Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark

[Doctor Steuss]

49 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

What gender are hermaphrodites?

They are the new fence-sitters of the pre-existence.

[mfbukowski]

What is the logical function of having a Heavenly Mother if her identity is not female?

How can a spirit be a "Mother" without being "female"?  In some sense?

There must be a difference to support any logical distinction.  There is no difference between genders but we have a Heavenly Mother.

What am I missing?

 

[Ahab]

A person's identity includes things like that person's gender... and some other things I don't want to derail the thread with. Just suffice it to say that a person's gender is a part of that person's identity, even if it might be possible for a person to change that part of that person's identity. And yes I am intentionally avoiding using the words he or she even though those are the only 2 options for what a person's gender may be.

And yes gender also has something to do with a person's purpose, and some type of gender is essential for any person's purpose. It's not essential that a male be a female or that a female be a male, but all person's need to be one or the other for whatever his or her purpose may be as it is relative to his or her gender.  Even if a person's purpose is simply to go to the bathroom to relieve his or her self because even that purpose requires a person to be either a he or a she. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

It is possible I am missing something here, mfb.

Where in the Proclamation does it "purport to be revelatory on its face"?

It is published by by the governing board of the only "Christian" church who has always believed in gendered Gods and continuing revelation.  It is published and read in Conference.  It is title "A Proclamation to the World"

It is not a newsroom statement, it is not an article in Ensign, it is not a conference talk.

It is a unified statement by the First Presidency and Q of 12.

On one hand critics argue that prophets have not made prophetic statements in years and then say that such a statement is NOT a prophetic statement.

It uses this language:
 

Quote

A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

To me that is the announcement of a revelation clarifying a position which the church always had.

I don't know what would be better.

You want an addition to D&C or something?  It may happen.

Edited December 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

HOW CAN YOU AFFIRM FATHERS AND MOTHERS AND DENY GENDER DIFFERENCES?

It makes reason stare.

(That was sister Snow's point in writing that)

[toon]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

About the highest joy in life is seeing your grandbabies.  If one of the mandates is to "have joy" I can't imagine banning reproduction.  And yes of course they could be adopted etc, but the point is that that the drive to know that joy is within us- the people who fill that function do not have to have our DNA.  But why is that joy there in the first place?  Because it has evolved.  Survival value.  The purpose of every species is reproduction or guess what?  No species exists, no purposes. Another way to say that is that God has put that into us.  For me they are indistinguishable.  Have we evolved God or has he evolved us?  It doesn't much matter.  It's two sides of the same coin.

I think the chance of my having any grandchildren through my two biological kids is slim.  The greatest chance is through my adopted daughter, but then my gender and DNA are irrelevant there.  And I can't imagine that the joy of having grandchildren will be any less because there's not a DNA connection.

I recognize your mention that "they could be adopted, etc." but you don't deal with how that impacts anything.

Also, I don't know that the joy to have grandchildren is within us.  Sure, there's joy, but I derive joy out of lots of things.  I have joy when my kids lead fulfilling lives, for the most part however they define that, and regardless of whether that involves grandkids.

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

They are the new fence-sitters of the pre-existence.

Maybe they are having Nihil Fits.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is key, Avatar.

Because the way modern Mormon Doctrine has been formulated, the entire plan of salvation is based upon the cornerstone of the heterosexual procreative act.

I think it is important to recognize this fact in order to help understand not only why this sentence from the Proclamation is there, but also why it is wrong.

but it's not wrong. Have you proclaimed yourself a prophet to teach what is true now?

[cinepro]

18 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 suspect that this doctrine is based on the simple idea that our spirits carry our personalities and desires, and ultimately we will be resurrected into a male or female body.  And that it is unfathomable to some people that you could live your life on earth as a man or woman with heterosexual desires, and then die and find yourself as a spirit (and eventually resurrected being) with the opposite gender or desires.

Certainly, Abraham 3:23 indicates that we were distinguishable as individuals with gender:

 

Quote

 23 

And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng

 

 

When God "chose" Abraham before he was born, was God doing so knowing there was a 50% chance Abraham would be born as a girl?  Of course not.  Abraham was a man in the preexistence (with the same personality and attributes as human Abraham).

On another note, I know there are some gay LDS who struggle with the idea that in the hereafter they will no longer have homosexual desires but will instead suddenly become heterosexual.  This version of themselves seems to be fundamentally different in an odd way.  Likewise, I would find it very disconcerting to die and find myself as a female spirit in the hereafter.  It just doesn't seem possible. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, toon said:

I think the chance of my having any grandchildren through my two biological kids is slim.  The greatest chance is through my adopted daughter, but then my gender and DNA are irrelevant there.  And I can't imagine that the joy of having grandchildren will be any less because there's not a DNA connection.

I recognize your mention that "they could be adopted, etc." but you don't deal with how that impacts anything.

