as well.  That's because the question has been answered again and again.

Consig, I actually like you personally, I think you are a seeking soul who is here to throw out bombs to see how we react.  I think you are testing the waters, perhaps for good, perhaps for not good, no one knows but you.

But can you allow me to give you my reasoning on all this ?

This church is based on revelation- personal revelation.  Period.  There is no "doctrine" there is no "theology" in the classical sense, because that entails the "philosophies of men".

I am a student of philosophy and I know that it leads nowhere but confusion and I can explain that philosophically.   Wittgenstein already did that for me.

All anyone has is personal revelation when it comes to religious matters.

You have to grow up and maybe think that what your mama taught you about the nature of linguistic "truth" was wrong.  She wasn't trained in these matters and was doing her best, as we all do.  

The church cannot be proven scientifically to be "true" in a scientific sense.  It isn't meant to be

What we have are interpretations of our own revelations and the recorded revelations of others as published in language which is inherently ambiguous to start off with and then we get to put into it our own ambiguous interpretations.

So you have a direct revelation, then you have a human brain with impaired language skills putting that revelation "into words" using ambiguous language.  Then you have another human brain with impaired language skills reading the ambiguous language of another, and now "interpreting" those words into that other human brain with it's own experiences and misinterpretations.

Now along comes Consig with questions about the scientific precision about how all of this ambiguity is supposed to work in the scientific world.  Perhaps he is serious, perhaps he is stirring the pot, perhaps he is having fun messing around with people, perhaps a little bit of all of that.

My suggestion is to first realize that there are no firm answers to any of this.

Either you believe it or you don't.   Ask God if you should believe it and get your own revelation, or don't ask, or don't get your revelation or go and get drunk.  Whatever.

I wish you well. 

But get the perspective that this is all based on personal revelation.  I know no LDS scholar, writer, or "theologian" who does not understand this.  I could give you pages of citations of these folks who say proudly that we have no "doctrine" or "systematic theology"- but a very rich tradition of interpretation of spiritual experience.

I love that fact, you may not.  To each his own.

But be ethical for Pete's sake.  Do not use people.  Even critics can be ethical, even I think that. 

Don't hang around to pull people's chains.

One thing your mama did teach you about what was right is to do unto others what you would have them do unto you.  This isn't a contest to find the biggest playground bully, it is for an earnest exchange of ideas, not to f....oolaround with people.  Surely you can understand ambiguity.  You are a big boy now.  All we have around here is earnest people doing their best. 

I am sorry you got all this confused with physics.   It's not physics.  The explanations, even though they are theories like physics, are not quite as clear and not meant to be.

Clearly you get that??  No??

Edited December 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Tony Frank]

On 12/22/2015 at 6:32 PM, Bobbieaware said:

Dare I say Elder Joseph Smith may have speculated incorrectly on this one? If the Family Proclaimation carries the weight of Scripture -- and I believe it does -- then the words of the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve trump the speculations of a lone apostle who was looking through a glass darkly. Note that Elder Smith's final statement is prefaced by the words "I take it," which is tantamount to saying that what he was about to say was only speculative.

Taking my cue from the Family Proclaimation, I personally believe men will always be men and women will always be women in the eternities, even in the lower kingdoms of glory. In fact, I believe men and women will still be attracted to each other and desire to form loving relationships with each other, but that such relationships will be experienced in a less-exalted manner than will the male/female relationships as experienced in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. Though this opinion of mine is admittedly based partially on speculation, I find it very difficult to believe men and women are not going to be resurrected anatomically correct. And if they are resurrected anatomically correct, with every organ and even the very hairs of the head being properly placed in the body for all eternity, I find it difficult to imagine men won't continue to feel and act like men and women won't continue to feel and act like women.

I do not think Joseph Fielding Smith's words at at odds with the Proclamation on the Family. His point was that "men and women" (his words) in these kingdoms will not serve their purpose, "neither man nor woman," which is "just what the so-called Christian world expects." Latter-day Saints know that our objective is eternal progression in which we fulfill our divine purpose.

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

So if you are not pointing to these "speculative answers" as binding or persuasive authorities superior to the Proclamation, then what are you doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

I will repeat myself for clarity's sake.

I am quoting one sentence in the Proclamation for which I believe there is no doctrinal basis.

And I have yet to see one produced.

But keep trying.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

Our eternal identity and purpose is described by the Father: immortality and eternal life (Moses 1:39) as begotten sons and daughters unto God in the flesh (D&C 76:24) and in the spirit (Mosiah 5:7; 27:25). Depending on the estate, the sons and daughters of God can present themselves as spirit or connected spirit and flesh, both “separably” (as mortals) and inseparably (as immortals).

Premortal and mortal references to gender: Moses 2:37 in concert with 3:3-7. Eternal references: D&C 132:19-20.

As far as gender being essential, “…neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12). We also have the principle of opposition in all things, where gender cannot exist without opposing male and female elements forming the necessary compound in one, meaning the opposite genders are essential for the other to exist. “Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. …wherefore, all things must have vanished away.” (2 Nephi 2: 11-15)

You throw out a lot of stuff here that doesn't support the proposition.

For example, you cite to D&C 76.24 for the proposition that we are "begotten sons and daughters unto God in the flesh."

But that is not what it says.

What it says is that through Jesus Christ, we become the begotten sons and daughters of God.

That is an entirely different thing.

It is talking about a salvific event through Jesus.

 

Quote

 

 D&C 76: 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

 

Similarly, your references to Mosiah 5:7 and 27:25 say nothing about being "begotten sons and daughters unto God in the spirit," as you claim.

Again, Mosiah 5:7 references a salvific event:

Quote

 7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Ditto for Mosiah 27:25:

Quote

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

In fact, this last verse makes it clear that humanity does not "become" God's sons and daughters until they are born again.

