New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[Calm]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a question of disagreeing on semantics.  You have your paradigm, he has his and there is no way to judge who is "right"

It is not just semantics when sealings are performed for families.  If one views a rape as a "sexual union" and the child resulted from a forced pregnancy as belonging equally to both parents and therefore seals the mother and the sperm donor together, the implications of that relationship are very different than someone who believes sealings should be reserved for those that chose marriage and a family.

Forced/arranged without choice of participants marriages being a thing in the past, we probably have such sealings on paper, but that is different than being intentionally supportive or at least accepting of such methods.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I really find your devaluing other families that don't live up to your "perfect ideal" as not being "real families" disturbing and insulting. 

I/m not devaluing any real or true family.  Maybe what you call a family that really and truly isn't a family, but I am not degrading or devaluing any family relationship.

Quote

There is no such thing as one single "true family".

Yes there is.  It consists of a man and woman who marry each other, which involves a sexual union, whether or not they reproduce themselves, and if they do reproduce themselves their family includes their children.

Quote

 I want every child to receive the best nurturing and caring they can get, which is not always possible just because a father and mother are present.  There are many cases where the family can only become a real family when some drunkin wife beating  husband is no longer allowed to be near his children is just one such family situation.  I am not ever going degrade them by saying they are not a "real family".

I'm not either. I say they are a real family even if the father is abusive and overall not a very good husband or father, because he is still a father and husband even if he isn't a very good father and husband.

Quote

Sometimes families are NOT the one you are born into.

Families are ALWAYS the one a person is born into and each child has the potential to begin his (or her) own nuclear family by marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not just semantics when sealings are performed for families.  If one views a rape as a "sexual union" and the child resulted from a forced pregnancy as belonging equally to both parents and therefore seals the mother and the sperm donor together, the implications of that relationship are very different than someone who believes sealings should be reserved for those that chose marriage and a family.  Forced/arranged without choice of participants marriages being a thing in the past, we probably have such sealings on paper, but that is different than being intentionally supportive or at least accepting of such methods.

The sealing work we do for those who are dead are not binding unless all who are involved consent.  Nobody is or will be forced to be sealed to someone they don't want to be sealed to and any of us can be loosed from a bond we earlier agreed to with priesthood approval.

My point on who the father of a child is was simply meant to describe who the father actually is.  The father is the one whose sperm impregnated the egg of a female, and the mother is the female who developed her own impregnated egg.  And while rape is an evil act, it sometimes results in a woman becoming impregnated by the sperm of the man who raped her, and thus makes that man the child's father.  A father who did something evil to that woman he raped, but still the true and real father of that child. Which is one of the reasons abortion is such a complex issue and why I tend to sympathize with a woman who considers aborting a child in that situation.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not just semantics when sealings are performed for families.  If one views a rape as a "sexual union" and the child resulted from a forced pregnancy as belonging equally to both parents and therefore seals the mother and the sperm donor together, the implications of that relationship are very different than someone who believes sealings should be reserved for those that chose marriage and a family.

Forced/arranged without choice of participants marriages being a thing in the past, we probably have such sealings on paper, but that is different than being intentionally supportive or at least accepting of such methods.

I did not mean for one second to be interpreted to say otherwise than what you are saying here.  I was merely commenting on the semantic/ logical construction of the post to which I was replying regarding what a "real" family is or is not.

If there are two conflicting paradigms about what constitutes a "real" family- there is no way to adjudicate which paradigm is "correct".   I suppose we could take a poll on the issue theoretically- but moral concepts ought not to be created out of general opinions.   The minority always has a right, I believe, to oppose the majority

It was not my intention to get into the morality of the situation.   I should make that more clear in the future I suppose, but I thought it was clear as it was.

It is hard for me to imagine that a "rape" would occur in a family sealed in the temple, but of course it could happen.

For the record I have no problem calling the people united by a same sex marriage a "family" and completely agree that a family is defined by its members and no one else.

But of course for me, that is always the case between individuals- communication is communication and within a given language game, the meanings of words are determined by the participants.

I hear kids all the time approving of something by calling it "sick".  They have their own language game.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If there are two conflicting paradigms about what constitutes a "real" family- there is no way to adjudicate which paradigm is "correct".   I suppose we could take a poll on the issue theoretically- but moral concepts ought not to be created out of general opinions.   The minority always has a right, I believe, to oppose the majority.

I suppose so, referring to that right as the freedom of speech which gives people the right to say whatever they think whether or not they are correct.

Some people I know refer to their 2 cats and 3 dogs as part of their family, while on the other hand I prefer to think of those animals as their pets and even their family pets, distinct from their real family.

I know enough not to argue too much with people like that.  I generally just try to share what I think, while trying to explain why I think what I think, and then usually I will leave it at that, whether or not others agree.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

I suppose so, referring to that right as the freedom of speech which gives people the right to say whatever they think whether or not they are correct.

Some people I know refer to their 2 cats and 3 dogs as part of their family, while on the other hand I prefer to think of those animals as their pets and even their family pets, distinct from their real family.

I know enough not to argue too much with people like that.  I generally just try to share what I think, while trying to explain why I think what I think, and then usually I will leave it at that, whether or not others agree.

Good idea.