Also, I don't know that the joy to have grandchildren is within us.  Sure, there's joy, but I derive joy out of lots of things.  I have joy when my kids lead fulfilling lives, for the most part however they define that, and regardless of whether that involves grandkids.

 

Yeah, that's why I said that.

It doesn't impact anything at all. No particular person fits every part of a mold- we are talking about generalities here.

It's hard to list every possible exemption when one is speaking about generalities

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MorningStar]

I disagree.  Also, considering we are a church of continuing revelation, I think new revelation on the matter would be allowed.  It doesn't contradict anything in the scriptures.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the logical function of having a Heavenly Mother if her identity is not female?

How can a spirit be a "Mother" without being "female"?  In some sense?

There must be a difference to support any logical distinction.  There is no difference between genders but we have a Heavenly Mother.

What am I missing?

 

The use of Father and Mother certainly seem to me to indicate gender relative characteristics.  Why not Heavenly Caregiver or Heavenly Nurse or some generic name? Why not just Lord?  They have probably had gender neutral words for those who protect and care for others I believe that could be used for probably as long as humans have been around and caring for each other.

I don't think the science is to the point they can turn off gender and by that figure out what is and isn't affected by gender, what one's identity would be without it.  Biological gender is, as mfb points out, extremely interwoven into our biology.  Even when 'libido' is shut down due to health, aging, whatever, there are still gender relative characteristics that impact our lives.  Brain scans show significant differences between how a female brain acts and how a male brain acts (and the study needs a lot more indepth research to determine how much behaviour shapes it,  what characteristics are impacted by orientation as opposed to gender and why, etc. etc etc).

Quote

if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same

I think one needs to demonstrate that what "gender" is first and what aspects would be removed when gender is removed, before assuming that there would even be enough characteristics left to have a fully functional personality.  I think there are huge assumptions about what gender is and isn't and how it impacts us that are not demonstrated and cannot be demonstrated at this time.  And if these assumptions are wrong, then the whole argument collapses, does it not?  Seems premature to try and make such an argument.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

Our gender is determined before we are born.  Our spirits have gender.   Our resurrected bodies will have gender.  Bruce Jenner for example can do whatever he wants to his body but when he dies, his spirit will have the same appearance as a male.  He will be resurrected with a male body because Bruce Jenner is a male regardless of what he thinks he is.    A person's perception of reality does not make it reality.   The proclamation is 100% correct on this. 

[Ahab]

The idea that people are not either a he or a she just plays up to the idea that God is neither a he or a she.  It's a false idea that some people believe is true and now we have here our old bud consiglieri trying to perpetuate that false idea.

Let's all have a solemn prayer for consiglieri.

 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

 Christ's gender is the ultimate downfall to gender essentialisms. Christ is the savior for all. Yet he is male. So therefore his maleness is not part of the salvation he brings. It's just another irrelevant attribute from his mortality - like his language, skin color, hair color, and so forth. 

I like the way you think, Buckeye!

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

What gender are hermaphrodites?

If gender was set in the preexistence and or will be set in eternity, what gender are hermaphrodites?

Btw if you find that question not applicable, the number of intersex births in the world is about 1 in1500 to 2000 births which means 3,500,000 to 4,600,000 people in the world today.

 

What is their gender?

What will be their gender in the next life?

 

 

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Consiglieri,

 

This may sound like a weird request but maybe you could define what you think gender means and, if you think it is used in the proclamation  the same way. If not,  then how do you think it is being used in the proclamation?

Not a weird request at all, Steve.

In fact, it is an important question.

The way I read the Proclamation is that "gender" equals "sex."

And by extension, in other places in the Proclamation, perhaps even "sexual orientation"?

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Circular.   All he has to do is cite the Proclamation.  I regard it as revelatory and doctrinal because I have a "testimony" of that.  Were I given that CFR that would be my reply.  So neener neener. 

You are right, mfb. 

That would certainly be circular.

Which is why I expect it will not seriously be argued.

 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

To the OP...

The fact that this statement appears in a proclamation signed by all the Apostles, makes it a Spiritual and Revealatory statement. If we believe our own doctrine as to what "doctrine" is, this mess every standard. I think that the statement "hooks the shark". Well, I know it does.

Hi, Oh My Pa Pa!

I hope you are doing well.

Is it your position that if the top 15 sign off on any statement having to do with theology, it is automatically a "spiritual and revelatory statement"?

I have a different view.

My view is that it makes no difference if 1 signs off on it, or 3, or 12 or all 15.

There is no claim made to any revelation to establish the propositions under discussion, and no citation to any scriptural (or other) authority.

We are supposed to accept it as true even if there is no claimed foundation in revelation?

Put another way, are we to assume revelation where none is even claimed?

I find this process problematic.

But then you had probably already guessed that.

