Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark

[consiglieri]

Black and white was so easy for me.

Now shades of gray are the colors I see.

--Billy Joel

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Black and white was so easy for me.

Now shades of gray are the colors I see.

--Billy Joel

I recommend lasik.

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Black and white was so easy for me.

Now shades of gray are the colors I see.

--Billy Joel

A solid attempt at dramatic irony, though still not quite up to the level of the Duke in Browning's 'My Last Duchess'. Keep at it; I'm sure you'll get there. Good luck with your online mission, Elder Consiglieri (do they use 'Elder' in your church?), and have the merriest of Christmases!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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."

No-no-no-no-no yagoitallwrong… you seem stuck on Sunday School responses. You need to read both references. One refers to sons and daughters begotten “unto” (not “by,” as Jesus was) Him in the flesh (D&C 76, these are the mortal inhabitants of the worlds He created—see additional information in footnote b). The other reference is to the spiritual rebirth (Mosiah, as you are singling out as the only application of “begotten sons and daughters,” which in any event speaks to gender continuing in the spiritual rebirth!).

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

But that is what “he hath spiritually begotten you” means… And the opposite of carnal and fallen is spiritual (see Mosiah 3:19 and 2 Nephi 9:39). We are begotten in the flesh with gender, and we retain that gender when spiritually reborn because it is an essential spiritual characteristic as well as a physical characteristic! And those who are spiritually reborn, with all those characteristics, rise in the resurrection with those same characteristics for eternity.

As you put it, you should perhaps do a little more reading before you blithely cut and paste!

(and you can’t fake a facility with ambiguity!)

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I recommend lasik.

LOL!

You are a card, Nehor!

I did the lasik thing back in 1998 or so, and it did a great job at the time, and for the next 15-years, but eventually my eyesight started getting out of focus again and I am back to glasses.

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

But that is what “he hath spiritually begotten you” means… And the opposite of carnal and fallen is spiritual (see Mosiah 3:19 and 2 Nephi 9:39). We are begotten in the flesh with gender, and we retain that gender when spiritually reborn because it is an essential spiritual characteristic as well as a physical characteristic! And those who are spiritually reborn, with all those characteristics, rise in the resurrection with those same characteristics for eternity.

 

Is this really the best you can do, CV75?

Has it come to this?

*shakes head sadly and turns away*

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A solid attempt at dramatic irony, though still not quite up to the level of the Duke in Browning's 'My Last Duchess'. Keep at it; I'm sure you'll get there. Good luck with your online mission, Elder Consiglieri (do they use 'Elder' in your church?), and have the merriest of Christmases!

LOL!

No, we don't use "Elder" in my church, Hamba.

We use "prophet."

But in my church, we really mean it.

And everybody is a prophet.

Merry Christmas to you, too!!!

[Johnnie Cake]

Ummm...Might I kindly suggest that gender is not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.  As proof I point to the Frog and Sea Horse as examples...in fact taxonomic groups, “including fish, echinoderms, crustaceans, molluscs and polychaete worms.” Since 2003, scientists have also documented the phenomenon in several other animals, including a few amphibian and reptile species.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8120656_animals-can-change-sex.html

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Black and white was so easy for me.

Now shades of gray are the colors I see.

--Billy Joel

So why pick on others who see it differently?  You have no logical basis for it.  It is like arguing if red or green are better colors

If all you see is grey, then you are no more right than they are and it is not consistent for you to even care about these questions.  For you they are all fables, so what's the difference?

Someone who understands the contextual nature of truth has no need to attack and put down the views of others, than to attack someone for their sexul or other preferences.

If it's all preferences, all the way down, you have no ethical reason to believe or maintain that your preferences are any better than anyhone else's, unless you feel you can prove your position based on some other fixed standard. 

Incidentally, I think the spelling "grey" is far more "grey" than "gray".

When I rule the world I will mandate manditorially that all must spell that word "grey" because "shades of gray" is clearly an improper usage.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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?

 

The difference as I see it is that once one understands contextual truth there is no need to try to confuse others who do not hold the particular contextual truth that truth is contextual.

Even relativism is only relatively "true" and a good relativist knows that, and perfectly fine with it.

"I believe the truth lies largely in ambiguity" is itself a pretty problematic statement- should that be taken as "the truth"? 

I try to use my understanding of contextual truth to show others that they are perfectly well philosophically justified for saying things like "I know this church is true" while others may say the same thngs about their churches in another context.