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/24/2020 at 11:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

An indication of that strength is the anger of Carol Lynn Pearson in attacking it as a current doctrine, and not just historical commitments and actions.  

 Despite that, Mormons are still distrusted and held in contempt, such that an LDS candidate for President cannot be elected. 

No doubt, dear Sister Pearson is preparing to write another book. First, build interest in your target market/audience then publish and sell. As CS Lewis wrote in the Great Divorce: your (Carol) misery wont make us miserable. If it wasn't so profitable for her to remain in the church, with all her anger, how would she afford her current lifestyle and mortgage? 

I'm not sure Mittens lost due to his faith. Perhaps people voted for the candidate who honestly admitted what his political views were rather than the candidate - Mitt - who ran as one thing and believed the opposite?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

No doubt, dear Sister Pearson is preparing to write another book. First, build interest in your target market/audience then publish and sell. As CS Lewis wrote in the Great Divorce: your (Carol) misery wont make us miserable. If it wasn't so profitable for her to remain in the church, with all her anger, how would she afford her current lifestyle and mortgage? 

I'm not sure Mittens lost due to his faith. Perhaps people voted for the candidate who honestly admitted what his political views were rather than the candidate - Mitt - who ran as one thing and believed the opposite?

There is also the notion that Carol Lynn and Mitt are the LDS Church as cultural icons, even if not as real people.  Their celebrity is their authority and influence, for good or ill.

In that same socio-cultural sense, Donald Trump is not an aberration, but is as American as apple pie.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_MFRgej5EI .

 

[Tacenda]

I think this crossed the line, at least I hope it does to faithful members out there. This was in Utah somewhere. Do any of you feel this was right, if so why?

[Calm]

I feel the same way about it as I would feel if someone wrote and asked the family in our neighbourhood to remove the Trump flag though I personally find a flag celebrating a specific person distasteful.  We have a number of different flags in our neighbourhood, including several rainbow that have been flying for years. 
 

As to the letter itself, anyone can type a letter and put someone else’s name on it. I don’t think one should assume it is for real without someone claiming it as their own nor do I think if it is for real, from an actual neighbour, one should assume just because the writer stated it was from multiple ward members, it actually was. No signatures is suspicious imo though they could have been tacky and sent it email. If for real, I can see one person being unhappy with the flag and talking with others assumed no disagreement meant agreement rather than not wanting to get into the discussion with them and then taking it upon themselves to assume others were all for calling their neighbour out when they were not. 
 

If for real, I anticipate other neighbours will come out in support of the person’s right to fly the flag as well as support of the ideas behind it. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

From looking at the reddit thread where that was posted, it looks like the street is called autumn ridge, and it was sent by some (probably only one family) members who live in that street.

In the unlikely chance an official letter like that was going to come out, it would be either on an offical church letterhead from the Bishop/Stake President, or be a bulk email sent through the church website (which would have the senders information attached). 

 

As to the letter itself. It goes way too far. The only bit that matters is the T/R question and that's ultimately between the member and the Lord.

It seems strange though, it looks like the sender knows the reason they are flying the flag (gay teen suicide), but then goes off on other tangents.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/30/2020 at 3:19 AM, Calm said:

It is not just semantics when sealings are performed for families.  If one views a rape as a "sexual union" and the child resulted from a forced pregnancy as belonging equally to both parents and therefore seals the mother and the sperm donor together, the implications of that relationship are very different than someone who believes sealings should be reserved for those that chose marriage and a family.

Forced/arranged without choice of participants marriages being a thing in the past, we probably have such sealings on paper, but that is different than being intentionally supportive or at least accepting of such methods.

The question in my mind was about what defines a "real" family without any definition of what constituted "real" in that situation.  Defining anything as "real" opens the door to all kinds of semantic problems which are insurmountable if one wants to have any logic in their statements.  If it is an emotional rant, of course that is fine, but emotional rants are not propositions one can discuss and question as is apparently the goal of this thread.

I agree with the moral distinctions you are making and of course I do not consider a rape to be anything more than a horrible act of violence.  Of course it has no similarity to a temple sealing.  Of course the implications are very different, to say the least.

I suppose my error was in making it into a logical conversation about the definition of "real" instead of a moral statement.  I was taken aback by the attempted definition of "real family", without any defining criteria being given.  That is the difference- you provide definitions with such terms as "seeing as" "if one views" "the implications are" "should be" etc.

Those constructions effectively avoid semantic problems as much as is possible

[Calm]

Family is a social construct, not a biological one and therefore should not be used when addressing solely biological connections, imo, as exist between a rapist and a child who has his genetic material. 
 

Thus there is no logic is discussing a rapist’s connection to family as there is none (no social family construct is created in our culture through a rape).  The only possible exception is if the relationship is already in place, such as a husband raping his wife, but I don’t believe that is what was being discussed (and even there it is not the rape that establishes any social family construct, but something else).

In the past where women might be forced to marry their rapists, there might be a different discussion. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Family is a social construct, not a biological one and therefore should not be used when addressing solely biological connections, imo,...

I certainly agree with the spirit of your post!  I am deleting most of this post because it was confused and confusing.  Never try to write a philosophical post during your daughter's preparations for a birthday party

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

error 

Edited October 18, 2020 by mfbukowski