 

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

LDS doctrine says we've always existed, and were organized from intelligences into spirits. So sexual reproduction in the preexistence doesn't really make sense.

This is a common misconception, Gray.

Joseph Smith taught that spirits have always existed and were not begotten.  Joseph Smith used the words "spirits" and "intelligences" interchangeably.

Check Abraham chapter 3 and the King Follett Discourse for sources.

After Joseph Smith died, subsequent leaders began teaching that spirits are "born" in the premortal existence.

Which meant that they did have a beginning after all.

B.H. Roberts sought to harmonize these conflicting teachings by proposing that the "intelligence" is something different from the "spirit" (contra Joseph Smith), and that while the "intelligence" has always exited, it did not become clothed with a "spirit" until begotten by Heavenly Parents.

But this is a relatively late innovation in Mormon Doctrine.

And it is something foreign to what the scriptures teach and what Joseph Smith taught.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

The idea that people are not either a he or a she just plays up to the idea that God is neither a he or a she.  It's a false idea that some people believe is true and now we have here our old bud consiglieri trying to perpetuate that false idea.

Let's all have a solemn prayer for consiglieri.

 

I would prefer a solemn prayer to consiglieri.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I appreciate your comments.

Let me respond in this way, Bluebell.

It is the nature of humanity to take the things they believe are sacred and then project those beliefs onto God and into heaven.

If we believe warfare is sacred and/or admirable, we will make God into a heavenly warrior.  (Much of this can be seen in the Old Testament.)

We can also see this same type of thing at work in Mormonism.....

 

Just some thoughts to let you know some of why I view things the way I do.

But yet you are convinced that there can "exist conflicting truths" if I am not mistaken, or at least that every truth operates "within its sphere"

Of course we project our human thoughts on to God.  Every religion does it and every scientific theory starts with a pre-conceived hypothesis and then goes looking for evidence.

How else could we relate to Him?  What do we have but projection of human experience?  Every observation made in science is also a projection of human observation. 
Rorty's book the "Mirror of Nature" makes this clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

Quote

Rorty's central thesis is that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Willard Van Orman Quine, Wilfrid Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty spends much of the book explaining how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms.

 

It seems you are willing to go half way with your conception of "truth" but not all the way.  This is the cause of the conflict you are experiencing in my never humble opinion.

When you understand that all reality- AS WE SPEAK ABOUT IT is socially created the whole issue causes a brain-reboot.  It creates a new "zero" and all is seen in a new light.

This is where I was in 1970, 10 years before I joined the church.

After that it was just a matter of finding the best possible human explanation I could for my experiences, and here I am.  William James, Rorty's "mentor" justified the validity of spiritual experience in this way.  Essentially spiritual experience is as "true" as any direct experience.

We cannot hope to put the ineffable God into words and are left with the best possible explanation we can come up with.  For me, this is it, and I can imagine no better for anyone and believe me, I have looked.  That is what I mean by this being the "one true church"- it is the best "theory" of God we can put into words and verify by the spirit.  To me this is radical empiricism.  It is the pragmatic method which is essentially the scientific method projected into spiritual realms.

Becuase you are you, all your beliefs are products of your experience, your prejudices, your studies your parents influence, all the books you have read etc.  In other words every observation you make is subjective, and so they are for all of us.

We try to unite these descriptions in language, but on these abstract subjects, most of the time it doesn't work.

This board and every discussion on every subject in the world would not exist if it were not for our subjective judgements on all these linguistic statements.

Why should God be different?   If quantum physicists  can't agree on the "nature of reality" why should amateur theologians be able to define God?

I strongly suggest you read that article and the links to correspondence theory and the representational model of perception.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

They are the new fence-sitters of the pre-existence.

Move over straight children of gay parents.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

While one can envision a premortal spirit without gender, there is a sound basis for the Proclamation that a premortal spirit possesses gender quality (see posts in Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark ).

Joseph Smith (April 1844 / History of the Church, 6:310–12): “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.” As discussed in the other thread, gender is part of the self-existing principle as evidenced by its role in defining the mind and spirit, and thus one’s self-identity and identity among the larger group.

He also said, "God himself, finding he [gender identification!] was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself." While it doesn't say "procreate", the spirits got there somehow-- the continuation of the seeds having something to do with it, for he is advanced and we are to advance like Himself through marriage-- and the institution of laws does at least convey "organize" the children of God. And advancing  like Him would involve a gender attribute (however that gets passed along from estate to estate from the non-created spirit), and the continuation of the seeds (however an exalted Couple could be envisioned to accomplish that).

The quotes from Joseph Smith actually show that the spirits have always existed; at least in his view.

There is no creation about them.

They are coeval with God. (I.e., having the same age or date of origin; contemporary.)

At least that's what Joseph Smith taught.

And Abraham chapter 3, as well.