That is a positive use of the belief that truth is contextual. It helps people of faith understand that their intellectual positions are perfectly "rational" and ultimately unassailable by critics, unless those critics are also operating within the same faith context they are.  The objective is to build them up and make them more confident.  Linguistic confusions are explained for what they are, not as if they have major consequences for their beliefs.

I view it as unethical to have the view that "truth is ambiguous" while attacking others and showing inconsistencies in their positions " to illustrate their vain reliance on clear cut orthodox answers", simply to play with them like a wolf playing with a dead rabbit.

And in fact that position is itself inconsistent.  If truth is ambiguous and relative, you are no more 'right' than they are while "illustrating their vain reliance on clear cut orthodox answers".  You just have a different orthodoxy- that truth is relative.

The attacks serve no purpose- you are not teaching them anything  but attempting to show that you think you are smarter than they are, without giving them any reason to understand your own position on truth which shows them that they are "wrong" in having "orthodox beliefs".  They are not wrong- your position is not superior to theirs and you are not operating within their context.  Essentially you have no "standing" within their context from which to criticize because your "criticisms" tend to be caricatures of the LDS position and based on a very elementary understanding as has been pointed out.

So I suppose we do agree that truth is contextual in some sense but I see our approaches and conclusions about that information as diametrically opposed.  I see it as helping the gospel immeasurably.  You see it as a tool to attack others for "their vain reliance on clear cut orthodox answers" with no basis for your attacks but "vain reliance" on relativism.

It's all rather nihilistic I think.  Cutting down others with nothing better to offer or good reasons for why you are right.

That's why I think we are quite different.

And that nihilistic approach to truth then is totally inconsistent with this
 

Quote

 

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?

 

Facts?  How can there be facts if truth is relative?  There ARE no "facts" only your interpretation vs my interpretation.

If all we have is interpretations of experiences, there is no problem with "clear cut answers" whatsoever, they just become context dependent. You can even have absolute truth within a context, and clearly absolute truth in ethics and religion is far different than absolute truth in science.

So no, not much common ground yet, I am afraid

Edited December 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Zakuska]

19 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Black and white was so easy for me.

Now shades of gray are the colors I see.

--Billy Joel

Truth!

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ummm...Might I kindly suggest that gender is not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.  As proof I point to the Frog and Sea Horse as examples...in fact taxonomic groups, “including fish, echinoderms, crustaceans, molluscs and polychaete worms.” Since 2003, scientists have also documented the phenomenon in several other animals, including a few amphibian and reptile species.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8120656_animals-can-change-sex.html

Me thinks the proclamation is directed at us and not other lifeforms.  In regards to the sons and daughters of God, gender is a basic characteristic.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

Truth!

So it's a fact that there are no facts?

Can you see there might be a problem with that view?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ummm...Might I kindly suggest that gender is not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.  As proof I point to the Frog and Sea Horse as examples...in fact taxonomic groups, “including fish, echinoderms, crustaceans, molluscs and polychaete worms.” Since 2003, scientists have also documented the phenomenon in several other animals, including a few amphibian and reptile species.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8120656_animals-can-change-sex.html

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

You are a card, Nehor!

I did the lasik thing back in 1998 or so, and it did a great job at the time, and for the next 15-years, but eventually my eyesight started getting out of focus again and I am back to glasses.

I had it done again when that happened.

[BCSpace]

On 12/16/2015 at 6:08 PM, 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?

Doctrine resides in the scriptures AND the words of the prophets. Hence there is no requirement for doctrine to be found either directly or indirectly in scripture.  So it can't possibly be a case of going too far.  Rather, it's a case of challenging your testimony and faith.

Myself?  I believe the scriptures imply gender pre, current, and post mortal.

[Stargazer]

On 12/24/2015 at 3:13 PM, The Nehor said:

I had it done again when that happened.

Nobody's getting anywhere near my eyes with a laser.

[CV75]

On 12/24/2015 at 10:40 AM, consiglieri said:

Is this really the best you can do, CV75?

Has it come to this?

*shakes head sadly and turns away*

Let’s leave my answer to that ambiguous… LOL! I think it’s enough for providing doctrinal foundation by clearing up the conflation of the two references and showing that gender is mentioned when the Lord speaks of both physical birth and spiritual rebirth. As sons and daughters of God, our purpose is to become like Him (3 Nephi 12:44-48).

You've left me with this image of you:

Edited December 26, 2015 by CV75

[consiglieri]

LOL!

I love the image, CV75!

Hope you had a great Christmas!