Prior to that, they are not considered so, at least according to the Book of Mormon.

You should perhaps do a little more reading before you blithely cut and paste.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Tony Frank said:

I do not think Joseph Fielding Smith's words at at odds with the Proclamation on the Family. His point was that "men and women" (his words) in these kingdoms will not serve their purpose, "neither man nor woman," which is "just what the so-called Christian world expects." Latter-day Saints know that our objective is eternal progression in which we fulfill our divine purpose.

But the Proclamation does not say that only those few who are exalted will have their gender be part of their eternal purpose.

I hope I am making my point clear enough by now.

This is where the Proclamation incorrectly portrays established Mormon doctrine.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Tony Frank said:

I do not think Joseph Fielding Smith's words at at odds with the Proclamation on the Family. His point was that "men and women" (his words) in these kingdoms will not serve their purpose, "neither man nor woman," which is "just what the so-called Christian world expects." Latter-day Saints know that our objective is eternal progression in which we fulfill our divine purpose.

At the end of the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the prophet Joseph Smith said there is yet much more to be revealed concerning the destiny of the sons and daughters of God in eternity. Elsewhere the prophet Joseph said he couldn't openly disclose what he knew about what goes on in the eternities without taking the very real risk that even the most stalwart members of the Church could end up rebelling against revelations of higher truth because they are not spiritually mature enough to receive the,. Keeping these things in mind, I believe the Family Proclamation's declaration that gender is an important part of eternal identity and purpose pertains to those in the lower kingdoms as well as to those in the higher kingdoms of glory. But this is just my opinion based on logic and reason. If it turns out I'm wrong. I won"t cry over it because I know our merciful and loving God will make sure life for his his children in the lower kingdoms of glory will have real meaning, purpose and destiny.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And I suppose there is a reason you have ignored most of my posts as well.  That's because the question has been answered again and again.

Consig, I actually like you personally, I think you are a seeking soul who is here to throw out bombs to see how we react.  I think you are testing the waters, perhaps for good, perhaps for not good, no one knows but you.

But can you allow me to give you my reasoning on all this ?

This church is based on revelation- personal revelation.  Period.  There is no "doctrine" there is no "theology" in the classical sense, because that entails the "philosophies of men".

I am a student of philosophy and I know that it leads nowhere but confusion and I can explain that philosophically.   Wittgenstein already did that for me.

All anyone has is personal revelation when it comes to religious matters.

You have to grow up and maybe think that what your mama taught you about the nature of linguistic "truth" was wrong.  She wasn't trained in these matters and was doing her best, as we all do.  

The church cannot be proven scientifically to be "true" in a scientific sense.  It isn't meant to be

What we have are interpretations of our own revelations and the recorded revelations of others as published in language which is inherently ambiguous to start off with and then we get to put into it our own ambiguous interpretations.

So you have a direct revelation, then you have a human brain with impaired language skills putting that revelation "into words" using ambiguous language.  Then you have another human brain with impaired language skills reading the ambiguous language of another, and now "interpreting" those words into that other human brain with it's own experiences and misinterpretations.

Now along comes Consig with questions about the scientific precision about how all of this ambiguity is supposed to work in the scientific world.  Perhaps he is serious, perhaps he is stirring the pot, perhaps he is having fun messing around with people, perhaps a little bit of all of that.

My suggestion is to first realize that there are no firm answers to any of this.

Either you believe it or you don't.   Ask God if you should believe it and get your own revelation, or don't ask, or don't get your revelation or go and get drunk.  Whatever.

I wish you well. 

But get the perspective that this is all based on personal revelation.  I know no LDS scholar, writer, or "theologian" who does not understand this.  I could give you pages of citations of these folks who say proudly that we have no "doctrine" or "systematic theology"- but a very rich tradition of interpretation of spiritual experience.

I love that fact, you may not.  To each his own.

But be ethical for Pete's sake.  Do not use people.  Even critics can be ethical, even I think that. 

Don't hang around to pull people's chains.

One thing your mama did teach you about what was right is to do unto others what you would have them do unto you.  This isn't a contest to find the biggest playground bully, it is for an earnest exchange of ideas, not to f....oolaround with people.  Surely you can understand ambiguity.  You are a big boy now.  All we have around here is earnest people doing their best. 

I am sorry you got all this confused with physics.   It's not physics.  The explanations, even though they are theories like physics, are not quite as clear and not meant to be.

Clearly you get that??  No??

I think I get it, mi amigo.

And I think you and I agree in large measure.

I believe the truth lies largely in ambiguity.

Perhaps a common theme of my posts is not so much to try to yank people's chains as it is to illustrate their vain reliance on clear cut orthodox answers.

To try to point out that such clear cut answers must fall to the wayside in light of the facts.

Have we found some common ground?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is where the Proclamation incorrectly portrays established Mormon doctrine.

Yeah, because an official proclamation from the combined Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles couldn't possibly establish 'Mormon doctrine'.

No, that has to be done by ambiguous statements from a single apostle, who, in establishing for all time the unshakable authority of his words, prefaced them with 'I take it that', which according to the OED means 'to suppose, to assume'.

/sigh/

Edited December 24, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I believe the truth lies largely in ambiguity.

Which you've repeatedly demonstrated each time you've rejected any synthesis/conclusion that doesn't exactly match your own?

Quote

Perhaps a common theme of my posts is not so much to try to yank people's chains as it is to illustrate their vain reliance on clear cut orthodox answers.

To try to point out that such clear cut answers must fall to the wayside in light of the facts.

So, just as Joseph Smith was the 'Henry Ford of revelation' and wished to spread the blessings of being in receipt of such, you find yourself in a muddle and wish to bring the rest of us along with you? No, thank you.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan